HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 08/18/2003AGENDA
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
August 18, 2003
Monday, 7:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: IKEA Renton River Days Recap
4. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
5. 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 audience
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 address for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME.
6. 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 Council meeting minutes of August 11, 2003. Council concur.
b. City Clerk reports appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision on the Urban Crafts Mixed Use Project
(SA-03-035); appeal filed by H. Lee Johnson of BDJS Associates represented by Jeffrey M.
Silesky of Davis & Silesky on 7/11/2003, accompanied by required fee. The appeal packet
includes one additional letter from Loren M. and Shirley A. Anderson as allowed by City Code.
Refer to Planning & Development Committee. Consideration of the appeal by the City
Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of
appeal and additional submissions by parties (RMC 4-8-110F.6.)
c. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department submits 10% Notice
of Intent to Annex Petition for the proposed Hendrickson Annexation; 21.93 acres located in the
vicinity of NE Sunset Blvd., SE 112th Pl., and 146th Ave. SE, and recommends that a public
meeting be set on September 8, 2003, to consider the annexation. Council concur.
d. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department submits 10% Notice
of Intent to Annex Petition for the proposed Stoneridge Annexation; 28.2 acres located in the
vicinity of 148th Ave. SE, SE 105th Pl., NE 16th St., and SR-900, and recommends that a public
meeting be set on September 8, 2003, to consider the annexation. Council concur.
e. Finance & Information Services Department recommends approval of a contract in the amount of
$52,821.36 with Veca Electric Company, Inc. for the installation and certification of low voltage
data, CATV, and paging systems at Fire Station #12. Council concur.
f. Police Department recommends approval of an interlocal agreement to provide law enforcement
mutual aid and mobilization between the cities of King County, University of Washington Police,
and King County. Council concur. (See 9.a. for resolution.)
g. Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends approval of the Suburban Cities
Association Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on Solid Waste Issues and approval to
participate in the associated Solid Waste ILA Work Plan. Council concur. (See 9.b. for
resolution.)
h. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a ten-year lease with AirO, Inc. for the
building located at 800 W. Perimeter Rd. at the Airport. Revenue generated is $56,351.07
annually. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee.
(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)
i. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of the following: an agreement with
Berger/Abam Engineers, Inc. for the Duvall Ave. NE Widening Project in unincorporated King
County; the addition of the King County Duvall Ave. NE CIP project to the 2003 Transportation
budget; and the transfer of $135,000 from the Duvall Ave. NE/NE Sunset Blvd. to City Limits
Project 2003 allocation into this project. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee.
j. Utility Systems Division submits CAG-02-163, Elevated Water Tanks Seismic Repair &
Rehabilitation; and requests approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the
amount of $326.40, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retainage bond to T.
Bailey, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur.
7. CORRESPONDENCE
Letter from Matthew D. Devine, 527 S. 28th Pl., Renton, 98055, requesting that the City of Renton
ban the use of fireworks.
8. OLD 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 chairman if further review is necessary.
a. Finance Committee: Group Health Cooperative Medical Coverage Agreements
9. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
Resolutions:
a. Law enforcement mutual aid and mobilization interlocal agreement (see 61)
b. Memorandum of intent to collaborate on solid waste issues (see 6.g.)
Ordinance for second and final reading:
Street light system fee addition to City Code (1st reading 8/11/2003)
10. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded
information.)
11. AUDIENCE COMMENT
12. ADJOURNMENT
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
(Preceding Council Meeting)
Council Chambers
5:30 p.m.
Boeing Environmental Impact Statement Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Policies' Use Table
* 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 RE-CABLECAST
TUES. & THURS. AT 11:00 AM & 9:00 PM, WED. & FRI. AT 9:00 AM & 7:00 PM AND SAT. & SUN. AT 1:00 PM & 9:00 PM
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
August 18, 2003
Council Chambers
Monday, 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES Renton City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Jesse Tanner led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the
meeting of the Renton City Council to order.
ROLL CALL OF
KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Council President; DAN CLAWSON; TONI
COUNCILMEMBERS
NELSON; RANDY CORMAN; DON PERSSON; KING PARKER; TERRI
BRIERE.
CITY STAFF IN
JESSE TANNER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer;
ATTENDANCE
LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk;
GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator;
MIKE WEBBY, Human Resources Administrator; SONJA MEJLAENDER,
Community Relations Specialist; DEREK TODD, Assistant to the CAO;
COMMANDER KATHLEEN MCCLINCY, Police Department.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION Community Relations Specialist Sonja Mejlaender introduced Mark Kotlan,
Community Event: IKEA IKEA Renton River Days Board Chairman, who presented a report on the 2003
Renton River Days Recap City of Renton community festival held during the week of July 22 through
July 27. Stating that an estimated 45,000 people attended the festival, Mr.
Kotlan thanked the City of Renton, the sponsors, contributors, and media
partners for their support. Displaying pictorial images of the festival, he
reviewed the festival events, entertainment, and exhibitors; and noted the
increase in participation in many of the events. Mr. Kotlan also expressed his
gratitude to the 209 committee volunteers and 647 festival volunteers for the
hours they spent planning for and participating in the IKEA Renton River Days
festival.
ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative
REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work
programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2003 and beyond. Items noted
included:
More than 1,400 children of all ages participated in the Recreation
Division's summer camp activities including the Sum R Craze,
Kaleidoscope, Great Escape Teen, Itty Bitty, Youth Tennis, and Skyhawks
Sports camps.
Grease, the eighth and final movie in the Cinema on the Piazza series, will
start, at dusk on August 23. This free summer event has been very popular
and well attended.
New Sound Transit bus route 564 will begin peak hour express service on
September 27 and will operate between Bellevue, Renton, and Auburn.
Midday service on the existing route 565 will be increased from every 60
minutes to every 30 minutes.
Public Works: Power Outages Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman reported on
the power outages that occurred, two on Friday and one on Saturday, in the
power grids located in the vicinity of S. 3rd St. and near the Holiday Inn on S.
Grady Way. The power losses that occurred on Friday were a result of the
Sam's Club site construction activity on S. Grady Way that impacted overhead
August 18, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 292
power lines. Mr. Zimmerman noted that Sam's Club is planning on replacing
the overhead power system with an underground system.
Mr. Zimmerman reported that the power outage on Saturday was caused by a
rat that entered the electrical gear near the intersection of Rainier Ave. S. and S.
Grady Way and short-circuited the system. He assured that City staff will
continue to monitor the status of the GRA-15 power grid, which affects the S.
3rd St. area and has experienced over 12 power outages so far this year.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Jane Hower, 1425 S. Puget Dr. #118, Renton, 98055, spoke on the subject of
Citizen Comment: Hower -
the City's recognition of the Matricula Consular as legal identification for
Matricula Consular as Legal
Mexican citizens living in the United States. Ms. Hower expressed concern
Identification for Mexican
regarding this country's security, the safety of citizens, and the conservation of
Citizens Living in US
taxpayer resources. She questioned whether Council considered the Mexican
government's agenda in promoting this card, and questioned the types of
services the Matricula Consular card holders receive as compared to green card
holders. Ms. Hower stated that acceptance of this card creates an atmosphere
of tolerance and acceptance of an illegal act, and she urged Council to review
its decision.
Citizen Comment: Johnson - Arland "Buzz" Johnson, 334 Wells Ave. S. #221, Renton, 98055, complimented
Power Outages
the food served at the Senior Day Picnic held during Renton River Days. Mr.
Johnson also thanked Mr. Zimmerman for his report on the power outages, and
asked the City to keep the frequent power outages in mind when negotiating for
the next energy franchise agreement.
Citizen Comment: McCombs -
Marty McCombs, 3412 NE Sunset Blvd., Renton, 98056, announced on behalf
Highlands Neighborhood
of the Highlands Community Association that the Highlands neighborhood
Picnic
annual picnic will be held at the Highlands Community Center on August 20,
from 6:00 to 8:30 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the
listing. At the request of Council President Keolker-Wheeler, items 6.a and 6.g
were removed for separate consideration.
Appeal: Urban Crafts Mixed
City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision on the Urban Crafts
Use, BDJS Associates, SA-03-
Mixed Use Project (SA-03-035); appeal filed by H. Lee Johnson of BDJS
035
Associates represented by Jeffrey M. Silesky of Davis & Silesky on 7/11/2003,
accompanied by required fee. The appeal packet included one additional letter
from Loren M. and Shirley A. Anderson as allowed by City Code. Refer to
Planning and Development Committee.
Annexation: Hendrickson, NE
Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department
Sunset Blvd & SE 112th Pl
submitted 10% Notice of Intent to Annex Petition for the proposed
Hendrickson Annexation; 21.93 acres located in the vicinity of NE Sunset
Blvd., SE 112th Pl., and 146th Ave. SE, and recommended that a public
meeting be set on September 8, 2003, to consider the annexation. Council
concur.
Annexation: Stoneridge, 148th Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department
Ave SE & NE 16th St submitted 10% Notice of Intent to Annex Petition for the proposed Stoneridge
Annexation; 28.2 acres located in the vicinity of 148th Ave. SE, SE 105th Pl.,
NE 16th St., and SR-900, and recommended that a public meeting be set on
September 8, 2003, to consider the annexation. Council concur.
August 18, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 293
Fire: Station #12
Finance and Information Services Department recommended approval of a
Data/CATV/Paging
contract in the amount of $52,821.36 with Veca Electric Company, Inc. for the
Installation, Veca Electric Co
installation and certification of low voltage data, CATV, and paging systems at
Fire Station #12. Council concur.
Police: Law Enforcement
Police Department recommended approval of an interlocal agreement to
Mutual Aid & Mobilization
provide law enforcement mutual aid and mobilization between the cities of
Interlocal Agreement
King County, University of Washington Police, and King County. Council
concur. (See page 294 for resolution.)
Lease: AirO Inc, Airport
Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a ten-year ground
and building lease with AirO, Inc. for the building located at 800 W. Perimeter
Rd. at the Airport. Revenue generated is $56,351.07 annually. Refer to
Transportation (Aviation) Committee.
Transportation: Duvall Ave
Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of the following: an
NE Improvements King
agreement with Berger/Abam Engineers, Inc. for the Duvall Ave. NE Widening
County Portion, Berger/Abam
Project in unincorporated King County; the addition of the King County Duvall
Engineers
Ave. NE CIP (Capital Improvement Program) project to the 2003
Transportation budget; and the transfer of $135,000 from the Duvall Ave. NE
and NE Sunset Blvd. to City Limits Project 2003 allocation into this project.
Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee.
CAG: 02-163, Elevated Water
Utility Systems Division submitted CAG-02-163, Elevated Water Tanks
Tanks Seismic Repair &
Seismic Repair and Rehabilitation; and requested approval of the project,
Rehabilitation, T Bailey
authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $326.40, commencement
of 60-day lien period, and release of retainage bond to T. Bailey, Inc.,
contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur.
MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,
COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED TO
REMOVE ITEMS 6.a AND 6.g. FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION.
CARRIED.
Separate Consideration
Council President Keolker-Wheeler requested that the Council minutes of
Item 6.a.
August 11, 2003, be corrected as indicated:
Council Meeting Minutes of
August 11, 2003
Page 284, Old Business: the word Hyoga, which appears three times within the
section, should be spelled Hyogo.
MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN,
COUNCIL APPROVE ITEM 6.a. AS CORRECTED. CARRIED.
Separate Consideration Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommended approval of the
Item 6.j!. Suburban Cities Association Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on Solid
King County: Solid Waste Waste Issues and approval to participate in the associated Solid Waste
Issues, SCA Memo of Intent to Interlocal Agreement Work Plan, which provides a framework for pursuing
Collaborate these goals.
Council President Keolker-Wheeler pointed out that Council previously
authorized spending up to $10,000 to join with other Suburban Cities in
obtaining legal counsel and other assistance to review and evaluate King
County's proposed rental arrangement for the Cedar Hills Landfill. She stated
that she preferred to refer this issue to committee for further discussion
regarding exactly what. the money will be spent on, and what the intent of
Suburban Cities Association is with regard to the work plan.
August 18, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 294
Mayor Tanner explained that the funding request was for participation in the
initial work effort in order to take action while action was still possible. The
item in question is a commitment to collaborate on solid waste issues and to
participate in the associated work plan. Mayor Tanner stated that until the final
work plan is produced, he is asking for approval to participate in the work plan
as it exists.
Councilmembers Parker, Corman, and Clawson expressed their support to
proceed with the matter as presented. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED
BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 6.g. AS
PRESENTED. CARRIED. (See later this page for resolution.)
CORRESPONDENCE
A letter was read from Matthew D. Devine, 527 S. 28th Pl., Renton, 98055,
Citizen Comment: Devine -
requesting that the City of Renton enact a complete fireworks ban. MOVED
Fireworks Ban
BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS
LETTER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
OLD BUSINESS
Finance Committee Chair Parker presented a report recommending concurrence
Finance Committee
in the staff recommendation to approve five annual Group Health Cooperative
Human Resources: 2003
employee medical insurance coverage contracts, as revised, for the following:
Group Health Cooperative
Police and Non -Uniform Police, LEOFF (Law Enforcement Officers and Fire
Medical Coverage Contracts
Fighters) 1 Employees, LEOFF 1 Retirees for Eastern Washington, LEOFF 1
Retirees for Western Washington, and Fire, AFSCME (American Federation of
State, County, and Municipal Employees) and Non -Represented Employees.
Funding for the contracts was approved in the 2003 Budget. The revisions,
applicable to all five of the renewal contracts, are either mandatory or for the
purposes of clarification of coverage. The Committee further recommended
that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the contracts. MOVED
BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
ORDINANCES AND
The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption:
RESOLUTIONS
Resolution #3652
A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an
Police: Law Enforcement
agreement entitled "Interlocal Cooperative Agreement to Provide Law
Mutual Aid & Mobilization
Enforcement Mutual Aid and Mobilization Between the Cities of King County,
Interlocal Agreement
University of Washington Police, and King County. MOVED BY CLAWSON,
SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE
RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED.
Resolution #3653 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an
King County: Solid Waste interlocal agreement with the Suburban Cities Association entitled
Issues, SCA Memo of Intent to "Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on Solid Waste Issues" and to
Collaborate participate in the associated work plan. MOVED BY CLAWSON,
SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS
READ. CARRIED.
The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and
adoption:
Ordinance #5017 An ordinance was read amending Section 4-1-180.0 of Chapter 1,
Development Services: Street Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of
Light System Fee, City Code City Code by adding a street light system fee. MOVED BY KEOLKER-
Amend WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE
ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
August 18, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 295
NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN,
Council: Meeting COUNCIL CANCEL ITS REGULARLY SCHEDULED COMMITTEE OF
Cancellations (8/25/2003, THE WHOLE AND COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST
COW & Regular Meeting) 25, 2003. CARRIED.
Human Services: Renton
Council President Keolker-Wheeler extended her gratitude to the Renton
Eagles Women's Auxiliary
Eagles Women's Auxiliary for their monetary donations to the Renton Library
Donations
for large print books or books on tapes for Seniors, to the Renton Police
Department for the drug education program, to the Renton Fire Department for
the CPR program, and to other community organizations.
Community Services: Farmers
Councilwoman Nelson announced that the Farmers Market will run for four
Market
more weeks (it meets on Tuesdays from 3:00 to 7:00 p.m.) and she encouraged
everyone to attend.
Development Services: City
Councilman Parker reported complaints from citizens regarding the City
University Sign
University blue light sign located on the One Renton Place building on S.
Renton Village PI., and requested staff investigation as to whether the sign
could be turned off at night. Council President Keolker-Wheeler indicated that
staff is aware of the complaints and is currently reviewing the matter.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL
AND ADJOURNMENT
RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR APPROXIMATELY 20
MINUTES TO DISCUSS LITIGATION WITH NO OFFICIAL ACTION TO
BE TAKEN AND THE COUNCIL MEETING BE ADJOURNED WHEN THE
EXECUTIVE SESSION IS ADJOURNED. CARRIED. Time: 8:35 p.m.
Executive session was conducted. There was no action taken. The executive
session and the Council meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
BONNIE I. WAL,TON, City Clerk
Recorder: Michele Neumann
August 18, 2003
►.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR
Office of the City Clerk
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 18, 2003
COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 8/25 CANCELLED
(Keolker-Wheeler)
MON., 9/01 No Meeting (Labor Day)
MON., 9/08
Emerging Issues in the Police, Public
5:30 p.m.
Works, and Economic Development,
*Council
Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning
Conference
Departments
Room*
COUNCIL WORK SESSION MON., 8/25
Boeing Environmental Impact Statement
(Keolker-Wheeler) 4:00 p.m.
Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Policies
*Council
Review
Chambers*
COMMUNITY SERVICES
(Nelson)
FINANCE MON., 9/08 Vouchers
(Parker) 5:00 p.m.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT THURS., 8/21 Temporary Signs Obscuring
(Briere) 2:30 p.m. Neighborhood Signs (Real Estate)
THURS., 9/04 Clover Creek H/Labrador Ventures
2:00 p.m. Appeal *Council Chambers*
3:00 p.m. Highlands Redevelopment Area —
Harrington Square
*Council Conference Room*
PUBLIC SAFETY
(Clawson)
TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) THURS., 8/21
(Persson) 3:30 p.m.
UTILITIES
(Corman)
THURS., 8/21
3:00 p.m.
AirO, Inc. Airport Building Lease;
Request to Close Smithers Ave. S. at SW
21st St.
Utility 2004 Capital Improvements
Program (briefing only)
k
NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room
unless otherwise noted.
2003 IKEA
Renton
River Days
""" river
days IKEA Renton River Days
Board of Directors
k j,
. Mark Kotlan, Dunn Lumber, Chairman
. Vicki Hart, Banner Bank .
. Bill Hulten, Renton School District
. Vic Karpiak, First Savings Bank of Renton
■ Jerry Kavesh, Renton Western Wear
■ Toni Nelson, Renton City Council
. Bonnie Rerecich, City of Renton
. Tim Searing, RSM McGladrey
. Jim Shepherd, Citizen
■ Suzanne Thompson, McLendon Hardware
. Chuck Tiernan, Renton Technical College
. Beth Donofrio, Citizen, Treasurer
. Sonja Mejlaender, Festival Coordinator
1
w
river
s days
river
Thanks to the following
City Departments for
their support:
. Community Services
(Parks, Recreation, Maintenance, Facilities)
■ Planning, Building, & Public Works
(City Shops, Transportation, Development Srvcs.)
■ Mayor's Office
■ Fire
■ Police
Thanks to these special
2003 Festival Snonsors
. Title Sponsor
.I KEA
. Co -Sponsors
.McLendon Hardware
.Rotary Club of Renton
.U.S. Bank
■Waste Management
. Free Shuttle Service
.Shuttle Express
2
r.
river
says Sponsors and new
w
Contributors
Sponsor Recruitment and Retention
Despite difficult economic times, we are proud to
report that overall 2003 sponsor funding and in -kind
contributions are 100% equal to 2002 funding levels.
New sponsor interest offset 2002 sponsors unable to
renew their festival support.
New Contributors
Cascade Lincoln Mercury . Costco Wholesale
4: Y . Gold's Gym
Hillcrest Family Bowling Center
Hudson Designer Portraits
Seattle Metropolitan Community Credit Union
Sound Chiropractic
7�'*IIM
. Radio
KOMO 1000 AM
'
KJR 950 AM
1
KUBE 93 FM
.�
KJR 95.7 FM
..�x
KMPS 94.1 FM
3
,
river
days
Sponsor A Child
This new giving program, at just $5 per child,
a�,vf�T4%
ensures the tradition of free activities for kids on
f,
Kids Day and the weekend.
21 contributing entities, representing 48 �-
individuals, supported Sponsor A Child this year
■ $870 was raised, sponsoring 174 kids
river
days Rock n Roll at River Days
hN Kick -Off Banquet
3
I - sponsored by Wizards of the Coast
■ Banquet Attendance
■ Over 200 attendees, up from 175 in 2002, a 14%
increase
h°r
Outstanding Service Award Recipient
VAI
Chuck Tiernan
■ Two $1,000 Art Scholarships
■ Marissa Ikuta — the Doug Kyes Art Scholarship Award,
,yT
2003 Lindbergh High School Graduate
Evan Tucker— the Wizards of the Coast Literary
Scholarship Award, 2003 Lindbergh High School
_
Graduate
M
El
em d ys Events for Kids and
_ , Free Activities IM
river
lam days
• Children's Arts & Crafts
Booth: Seattle Metropolitan
Community Credit Union
• Face Painting and
Caricaturist: Back to ,
Health Chiropractic &
Sound Chiropractic
• Free Pony Rides: y
Renton Western Wear
Nearly 400 free pony
rides hosted by the x
Mount Peak Pony Club
• Inflatable Playland: Wal-Mart
■ Kid's Day: Valley Medical
Center
Events for Kids and
Free Activities
• Kid's ID Cards:
First Savings Bank of Renton
Over 1,600 free photo ID cards
produced
• Lions Club Mobile Health
Screening Unit
• Old McLendon Petting Zoo:
McLendon Hardware
• Pacific Science Center
Exhibit: MetroPacific
Community Credit Union
■ Trout Pond Fishing Activity:
Freddie's Club
• Wenatchee Youth Circus
Performances: Bank ofAmericG
5
River Days Parade
sponsored by Younker Nissan gj
113 Parade entries with an
estimated 1,695 parade
6
participants
Viewing audience?
In the thousands!
Captivating parade entry
from our new Sister City:
Cuautla, Jalisco Mexico
M}'Z
featuring a mariachi band,
z`
beautiful dancers and horse
Featured 3 marching bands
Parade theme, Rock 'n Roll
at River Days, encouraged
decorated entries and
more music
G daps river Art Events
All Teen Musical — Cinderella
Art in the Park: Lomas Eye Care Center
130 arts and crafts booths
Art Print & Poster Contest
. 3rd Annual Art Print Contest
Created by Kent artist Gregg Young
a_ts Image used for products and promotional items
9
3
river
Art Events Cont ...
Chalk Art Contest: Allied Arts &
Piazza Renton
108 participants
3 different judging categories
All youth participants received one free prize
Renton Annual Art Show
50 artists and 157 pieces of fine art on display
$9,000 of art sold
Committee donates a piece
of art to the City and to
the Renton School District
Quilt Exhibition:
Cedar River Quilters
river
L
m days Entertainment
7
0
Entertainment
Main Stage Entertainment: Bob Bridge Auto
Center
NO Art in the Park Stage: Renton Village
Merchants Association & Renton Creative Arts
■ Jazz at the Piazza: Hudson Designer Portraits
300 community members enjoyed two groups,
Double Cookin' and Pearl Django
Romriver
days
Food
¢t
Nibble of Renton: Puget Sound
Energy
. Pancake Breakfast: Senior Center
Advisory Committee & Jimmy Mac's
. Senior Day Picnic: Law Offices of Dan
Kellogq
river
river
Sports Events
■ River Days Run 4 Kids: Gold's Gym & Wizards of
the Coast
130 runners
■ Sam Chastain
Memorial Golf
Tournament:
Freddie's Club
. 96 golfers
• Soccer Tournament
. 51 teams including
459 players
• Volkssport 5km &
11 km Fun Walks:
Interlaken Trailblazers
315 participants, youth
NEW EVENT!
BOATSTOCK ... Discover Boating!
;.-
Sponsored by Clear Channel Radio & Northwest
Marine Trade Association
Free test drive experience of wakeboard and water
ski boats
207 test drives provided, with a total of 458 people
receiving free boat rides
Free windsurfing
lessons, kayak
demonstrations,
and a wakeboard
exhibition
7
y Car Shows
• NEW EVENT - BMW Club 23rd
Annual Concours d'Elegance
150 BMWs spanning 8 decades
. Oldest entry was from 1937
• Cascade Cougar Club Car Show:
Cascade Lincoln Mercury
170 registered cars
Mercury Edsel Lincoln Ford Picnic
celebrating the 100th anniversary of Ford
river
01 days
Airport Expo
214 kids ages 8-17 received free plane rides
Over 30 kids, and some adults, experienced a
glider ride, while others flew in the "tow" plane
Seaplane fly -in
Fly-bys by the local Blackjack Squadron — 9
pilots flying in formation
Estimated attendance
was 1,200
10
river
Exhibitors
Pem days "In and Over" the
aw Cedar River
M' Rubber Ducky Race: Renton Rotary
Record number of duck sales - 3,500 ducks
. Gross revenue of $17,500
. Renton Library Used Book Sale
.Revenue was $2,896, an 11 % increase in
sales over 2002.
.Volunteers moved, unpacked, and displayed
200 boxes of books.
11
riveqays
An Amazing Event
f
M
Volunteer Planning and Participation
(Festival Volunteer Program sponsored by EZ
Cash Super Pawn)
. 209 committee volunteers, and 2,526 iz
hours of time planning the festival
. 647 volunteers during festival week,
contribution 7,058 hours
t =
Volunteers help set up art shows, sell
�7
souvenirs, build animal stalls for the
Petting Zoo, and assist small children
through inflatables.
+ ,.4
During festival weekend, Renton
Historical Museum volunteers host an
early morning coffee, juice and pastry
table.
river
An Amazing Event
. Overall Attendance
Estimated to be 45,000 throughout the six -day
celebration
40 events in an around Renton at Liberty Park, Cedar
River Park, Renton Community Center, Carco Theatre,
Piazza, South 31d Street, Renton Municipal Airport,
Gene Coulon Beach Park, Maplewood Golf Course and
Renton High School fields.
Renton River Days Website, www.rentonriverdays.org
Page views increased 77% from July 2002 to July
2003.
Effective and convenient source of information
r:n ATM machine for the first time in Liberty Park
. 385 transactions, totaling $19,900 in withdrawals
. Industry averages report that 1 % of festival attendees
C utilize on site ATM machines, estimate a crowd of
38,000 people in Liberty Park during the weekend.
�2
em river
daps
Estimated Net Proceeds
of Festival Events
■ $28,850 Charitable Donations
. Communities in Schools of Renton
. Sam Chastain Memorial Scholarship Fund
. Lions Club
. ALS Foundation
. Mary Bridge Hospital
And more...
k
$8,275 Juried Art Awards, Art Scholarships,
Contest Awards and Prizes
�+
. Art in the Park awards
. Annual Art Show awards
_
-..•
. Two Festival Art Scholarships
. Municipal Arts Commission Coloring Contest Prizes
. Art Print Contest Award
'�:
■ $37,125 Total
river
Festival Evaluation
Evaluation form given to attendees in the
park, participants, exhibitors, food vendors,
entertainers, volunteers, and committees
■ Feedback and suggestions extremely
important and valuable
. These "report cards" help festival planners
s
and volunteer committees with new ideas,
KK
special features and improving logistics
showcasing Renton at its best.
9
a,
The form can be accessed on the website
at www.rentonriverdays.org
13
Mmmriver
days
Mark Your
Calendars for
2004000
Tuesday, July 201n -
Sunday, July 251n
14
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 18, 2003
TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
FROM: Jesse Tanner, Mayor
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Administrative Report
In addition to our day to -day activities, the following items are worthy of note for this week:
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
• The Recreation Division is proud to recognize Rebekah Kurle and Devante Williams for their exceptional
performances in the Hershey's Track and Field North American Finals held in mid -August in Hershey,
Pennsylvania. Representing the City of Renton Youth Athletics at the competition, Rebekah Kurle placed
second overall in the 400-meter dash in the nine and ten -year -old girls division with a time of 1:11.30.
Devante Williams placed seventh overall in the softball throw in the nine and ten -year -old boys division with a
throw of 133' 2".
• More than 1,400 children of all ages participated in the Recreation Division's summer camp activities,
including the Sum R Craze, Kaleidoscope, Great Escape Teen, Itty Bitty, Youth Tennis, and Skyhawks Sports
camps.
• The Special Populations program had a successful softball season, with seventy-eight athletes (six softball
teams) competing in the Washington State Special Olympics. Over one hundred attended the subsequent
Sports Award Barbecue on August 14"' to honor the participating athletes, coaches, and volunteers.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, & STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT
• The Highlands Community Association, Honey Creek Park Homeowners, and Highbury Park Homeowners
will hold a combined annual neighborhood picnic this Wednesday, August 20`h, from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. at the
Highlands Community Center at 800 Edmonds Avenue NE. Residents from these three neighborhoods are
encouraged to attend the picnic and get to know their immediate neighbors and meet City representatives.
• Grease, the eighth and final movie in the Cinema on the Piazza series, will start at dusk this Saturday, August
23`d. This free summer Cinema, under the stars in downtown Renton's Piazza, has been very popular and well
attended.
PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
• The King County Renton Transfer Station will be closed from September 8"' through late November in order to
replace the aging roof and scale house. Alternate disposal and recycling options are available. For more
information, call King County at 206-296-4466, or visit their website at http://dnr.metrokc_gov/swd/.
• On Friday, August 15'h, there were two separate power outages in the Puget Sound Energy circuit 15. This
outage impacted the same customers along North 3rd Street that were impacted by the series of downtown
power outages earlier in the year. Puget Sound Energy has not reported a cause, although they did receive a
report of a flash at Talbot and Grady Way in the overhead lines. We are awaiting more information from PSE.
Administrative Report
August 18, 2003
Page 2
New Sound Transit bus route 564 will begin peak hour express service on September 27`h and will operate
between Bellevue, Renton, and Auburn. Midday service on the existing route 565 will be increased from every
60 minutes to every 30 minutes.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
• During the week of August 19-25, the Police Department will be conducting traffic emphasis in the following
areas:
Renton Police Department Traffic Enforcement Emphasis
August 19-25
Date
6:00 a.m, to Noon
Noon to 6:00 p.nL
All Da
Motorcycles/Cars
Motorcycles/Cars
Radar Trailer
August 19, Tuesday
1100 blk, Carr Rd (speed)
Lk Washington Blvd (speed)
2600 blk, NE 7th St (speed)
Rainier Ave N (speed)
400 blk, Cedar Ave S
August 20, Wednesday
Maple Valley Hwy (speed)
Lk Washington Blvd (speed)
3000 blk, Park Ave N (speed)
SW Grady Way (speed)
400 blk, Cedar Ave S
August 21, Thursday
Hoquiam Ave NE (speed)
1800 blk, Kirkland SE (speed)
Rainier Ave N (speed)
Maple Valle H (speed)
400 blk, Cedar Ave S
August 22, Friday
SW Sunset Blvd (turns/speed)
1400 blk, Houser Way (speed)
Lk Washington Blvd (speed)
200 blk, S 2"d (speed)
400 blk, Cedar Ave S
August 25, Monday
Rainier Ave N (speed)
SW Sunset Blvd (turns/speed)
Maple Valley Hwy (speed)
2600 blk, NE 7 St
8/18/03, Mayor, Councilmembers:
My name is Jane Hower, I reside at 1425 S. Puget Dr., #118, Renton 98055 (20 yrs)
May I have on the overhead projector the first page of the Congressional Report from the FBI made on June 26th
of this year? This report wasn't mentioned in the Aug 4"' minutes but 1 was glad to see it was mentioned in the
Aug 11 minutes.
This is the third time I've come here to discuss the subject of the Mexican ID card, the Matricula Consular. I
come here with genuine concerns regarding our nations security, the safety of our citizens, and conservation of
tax -payer resources. Unfortunately, the responses to these issues were attacks with comments referring to "anti -
immigration sentiments" (even though I stated I wasn't against legal immigration), "xenophobic attitudes" (even
though I mentioned having exchange students in my home), and "white supremacist leanings" (even though I
have many friends of 'color'). Tonight, however, I'd appreciate it if the derogatory comments not dominate your
responses in regards to my "agenda".
Speaking of 'agendas', in previous rebuttals to my presentations you questioned the 'agenda' of some of the
groups whose material I provided, however, I don't know if you questioned the agenda of the Mexican
Government in promoting this card? Mexico has no stake in our security and is not concerned about our
immigration laws or issues. Mexico has major economic problems and are probably very happy to send us as
many of their countrymen as possible. They hope to blur the line between legal and illegal entry into our country
by issuing this card to ALL of their citizens and getting culpable communities and businesses to recognize the
card as 'legal'. Just this morning, at my job - (the international company I work for does pilot training) - I checked
the visa's and passports of two Mexicans who were here to train and asked them about the M.C., they said "it
wasn't for them, since they live in Mexico, but was for Mexican citizens living in the U.S. who did not have
documentation!" This is a direct quote.
In particular, I would like to know what is meant by 'services', that these card holders get by having the card. Do
you have Dept. heads who could come here and explain that they don't give services to visa/green card holders
unless they also have an M.C., or perhaps you could get a green card holder to come tell a story of a service he
or she was denied because they only had a green card and nothing else. If these examples cannot be shown
then I am again assuming that the card is only of use to those who don't have a green card. And therein is my
double concern - for our security and safety, and protection of our hard-earned tax dollar provided
services.
Yes, our Federal Government needs to do more to secure our borders but it is unreasonable for cities and
states to undermine their effort. An interesting point to keep in mind is that the state legislature of Colorado
voted against accepting the card and I think it's significant that a state with a much higher Hispanic population
than ours is able to see the problems with this card better than the City of Renton does.
What I see here is the proverbial 'frog in the pot' syndrome. A frog will jump out of a pot of boiling water, but if
you put him in pot of cold water and bring it to a boil he will stay there until he's 'cooked'. This country will lose
what we most cherish, our safety, our freedoms, our way of life, because people will not see and respond to the
dangers of lax security. Some examples of this laxness resulted in what happened on 9/11. The hijackers
finished their training and flew into the towers BEFORE their visa applications were even completed. And John
Malvo, who was an illegal alien arrested and released here in Seattle, became the DC Sniper. Closer to home,
was the murder of Deputy Saul Galagos of Chelan County, a LEGAL immigrant from Mexico who came here,
became a US Citizen and a law enforcement officer, only to be gunned down by an illegal immigrant.
It might be said that the examples I've just given have nothing to do with this card, but I think they do.
Accepting this card creates an atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance of an illegal act. All part of the
'frog in the pot' syndrome. Thomas Jefferson said the price of freedom is constant vigilance. I don't see that
happening here.
I believe the day will come when we all, the citizens who live and work in, and love the City of Renton, will look
back and realize what we have lost - our freedom, security, and safety, - but by then, it will be too late.
I will continue to ask you to take this issue back to committee and there, decide to not bring it to the council
again, for all the reasons I've been talking about.
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Al #: e ,
Submitting Data:
For Agenda of: August 18, 2003
Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk
Agenda Status
Staff Contact...... Bonnie 1. Walton
Consent .............. X
Public Hearing..
Subject: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision dated 7/3/2003
regarding Urban Crafts Mixed Use Project, File No.
LUA-03-035, SA-H, ECF
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution............
Old Business........
New Business.......
Exhibits:
A.
Letter from Loren & Shirley Anderson (8/13/2003)
Study Sessions......
B.
City Clerk's letter (8/8/2003)
information.........
C.
Hearing Examiner's Response to Requests for
Reconsideration (8/4/2003)
D.
Requests for Reconsideration [2] (7/15/2003)
E.
Appeal (7/11/2003)
F.
Hearing Examiner's Report & Decision (7/03/2003)
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact: NSA
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted.......... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Appeal filed on July 11, 2003 by BDJS Associates, LLC represented by Jeffrey M. Silesky of Davis &
Silesky, accompanied by required $75 fee.
1:\WORD\Memo&Letter\APPEAL\urban crafts agenda bill.DOC/
465 Olympia Avenue NE
Renton, Washington 98056
August 11, 2003
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
CITY OF REN'rom
City of Renton =`tjR. 3 t1kr
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055 RKPI`VE �,;�L..i,,,�jIu2:
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision dated 7/3/2003, regarding Urban
Crafts Mixed Use Project, File No. LUA-03-035, SA-H, ECF
To City Council Members:
I am a party of record for the commercial project referenced above. I live on a
residential site adjacent to the proposed commercial development. Having
attended the first public hearing, I would like to make a further comment about
the proposed project prior to a decision by the City Council regarding the appeal.
This comment is in accordance with the appeals process described in the
attachment.
We understand that commercial development will eventually occur on the vacant
lot adjacent to our home. Having accepted that inevitability, we adopted a
positive attitude and hoped to be good neighbors to the new development. We
casually met the developer representatives after the public hearing and found
them all to be personable and friendly. My comments about their proposed
project in the context of this letter are not directed personally toward any
individual connected with the development.
My wife and I support the position of hearing examiner Fred J. Kaufman in his
"Request for Reconsideration" response letter dated August 4, 2003. In my
mind, the key statements from his text are:
"What concerns this office is that the applicant has designed a building
that is too large for the subject site."
"Rather than forcing the issue, the applicant should seek a more
appropriate location for the building or another zone where parking is
catered to rather than discouraged as a primary focus for development."
Even as lay people, my wife and I have a grave concern about the potential
parking problems caused by this large development. While the number of on -site
parking stalls may satisfy requirements of the building code, common sense tells
us there would be insufficient parking for the number of tenants, customers, and
employees. As a result, on -street parking would clog the narrow passageway on
our dead end street (Olympia Avenue NE).
To conclude, we support the wisdom and foresight of the hearing examiner in this
matter and ask to City Council to stand behind his decision.
Sincerely,
Loren M. Anderson Shirley . Anderson
Attachment: Municipal Code excerpt regarding appeal process
2
City of Renton Municipal Code,• Title IV Chapter 8,.Section 110 — Appeals
4-8-110C4
The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of
the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council — Procedures
1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the
Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party
aggrieved by the Examiners written decision or recommendation may submit a'notice of appeal to the
City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the
date of the Examinees written report.
2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City
Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal.
3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of
their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of
the notice of appeal.
4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the
City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or
recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of
appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982)
5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or
additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by
the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time
of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,
the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional
evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the
absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional
evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or
testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by
the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before
the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389,1-25-1993)
6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely
upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional
submissions by parties.
7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner
on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the
record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it
may remand the proceeding to Examiner for iconsideration, or modify, or reverse the
decision of the Examiner accordingly.
8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an
application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the
Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be should be disregarded or modified, the City
Council-m&y remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision
upon the application.
9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall
specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of
the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The burden. of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982)
10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision
of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames
established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997)
CITY OF RF,NTON
City Clerk
Bonnie I. Walton
August 8, 2003
APPEAL FILED BY: H. Lee Johnson of BDJS Associates, LLC, represented by
Jeffrey M. Silesky, Davis & Silesky
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision dated 7/3/2003, regarding Urban Crafts
Mixed Use Project, File No. LUA-03-035, SA-H, ECF
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the
Hearing Examiner's recommendation regarding the Urban Crafts Mixed Use Project has
been filed with the City Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal. Code Section 4-8-11017, the City Clerk shall notify
all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal within five days of receipt of the notice of
appeal, unless extended due to filing. of a Request for Reconsideration. Other parties may
submit letters in support of their positions. within ten (10) days. of the date of mailing of
the notification of the filing of the appeal. • The deadline for submission of additional
letters is August 18, 2003.
NOTICE I3 HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will
be reviewed. by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council
secretary will.. notify all parties. of record, of the date and time of the. Planning and
Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in .the local telephone directories
and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council secretary at 425-430-6501 for
information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration
by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner
decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the
merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a
showing can bemade that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available
at the prior hearing held by the.Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on
this matter will be accepted by the City Council.
For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at (425) 430-6502
Sincerely,
&yC4uz V.
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk
Attachment
cc: Council Secretary
1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6510 / FAX (425) 430-6516
MThic nanny rnntaine F(1 % rs+_wi material 10% n—t rnncimar
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV Chapter 8 Section 110 — Appeals
4-8-110C4
The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of
the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
4-8-11017: Appeals to City Council — Procedures
1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the
Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party
aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the
City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the
date of the Examiners written report.
2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City
Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal.
3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of
their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of
the notice of appeal.
4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the
City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or
recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of
appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982)
5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or
additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by
the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time
of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,
the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional
evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be bome by the applicant. In the
absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional
evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or
testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by
the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before
the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389,1-25-1993)
6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely
upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional
submissions by parties.
7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner
on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050131, and after examination of the
record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it
may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the
decision of the Examiner accordingly.
8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an
application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,. the
Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be should be disregarded or modified, the City
Council -may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision
upon the application.
9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall
specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of
the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The burden.of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982)
10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision
of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames
established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997)
,► ,._.. IT
-1 Off' PENTON
ei
Hearing Examiner
Jesse Tanner, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman
August 4, 2003
H. Lee Johnson
BDJS Associates, LLC
4223 E. Lee Street
Seattle, WA 98112
Susan Fiala
Senior Planner
Development Services
1055 South Grady Way
6`h Floor, City Hall
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Request for Reconsideration
Urban Crafts Mixed Use — LUA 03-035, SA-H,ECF
Dear Appellant and Staff:
This office has received two requests for reconsideration in this matter. City staff submitted one request while the
applicant submitted the second. Staff indicated that they had made a mistake in their review. They noted that the
subject site is a corner lot and that staff has the ability to designate either Olympia Avenue NE or NE 4' Street as
the front yard for setback purposes. They have now determined that the front yard and front yard setback should be
along Olympia Avenue NE rather than along NE 4'h Street. NE 4`h Street would, therefore, be the side yard under
this determination. The administrative determination was made after the public hearing and late in the process of
review. Now according to staff, the determination would mean that there is no maximum setback required along
NE 4" Street and the building can be setback as far as necessary to accommodate parking in that setback area. It
would also allow the reduced setback along Olympia that the applicant has requested.
The applicant's request for reconsideration mirrors that of staff and references the determination that the front yard
and side yard designations have now been reversed. The applicant also asked that their dedication of property be
considered as part of the Olympia setback. The applicant had requested a reduced setback along Olympia and had
proposed landscaping be installed in the public right-of-way that is enhanced or enlarged by the dedication.
The City is currently conducting a deliberate and very deliberative process to determine the best use for the Boeing
property. This study is intended by the Mayor and City Council to determine the best use of the property that may
be surplused or vacated by Boeing in the near and more distant future.
A very similar deliberative process was used in adopting the standards found in the CS Zone and the Zoning Code.
The City strongly wanted to avoid strip commercial development in certain neighborhoods of the City. They did
not want to allow small holes in some standards to lead to the diminishment of the standards that are intended to
avoid strip commercial development - that is standards that are intended to avoid parking immediately adjacent to
the street. Clearly, the convenience of drive-in, car -oriented patrons of shops in the CS zone was not the primary
concern. Most shop fronts would be oriented for visibility toward the street or toward the primary street but the CS
zone was not intended to cater to the car and driver and parking was intended to be off to the side or somewhat
remote from the store fronts.
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6515
This earner contains 50 % recvcled material. 30 % post consumer
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
While the subject site has two frontages, it is clear that the primary frontage, the visible frontage, is NE 4th Street.
Permitting parking along this frontage whether it is designated as the front yard or the side yard defeats the goals
and objectives of the City in adopting the setback standards for the CS zone. Goals and objectives that were to
move parking away from the street and move the facade closer to the street. So altering the designation of which
street should be considered for the front yard setback and which should be the side yard does not alter the fact that
to allow parking along NE 41h Street is frowned upon by both the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
Further muddying the waters in this case is that fact that the City is very seriously considering widening NE 4th
Street and might take property from the subject site thereby narrowing the lot and removing what landscaping might
provide buffering. In other words if NE 4`h Street were widened, the landscaping now proposed to provide some
visual buffering between the parking and the street would be eliminated or substantially reduced. So instead of
providing at least some landscape screening along NE 4th, the parking might be clearly visible, immediately
adjacent to the sidewalk. This would be the complete opposite of the aims of the CS zone.
Again, this office cannot argue that the building is well -designed. What concerns this office is that the applicant has
designed a building that is too large for the subject site. Clearly, this large building needs the modifications
requested by the applicant in order to fit this lot. Does that justify approving the modifications in this case? Will
this create a precedent? It will be hard to deny other applicants who provide some interesting facade detail similar
relief if they, too, design too large a building for too small a lot. The fact that this lot is located on two streets does
not change that fact. The fact that staff, after the fact, redefined the front yard and side yard also does not change
the constraints created by too large of a building on too small of a lot. Rather than forcing this issue, the applicant
should seek a more appropriate location for the building or another zone where parking is catered to rather than
discouraged as a primary focus for development.
Again, this office anticipates an appeal and will allow the City Council to determine the strength of its intent in
adopting the CS standards that avoid strip development in this zone. The decision will not be modified and the
original decision stands.
If this office can provide any additional assistance please feel free to write.
Sincerely,
A
Fred J. Kaufma
Hearing Examiner
FJK:nt
cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Neil Watts, Development Services Director
Parties of Record
11751]
Davis & Silesky
July 151h , 2003
Mr. Fred J. Kaufinan
Hearing Examiner, City of Renton
Renton City Hall
1055 South Grady Way
Renton; WA 98055
Re: Urban Crafts Mixed Use Project
File # LUA 03-035-SA H-ECF
Request for Reconsideration
Dear Mr. Kaufman,
CITY OF RENTON
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S Of
*aA,11.
On behalf of BDJS Associates, the developers of the above referenced project, we are
respectfully request that you reconsider your July 3`d decision.
This request is based upon our conviction that City of Renton staff made an error when
determining the location of the front and side yards to the sub*ect property While the
project was presented during the June 17th hearing with NE 4t Street as the front yard, it
is a logical conclusion that the front yard of the property is, in fact, along Olympia
Avenue NE while the South side of the property is bordered by NE 4th street. There are
several reasons why we feel this is the case.
■ The distance which the proposed project fronts Olympia Ave NE relative to
NE 4th St.
■ The orientation of the East end of the building as the main entry facing
Olympic Ave NE
The fact that curb cuts allowing access to the property only exist along
Olympic Ave and no cuts will be allowed along NE 4th
■ The fact that the property address has always been 400 Olympia Avenue NE
In addition to the above appeal, we are also asking that the required 10- foot setback
along Olympic Ave include the 5-foot property dedication we were required to make to
the City. Since we are being required to make this dedication, we feel it is reasonable to
be ableAo apply this additional 5 feet toward the setback requirement. The setback
modification along Olympia would still maintain landscaping and a building setback five
feet from the new property line after the street dedication.
15600 NE 8th St.
Suite B1-173 PHONE (425) 830-7037
Bellevue, WA 98008 REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT SERVICES FAX (425) 885-7149
Page 2 of 2
We look forward to your response to these items at your earliest convenience.
SincerelXe ilesky
gg mMeber
BDJS Associates LLC
CC Susan Fiala (Senior Planner)
i% CIT OF RENTON
..t1 Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department
J e Tanner, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
July 15, 2003
Office of the Hearing Examiner
Mr. Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
1055 South Grady Way
71" Floor, City Hall
Renton, WA 98055
RE: Request for Reconsideration: Modification of Setback Requirements
Urban Crafts Mixed Use, File No. 03-035, SA-H, ECF
400 Olympia Avenue NE
Dear Mr. Examiner:
We respectfully submit this request for reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner report and decision
of July 3, 2003 for the Urban Crafts Mixed Use Level 1 Site Plan.
Staff has erred in determining the front yard and side yard along a street for the Urban Crafts Mixed
Use site as presented in the Preliminary Staff Report, dated June 17, 2003, to the Hearing
Examiner.
In review of RMC 4-11-250 Definitions "Y-Yard", the front yard for corner lots will be determined by
the Development Services Division Director. Hence, the front yard of the site has been determined
to be Olympia Avenue NE and the side yard along. a street has been determined to be NE 4th
Street. The findings include:
• The building is oriented to Olympia Avenue NE.
• The site is and will continue to be addressed off of Olympia Avenue NE.
• Vehicular access to the site is via Olympia Avenue NE.
1. The CS zone requires a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum of 15 feet for the front yard.
The CS zone allows a reduced front yard setback to zero feet through the site plan review
process provided blank walls are not located within the reduced setback.
The setback along Olympia Avenue NE would be five (5) feet from the property line (after
the dedication of 5 feet). The proposal provides commercial glass storefronts along
Olympia Avenue NE and includes landscaping within the five foot setback.
2. The required minimum side yard setback is 10 feet; there is no maximum. As determined
by the Director, NE 4th Street would be the side yard along a street and the proposed
building would be in compliance with the minimum side yard along a street setback along
with the required landscaping.
Due to staff error in designating the front and side yard of the proposed project, this request for
reconsideration of the front yard and side yard setbacks and the modification for a reduced front
yard setback is brought forth to the Examiner. We believe this error affects the decision rendered
by the Examiner.
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055
® This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30 % post consumer
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
Request for Reconsideration: Moadication of Setback Requirements
Urban Crafts Mixed Use, File No. 03-035, SA-H, ECF
Page 2 of 2
A copy of the Director's Determination is attached.
If there are any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7382.
Sincerely,
Susan Fiala, AICP
Senior Planner
Attachment
cc: Neil Watts
Jennifer Henning
Rick Brown
H. Lee Johnson
Project File
y^
� a
Y an
F fi
lk
.>:
CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 14, 2003
TO: Susan Fiala
FROM: Neil Watts jV�C' lU
SUBJECT: Determination of Yards
Urban Crafts Mixed Use; LUA-03-035, SA-H, ECF
This memo is written in response to your request to determine the required yards for the
subject property. The site is located at the corner of Olympia Ave. NE and NE 4th Street
and is addressed as 400 Olympia Ave. NE.
Due to the site's location, the frontages will have the following yards designated to
determine the required setbacks:
• Front Yard: Olympia Avenue NE
• Side Yard Along a Street: NE 4th Street
cc: Project File
APPEAL - HEARING EXAMINER
WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY
'OUNCIL. JJ r
.ILE NO. L-VA 0,3__D,��: J+G!`Clt' OF REN`I`C
APPLICATION
vev 61fr
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or
recommendation of
the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated_ J V �y •� 20-U—.
1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY
Telephone No.( 2,012 12-e- 7--�ra/
12003
RECEIVED
CITY CLEWS OFFICE
REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY)
Name:
Address: -Da GIs •► $�• l esky
16600 NE "W., Sic. 8/ /73, BeVevlle,,WA 9P004f
Telephone No. ' 0?5 - 836 iO3 y .
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal• is based:
FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report)
No.
Error: Lq of Zu /4z�l0 6 x' %t &*1% � V1 SW? ! -t a-44
CONCLUSIONS:
No. Error:,
Correction:
No. Error:
Correction:
3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following
relief (Attach explanation, if desired)
Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief:
Modify the decision or recommendation as follows:
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
Other
Appellant/Repr re
Sigria a Date
NOTE:
Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110f, for specific appeal
procedures.
heappeal.doc/forms
[11%11
Davis & Silesky
July 15`h, 2003
City Council Members
City of Renton
Renton City Hall
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Urban Crafts Mixed Use Project
File # LUA 03=035-SA H-ECF
Request for Appeal
Dear City Council Members,
CITY OF RENTON
JuL 16 2003
RECEIVE
CITY CLERKS GE
On behalf of BDJS Associates, the developers of the above referenced project, we
respectfully request that the City Council accept this appeal of the July 3rd Hearing
Examiner decision concerning the Urban Crafts Mixed Use Project. We are seeking
approval for construction of a 27,528 sq. ft. retail, office and creative workspace building
and site improvements in the CS zone.
This appeal is based upon our conviction that City of Renton staff made an error when
determining the location of the front and side yards to the sulect property While the
project was presented during the June 17a' hearing with NE 4 Street as the front yard, it
is a logical conclusion that the front yard of the property is, in fact, along Olympia Ave
NE while the South side of the property is bordered by NE 4a' street. There are several
reasons why we feel this is the case.
■ The distance which the proposed project fronts Olympia Ave NE relative to
NE 4 h St.
■ The orientation of the East end of the building as the main entry facing
Olympia Ave NE
■ The fact that curb cuts allowing access to the property onlg exist along
Olympia Ave NE and no cuts will be allowed along NE 4 .
■ The fact that the property address has always been 400 Olympia Ave NE
In addition to the above request, we are also asking that the required 10- foot setback
along -Olympia Avenue include the 5-foot property dedication we were required to make
to the City. Since we are being required to make this dedication, we feel it is reasonable
to be able to apply this additional 5 feet toward the setback requirement. The proposed
15600 NE 8th St.
Suite B1-173 PHONE (425) 830-7037
Bellevue, WA 98008 REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT SERVICES FAX (425) 885-7149
Page 2 of 2
setback modification along Olympia Ave NE would still maintain landscape and building
setback five feet from the new property line after the street dedication.
We look forward to a response to these items at earliest convenience of the council
Sincerely, `
;;e6 hy7iCkX4
Managing Member
BDJS Associates LLC
CC Susan Fiala (Senior Planner)
July 3, 2003
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT
H. Lee Johnson
BDJS Associates, LLC
4223 E. Lee Street
Seattle, WA 98112
Urban Crafts Mixed Use
File No.: LUA-03-035, SA-H, ECF
400 Olympia Avenue NE
Applicant is seeking approval for the construction of a 27,528
square foot retail, office and creative workspace building and
site improvements in the CS zone. The applicant is also
requesting modifications and/or waivers from the
required/permitted setbacks along both Olympia and NE 41h
Street.
Development Services Recommendation: Approve with
conditions
The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on May 20, 2003
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on file with the application, field
checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the June 17, 2003 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on tape.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 at 9:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the
Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original
application, proof of posting, proof of publication and
other documentation pertinent to this request.
o. 3: Site Plan
Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map
Exhibit No. 4: Landscape Plan
Urban Crafts Mixed Use
File No.: LUA-03-035, SA-H, ECF
July 3, 2003
Page 2
Exhibit No. 5: Elevations
Exhibit No. 6: Generalized Utilities Plan and
Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit No. 7: Preliminary Drainage Plan
Exhibit No. 8: Zoning Map
The Examiner, prior to this hearing, invited testimony from Long Range Planning, and it is the understanding
that that testimony is incorporated in Ms. Fiala's report. Two e-mails on that topic are part of the official file.
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Susan Fiala, Associate Planner, Development
Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055_ The subject property is located at
400 Olympia Avenue NE. South of the property is Greenwood Cemetery, to the west of the property is a self -
storage facility, and to the east there is a commercial strip retail and auto shop. North of the property is single-
family residential dwellings. The site is approximately 0.78 acres. The applicant is requesting environmental
review and Hearing Examiner site plan review approval for the construction of a 27,528 square foot retail, office
and creative workspace building and site improvements. This type of facility would provide flexible, affordable
office, retail and work spaces. The office/workspaces are small, ranging in size from approximately 60 to 400
square feet in size. Each space has a private locking entrance, with heat, electricity and phone/computer outlets.
The Examiner questioned that since it is CS zoned, what type of low-level manufacturing crafts might be
permitted or not permitted. Any uses in the building should be limited to what is normally permitted in the CS
zone, which would not be light industrial. It appears that crafts and hobbies might overstep some of those
bounds. When people inquire about business licenses that is when the checks are made on what is allowed or
not allowed in the particular zone. This appears to be a very informal leasing arrangement and someone wishing
to do some light industrial work, but not open a business, would not be required to obtain a business license.
Ms. Fiala stated that the types of uses that were provided relate to hobbies and crafts such as candle making,
antiquing, anything that would not emit any noise, odors, no welding, no auto repair. The retail would require a
business license.
The facility would be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Several retail spaces are proposed to be located on
the ground level along the NE 4"' Street and Olympia Avenue NE frontages. One caretaker/manager's unit
would be located on the third level. The three-story structure would be approximately 33 feet in height, would
be constructed of metal and vinyl siding. All parking would be on the ground level, eight of the 43 proposed
parking spaces would be enclosed and designated for retail tenants. To provide light to the interior
offices/workspaces, the building is open in the middle section. The building would be secured with a card -key
access system.
On May 13, 2003 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated,
for the project. No appeals of the Review were filed. There were two mitigation measures including Fire
Mitigation Fee and Transportation Mitigation Fee that the applicant will be required to pay prior to issuance of
building permits.
The subject site is designated Center Suburban on the City's Comprehensive Plan map. The purpose of
"centers" is to provide for a cohesive district, allowing a wide range of commercial and residential activities and
provide goods and services to serve as a visual and focal point for the surrounding residential area.
The Examiner inquired if the applicant proposed to use this as artist's lofts where people other than the caretaker
would live in this building. Ms. Fiala responded that that would not take place.
They are proposing to provide retail on the ground level, one being a coffee shop, and it is anticipated that other
retail spaces would provide for the surrounding neighborhood. There are two parking lots, they are designated
Urban Crafts Mixed Use
File No.: LUA-03-035, SA-H, ECF
July 3, 2003
Page 3
as tenant and retail parking lots. They are close to the building and have pedestrian connections to the store
fronts and main entries to the structure. They will provide adequate retail goods and services within Center
Suburban designations to encourage residents to shop locally for daily goods rather than driving to other areas.
Indoor storage is permitted as an accessory use and is also limited to store products related to the primary retail
and office uses.
The maximum lot coverage allowed in the CS zone is 65% for projects without structured parking. This
proposed project would be about 25% of the lot coverage. The applicant has requested a modification to
increase the front yard setback from 15 feet to 60 feet from NE 4'h Street. In an effort to provide parking for the
retail spaces located on the ground level, eight (8) standard sized parking spaces would be located between NE
Th Street and the building front. This pushes the building back from the street front. This parking strip would
be screened with the required 10-foot strip of irrigated landscaping. The landscaping continues along the
Olympia Avenue NE as well to provide screening of the parking lot. The applicant is trying to separate the high
traffic on NE 4'h Street from any pedestrians. This site is very narrow, the applicant has oriented the building
more to Olympia Avenue NE due to the fact that NE 4'h Street is a high volume street. If NE 4'h Street is ever
widened, there would be less conflict with the front of the building, it would already be set back, it would not
conflict with any street widening.
The minimum side yard along a street is 10 feet with a 10 foot landscaped strip, this side yard would be along
Olympia Avenue NE. The applicant is requesting a modification proposing that the building be set back five (5)
feet from the property line with a five foot sidewalk abutting the building. Ten feet of landscaping would be
provided for approximately two-thirds of the length of Olympia Avenue NE, and the rest would be the 5-foot
modification. There are no required interior or rear yard setbacks as the adjacent and abutting properties are
zoned Commercial. However, the existing use of the property to the north is a single-family residence but it is
zoned Center Suburban. The applicant does propose to construct a six-foot high solid visual barrier, a
combination of a fence and retaining wall along the entire north property line. All existing vegetation, including
blackberries would be removed. There are no trees on the site.
The CS zone allows a maximum building height of 50 feet, the proposal is 33 feet thus meeting the zone
standard.
Parking requirements are based on use. The proposal is for a mixed use building that is to meet the total
requirements for parking by the sum of the requirements for those applicable uses within the building. A total of
43 parking spaces would be provided on site within two lots and individual garages. The applicant has
requested a parking modification in order to provide the required parking. Several additional spaces would be
compact spaces, 30% are allowed (13 spaces), they are proposing 17.
The site is currently vacant and covered with gravel, weeds and blackberries. There are no significant natural or
sensitive features on the site that would be impacted by the development.
The proposed mixed use development is expected to increase property values in the vicinity of the site.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided via Olympia Avenue NE, there would be no access immediately
from NE 4`h Street.
Fire and Police had indicated there are enough existing City facilities and resources to accommodate the subject
proposal provided that there is the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee. Public Works has determined that there are
sufficient utilities in the area as long as code required improvements are made to the water and sewer
extensions.
Staff recommends approval of this project subject to conditions.
Urban Crafts Mixed Use
File No.: LUA-03-035, SA-H, ECF
July 3, 2003
Page 4
Glenn Davis, Project Developer, 3232-24`' Avenue West, Seattle, WA 98199, with respect to the comment
about opening up to people wanting to do something similar in the zone regarding the modifications to the
setbacks at the south side of the project. This is a long skinny site, the fact that someone would have to walk
200-300 feet to get to the retail shops was the consideration in requesting this modification. Further stated RMC
4-9-200E which states that the reviewing official shall review and act upon site plans and certain criteria which
provide a frame or reference for developing the site, but are not intended to be inflexible standards. The
Examiner, stated that what they were referring to was the actual site plan, not setback plans that are usually
mandated, in this case the code does allow flexibility but probably a little less flexible than the site plan criteria.
Rick Brown, Architect, 4680 Rhodie Lane, Freeland, WA 98249, the question of height came up earlier, there
are actually two gables running north and south, the east building is somewhat smaller than the west because of
the width, it is 35-1/2 feet high to the ridge, the west building is 37.5-1/2 feet at the ridge and then there is a
small portion to the east that is a one-story building. Regarding the setbacks, the narrow lot, in terms of getting
enough parking within close proximity of the south retail, it just wasn't felt that they could get parking to the
east or west of the building. The building has a 90-foot width and putting the parking on the south side, avoids
parking on Olympia. This retail is a walk up, pick-up or drop off, and leave. It is not a place where you will
come and spend the day shopping.
James Jaeger, Jaeger Engineering, 9419 South 2041h Place, Kent, WA 98031, regarding the request for the
variance to the front street setback, there are a couple of issues that can apply to this project, making it
somewhat unique. It is important to stress there is not, nor will there be an access to 41h Street. Also note that
our frontage along 41h Street is 93 feet after the 5-foot is deleted along Olympia, versus the 345 feet along
Olympia. There are two frontages with the major pedestrian access along Olympia rather than 41h. Without the
parking along the front, it is a great concern that Olympia would be used for parking to access those retail units.
There is also the potential expansion of 41h Street, the right-of-way on the north side of 4'h is 30 feet on the south
it is 40 feet, there is potential that the City could want another 10 feet of right-of-way. There is no center turn
lane. Another benefit this project is bringing to the City is the improvement to the existing conditions within
Olympia Avenue, the roadway, the water system and the sewer lines are extremely substandard right now.
Loren Anderson, Resident to the north, 465 Olympia Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056, would like to thank the
developers for the wall and fence dividing my property from this proposed building. I understand that it was not
a required item, and I would really like to thank the developer for addressing our problem and suggestion some
sort of barrier. The Examiner asked to have the area pointed out on the map, apparently there is another lot
between Mr. Anderson and the proposed use. Mr. Anderson stated that there is a small lot, actually it is on two
separate grades, his is an upper level grade and the lower lot, a vacant lot, is a lower level grade, but is part of
his property. With regard to the water and sewer lines, since 1950-1960 their main was on 41h Street, the
concern was that the water and sewer would be compromised by this development. That with the installation of
a new water and sewer service, the upgrade would be done without charge to them as property owners.
Kayren Kittrick, Development Services, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 stated that costs would be
borne by the developer. The only additional costs that would possibly be generated to the property owner,
would be upgrading the meter. Upon questioning by the Examiner, Ms. Kittrick stated that the setback situation
was not ideal, but it does meet standards. Mr. Jaeger was correct that 4'h is currently under study and this little
section between Monroe and Union that creates a bottleneck in this vicinity, there would be the possibility that
at some time down the road the City would need 5 to 10-feet of the frontage of this property. The landscape
would be lost and the parking would be right in front.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:12 a.m.
Urban Crafts Mixed Use
File No.: LUA-03-035, SA-H, ECF
July 3, 2003
Page 5
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
]. The applicant, H. Lee Johnson of BDJS Associates, LLC, filed a request for approval of a Site Plan and
setback modifications for a building housing retail, office and work spaces.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit 41.
The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated
(DNS-M).
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
The subject site is located at 400 Olympia Avenue NE. The site is on the northwest corner of the
intersection of Olympia and NE 4th Street_ Monroe Avenue is located west of the site while Union
Avenue is located east.
6. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1480 enacted in April 1954.
7. The site is zoned CS (Center Suburban).
The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of Center Suburban uses, that is retail and residential uses that cater to
pedestrian and automobile traffic, but does not mandate such development without consideration of
other policies of the Plan.
9. The subject site is a rectangular parcel. The subject site is approximately 98 feet wide (east to west) by
345 feet deep. The 4th Street frontage is the narrower, 98-foot dimension. The City has requested a 5-
foot dedication along Olympia Avenue.
10. The subject site is approximately 33,802 square feet or 0.78 acres. The site is vacant and covered with
gravel, weeds and blackberries.
IL . The parcel slopes upward to the north from approximately 344 feet near 4th to approximately 351 feet.
The land slopes upward more dramatically north of the subject site on neighboring properties.
12. The applicant proposes developing a building containing a mix of retail spaces on the ground level and
offices and workshops on the upper two floors.
13. The building will be a three-story building that will vary from approximately 35 feet 11.5 inches to 37
feet 5.5 inches at the ridge lines.
14. The building would contain 27,528 square feet of leaseable space. The building will have a footprint o.
80 feet by 180 feet. The building will be open in the middle providing light and air to the interior spaces
Urban Crafts Mixed Use
File No.: LUA-03-035, SA-H, ECF
July 3, 2003
Page 6
by way of an atrium. The building is designed to allow driving access through the interior or atrium of
the building to access the interior garage bays.
15. Staff analyzed the parking requirements to various uses that may be located within the building
complex.
The following table outlines the required and provided parking:
Use
Area (sq. ft.)
Ratio
Required/Provided
Retail
3,218
4 stalls per 1,000 sq.
ft.
13/13
Sit Down Restaurant
(Coffee Shop)
490
1 stall per 100 sq. ft.
5/5
Office
4,930
3 stalls per 1,000 sq.
ft.
15/15
Crafts
7,988
1 stall per 1,000 sq. ft.
8/8
Indoor Storage
2,056
1 stall per 1,500 sq. ft.
1/1
Caretaker Unit
802
1 stall per unit
1/1
Total
43/43
The applicant proposes providing 43 parking stalls. Eight stalls would be located inside garage bays.
The remaining stalls would be in lots located north and south of the building. The applicant was granted
a modification from the parking standards to provide 17 compact stalls rather than the permitted 13
contact stalls. The modification was approved administratively. The reduction in stall size permits the
applicant to meet the parking requirements for the use. Larger stalls would not fit the site area.
16. The proposed stalls located along NE 4th Street require a modification by the Hearing Examiner. The
applicant has proposed a 60-foot setback to accommodate parking along the NE 4th frontage. The CS
zone requires a minimum 10-foot landscaped front yard and a maximum setback of only 15 feet. These
setbacks are intended to reduce the "strip commercial" appearance associated with parking on the street
frontage. A modification may be granted if the site plan demonstrates special design characteristics.
The applicant has proposed articulations, peaked rooflines and facade detailing to reduce the apparent
scale and bulk of the building to justify the modification.
17. The applicant has also requested a modification to reduce the 10-foot sideyard setback along Olympia
Avenue NE. The applicant proposes a five-foot landscape strip along with a five-foot sidewalk abutting
the building. The applicant proposes street trees as well as shrubs in planting beds for 130 linear feet.
Staff recommended that the applicant be required to maintain any of the street plantings.
18. The applicant has suggested that the retail uses require parking that is more convenient and providing
parking to the rear of the building would discourage retail use. They also noted that the narrow
configuration of the lot makes developing a building and associated parking hard to provide on the
subject site.
Urban Crafts Mixed Use
File No.: LUA-03-035, SA-H, ECF
July 3, 2003
Page 7
19. Some staff were concerned that the interior garage stalls could be used for mini -storage which is not
permitted in the CS zone. This office was also concerned that granting the modification would create a
precedent.
20. The main access to the subject site will be via three driveways along Olympia Avenue NE. Staff did not
want any new driveways located along the NE 4th Street arterial given the short frontage and proximity
to the 4th and Olympia intersection. The northernmost parking lot would not provide full internal
circulation and one aisle of parking would only be accessible directly from the street.
21. The applicant has proposed a ] 0-foot bermed landscaping strip along NE 0 Street. This is intended to
screen the parking that would be created along NE 4th Street. A pedestrian path would be located in the
middle to allow those using the sidewalk to enter the complex and gain access to the shops.
22. No interior or rear (west and north) yard setbacks are required or proposed. While the property to the
north of the subject site is zoned CS like the zoning on the subject site, it is used for a single-family
residence. Staff has recommended that a solid fence be erected to screen that residence from the
parking lot.
23. Section 4-2-120C.15 provides the criteria for altering the maximum setbacks:
15. The maximum setback may be modified by the Reviewing Official through the site
plan review process if the applicant can demonstrate that the site plan meets the following
criteria:
a. Orients development to the pedestrian through such measures as providing
pedestrian walkways beyond those required by the Renton Municipal Code (RMC),
encouraging pedestrian amenities and supporting alternatives to single occupant vehicle
(SOV) transportation; and
b. Creates a low scale streetscape through such measures as fostering distinctive
architecture and mitigating the visual dominance of extensive and unbroken parking
along the street front; and
C. Promotes safety and visibility through such measures as discouraging the creation of
hidden spaces, minimizing conflict between pedestrian and traffic and ensuring adequate
setbacks to accommodate required parking and/or access that could not be provided
otherwise.
Alternatively, the Reviewing Official may also modify the maximum setback
requirement if the applicant can demonstrate that the preceding criteria cannot be met;
however, those criteria which can be met shall be addressed in the site plan:
d. Due to factors including but not limited to the unique site design requirements or
physical site constraints such as critical areas or utility easements the maximum setback
cannot be met; or
C. One or more of the above criteria would not be furthered or would be impaired by
compliance with the maximum setback; or
f. Any function of the use which serves the public health, safety or welfare would be
materially impaired by the required setback.
24. Staff indicated that the City is studying the possible widening of NE 4`h in this vicinity. If
such widening occurred most of the landscaping might be removed and the parking lot
would then be immediately adjacent to the street and sidewalk.
Urban Crafts Mixed Use
File No.: LUA-03-035, SA-H, ECF
July 3, 2003
Page 8
CONCLUSIONS:
The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria
are generally represented in part by the following enumeration:
a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes;
Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses;
d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself,
Conservation of property values;
f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation;
g. Provision of adequate light and air;
h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use;
The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance.
2. On first blush, this office was concerned about the precedent of allowing parking along the NE 4th
Street frontage and moving the building back 60 feet from the property line as well as not providing the
standard landscaping and setback along Olympia Avenue NE. Then it did appear that the property's size
and dimensions might justify relaxing the setback standards so that the applicant could develop its
proposed building. Further thought and reflection changed the outcome once again and convinced this
office that what really was the issue is that while the building seems nicely designed and provided
interesting features, it is just too much building for too small of a lot and a too constrained lot. The
applicant seeks too much relief when the only real issue is that the building is too large and demands too
much parking, which cannot be reasonably accommodated in this case.
The applicant noted that the Site Plan Ordinance contains language that permits flexibility in
interpreting its criteria. That is very true. But we are actually dealing with the standards of the
underlying CS zoning which requires the maximum setback at 15 feet for the front yard and 10 feet
along a street oriented side yard and not just site plan criteria. And while the CS zoning does permit
alterations of that setback for good reason, the reasons should be compelling to avoid creating a
precedent. Clearly, most retail establishments want their customers to park right in front of their place
of business. Convenience would have them as close as possible. But the CS Zone that allows retail
uses actually is intended to discourage just this type of parking arrangement. It wants buildings now
erected in that zone to address the street and not be oriented to provide "convenient" parking. How else
can the CS Zone's narrow setback be interpreted than discouraging parking right in front of the building,
between the sidewalk and street and the building. It is clear that the CS zone was not first and foremost
concerned with getting parking in front of the retail stores as it was with moving buildings closer to the
street.
4. No, while it can be admitted that the applicant has a rather small, narrow lot those limitation in this case
should not be used to punch a hole in the CS' setback and parking standards. Rather the applicant has
Urban Crafts Mixed Use
File No.: LUA-03-035, SA-H, ECF
July 3, 2003
Page 9
designed a building that is too large for this confined, CS zoned site. Not only does the applicant need a
parking modification to allow additional compact parking stalls since it cannot meet this larger
building's parking requirements with the full complement of regular sized stalls but it also seeks to
provide parking in front of the building and reduce the required landscaping and setback along its
second street frontage, along Olympia.
The applicant is no different than any other developer or applicant building in the CS Zone. The
applicant wants its lessees to be able to have parking in front of their respective shops. How is that
different than any future applicant in the CS zone who wants the same treatment. Merely, creating a
slightly more decorative building facade could be used by one and all to gut the intent of the CS Zone's
setback standards so that all future retail developments in this and other CS zoned areas have parking
between the building's shops and the roadway and sidewalk.
6. This office believes that when adopting the CS standards there was a clear intent to create a different
aesthetic to urban and suburban street design. It was intended to create a more pleasing frontage and to
prevent parking right along the street. There was a clear intent to avoid what is commonly known as
"strip commercial" development. The proposal does not demonstrate that the modification is justified in
this case.
This office therefore, believes that in order to clarify this objective by the City, that further City Council
review might be warranted. In order to get that further review, this office believes that denying the
modifications along both NE 4th Street and Olympia Avenue NE will probably result in an appeal.
Such an appeal will permit that further review. While this office is aware that denying the modification
may seem harsh but the applicant can redesign the building to meet the constraints of their lot. A
smaller building might allow parking on the interior, west side of the building or maybe this lot is too
small and really can only be used for a small-scale series of shops where parking would be located
directly to the rear or north of the building where rear doors would provide that direct access to the
parking from the shops rather than a three-story building.
In order to allow a thorough review of the applicant's proposal by the City Council if an appeal occurs
this office will review the remainder of the proposal as if the modifications were approved and the site
plan could be executed as proposed.
Site Plan
9. The proposed mixed use building appears to be compatible with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. The retail space is definitely compatible with the Center Suburban designation
since those shops can provide retail services to residents of the surrounding Highlands area. Similar,
small offices can provide business services. Clearly, craft workspaces will have to be limited.to the
types of uses permitted in the CS zone and not be too industrial in nature. Similarly, the interior, bay
garages should not be used for mini storage since this is not a use suggested for the CS zone. Therefore,
a condition should be placed on the development that the garages may only be used for parking and not
any long term storage or shop use.
10. It would appear that the use meets the various bulk and height limitations of the Zoning Code. It does
not meet the setback or landscape requirements along NE 4'h or along Olympia but modifications, if
approved would permit the building to be developed as designed. The building does appear to address
pedestrian access and contains some enhanced fagade and roof treatment to make it appear less bulky
Urban Crafts Mixed Use
File No.: LUA-03-035, SA-H, ECF
July 3, 2003
Page 10
but clearly, parking in front of the building does not provide the most aesthetic approach to building
design. Compliance with the Building and Fire Codes will be determined when a building permit
application is submitted.
IL The development of what has been a vacant lot will have impacts on surrounding uses. A three-story
building will definitely alter the views and aesthetics for the adjacent residential property north of the
site. But the zoning on both the subject site and adjacent site to the north permits commercial
development. A fence can only provide so much buffering but it will help against the proposed parking
along the north side of the property but will clearly not screen a three-story building. The fence
suggested by staff should be required.
12. The atrium design will provide air and light to the interior spaces of the proposed building. On the
whole the building is large for the site which is apparent since it needs three modifications to
accommodate its parking in front of the building, reduce its regular stalls to compact stalls and reduce
its landscaping setback along Olympia Avenue NE. The landscaping appears reasonable given the
constraints of a large building being developed on this site. Again, this office believes a smaller
building would provide a better overall site plan.
13. The pedestrian and vehicular access appear reasonable. Eliminating driveways along NE 4'h will make
for a safer arterial for the general public. The applicant will be providing sidewalks and amenities.
14. The site is in an urban area where sewer, water and transportation services are readily available.
15. In conclusion, the Site Plan is overbuilt for this small site and the modifications are not justified as they
would create a precedent that other retail developers would covet in other locations in the CS Zone. The
Site Plan though appears to have a very nicely designed building if a larger lot could be provided to
accommodate it.
DECISION:
The Site Plan is not approved as the modifications needed to permit it to be developed as proposed are
not justified.
Should the City Council determine that the Site Plan is appropriate and the modifications are appropriate, they
should consider imposing the following conditions:
The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC
A condition shall be placed on the development that the garages may only be used for parking
and not any long term storage or shop use.
The property owner shall maintain all street trees and associated landscaping located within the
right-of-way in perpetuity.
4. The applicant shall submit a set of plan reductions (8-1/2 x 11) PMT's, of all revised drawings
prior to the issuance of building permits.
The applicant shall provide tenants and future tenants with a list of uses that are permitted in the
CS zone and shall inform them that other uses are prohibited.
Urban Crafts Mixed Use
File No.: LUA-03-035, SA-H, ECF
July 3, 2003
Page I 1
ORDERED THIS 3rd day of July, 2003.
FRED J. KAUF V
HEARING EXAM ER V
TRANSMITTED THIS 3rd day of July, 2003 to the parties of record:
Susan Fiala
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Kayren Kittrick
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
James Jaeger
Jaeger Engineers
9419 S 204'h Place
Kent, WA 98031
Glenn Davis
Project Developer
3232 24'h Avenue West
Seattle, WA 98199
Pat Reilly
Developer
l I I l E Madison
Seattle, WA 98122
TRANSMITTED THIS 3rd day of July, 2003 to the following:
Mayor Jesse Tanner
Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
Julia Medzegian, Council Liason
Larry Rude, Fire Marshal
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Holly Graber, Development Services
King County Journal
Rick Brown
Architect
4680 Rhodie Drive
Freeland, WA 98249
Loren Anderson
465 Olympia NE
Renton, WA 98056
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/PW Admin
Alex Pietsch, Econ. Dev. Administrator
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Neil Watts, Development Services Director
Members, Renton Planning Commission
Transportation Systems Division
Utilities System Division
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., July 17, 2003. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner
is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new
evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review
by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth
the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a fling fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Urban Crafts Mixed Use
File No.: LUA-03-035, SA-H, ECF
July 3, 2003
Page 12
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., July 17, 2003.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
x
Sf'ECIFI ALLY IDENTMIED
'NNE IGNBORPOOQ D E TAIL M A P AFRERESIDENCES,
BE FEttILT
RESIDENCENCES
iSCALE
n
RE
E5 • 9 T23N R5E W 1/2
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
AI H:
Submitting Data:
For Agenda of:
Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP/Strategic Planning
August 18, 2003
Staff Contact...... Don Erickson (X-6581)
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Subject:
Hendrickson Annexation Public Meeting
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution........... .
Old Business........
New Business.......
Exhibits:
10% Notice of Intent Petition
Study Sessions......
Information........ .
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Approvals:
Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
r
X
The City is in receipt of a 10 % Notice of Intent petition to initiate a direct petition method of
annexation for approximately 21.93 acres located east of the City limits and south of NE Sunset
Boulevard. The site is bordered on the south by SE 112`h Place, if extended, and on the east by
approximately 146`h Avenue SE, if extended (see attached map). An existing mobile home park
occupies the eastern 6.0 acres of the site and is designated Residential Rural on the City's
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The remainder of the site is designated Residential Single
Family on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
State law requires that the Council hold a meeting within 60 days of filing the 10 % Notice of
Intent to Commence Annexation to consider the proposed annexation and decide whether it will
accept, modify, or reject it. It Council accepts the annexation, it shall pass a motion
authorizing the circulation of the 50 % petition to annex to property owners and residents who
are registered voters living in the annexation area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Council set a Public Meeting date for September 8, 2003.
Hedrickson/agnbill/de
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE
ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS
UNDER RCW 35A.14.120
(Direct Petition Method)
/�
I
10% PETITION -k goldriceSo4l' Annex441on
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON
City Hall, c/o City Clerk
1055 South Grady Way.
Renton, WA 98055
CITY OF RENTON
J U L 1 8 2003
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
The undersigned are the owners of not less than ten percent (10%) in acreage, according to the
assessed valuation for general taxation, of property which they desire to annex to the City of
Renton.
We hereby advise the City Council of the City of Renton that it is our desire to commence
annexation proceedings under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120 of all or any part of the area
described below.
The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to
the City of Renton. A map (Exhibit 1) and legal description (Exhibit 2) are included as part of
this petition.
The City Council is requested to set a date not later than sixty days after the filing of this request
for a public meeting with the undersigned.
1. At such meeting, the City Council will decide whether the City will accept, reject or
geographically modify the proposed annexation;
2. The City Council will decide whether to require simultaneous adoption of a
proposed zoning regulation, such a proposal having been prepared and filed for the
area to be annexed as provided for in RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340; and,
3. The City Council will decide whether to require the assumption of existing city
indebtedness by the area to be annexed.
This page is the first of a group of pages containing identical text material. It is intended by the
signers that such multiple pages of the Notice of Intention be presented and considered as one
Notice of Intention. It may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which
cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention.
Page 1 of 2
WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who
knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she
is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes
herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition.
(Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the name that appears on record in the title to the
real estate.)
Page 2 of 2
H:\DMSION.S\P&TS\PLANNING\ANNEX\ 10% Notice of intent.doc\OD
Y
�ID
EDC-1 Q
o �
d Q
_o J l
'J This document h o graph ep�resentatlan, not quoronteed
L] to su �y xcurocy, intended fw cRy pury. "O only and
booed the beet informotion owiloble os of the dole shown.
This mop is for display pUrp-- only.
&oposed Hendrickson Annexation 0 300 600
re 3: Existing Structures Map
1 : 3600
Gl�Y o� Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Existing Structure
♦ i ♦ Alex Pietsch, Administrator —_
G. Del Rosario —Renton City Limits
�i°Nzo$ 23 July 2003 O Proposed Annexation Area
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP/Strategic Planning
Staff Contact...... Don Erickson (X-6581)
Subject:
Stoneridge Annexation Public Meeting
Exhibits:
10 % Notice of Intent Petition
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
AI ry:
For Agenda of:
August 18, 2003
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence. .
Ordinance .............
Resolution........... .
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information........ .
Approvals:
Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project..
X
X
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The City is in receipt of a 10 % Notice of Intent petition to initiate a direct petition method of
annexation for approximately 28.2 acres located at the City limits east of the Summerwind
Subdivision. The annexation site is bounded by Summerwind on the west and 1480' Avenue SE
on the east. Its northern boundary is defined by approximately SE 105`'', and the majority of its
southern boundary is the middle of NE 16`'' Street, if extended. Because of a small appendage
in its southeastern corner, the southernmost boundary of the annexation site is SR 900 (see
attached map) .
State law requires that the Council hold a meeting within 60 days of filing the 10 % Notice of
Intent to Commence Annexation to consider the proposed annexation and decide whether it will
accept, modify, or reject it. It Council accepts the annexation, it shall pass a motion
authorizing the circulation of the 50 % petition to annex to property owners and residents who
are registered voters living in the annexation area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Council set a Public Meeting date for September 8, 2003.
Stoneridge agnbill/ bh
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE c17YOFAEl"01V
ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS JUL 1 S 2003
UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 RECE�vED
(Direct Petition Method) C17-y CLERK'S OFFICE
10 % PETITION - ��57V 45iefWr ANNEXATION
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON
City Hall, c/o City Clerk
1055 South Grady Way.
Renton, WA 98055
The undersigned are the owners of not less than ten percent (10%) in acreage, according to the
assessed valuation for general taxation, of property which they desire to annex to the City of
Renton.
We hereby advise the City Council of the City of Renton that it is our desire to commence
annexation proceedings under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120 of all or any part of the area
described below.
The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to
the City of Renton. A map (Exhibit 1) and legal description (Exhibit 2) are included as part of
this petition.
The City Council is requested to set a date not later than sixty days after the filing of this request
for a public meeting with the undersigned.
1. At such meeting, the City Council will decide whether the City will accept, reject or
geographically modify the proposed annexation;
2. The City Council will decide whether to require simultaneous adoption of a
proposed zoning regulation, such a proposal having been prepared and filed for the
area to be annexed as provided for in RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340; and,
3. The City Council will decide whether to require the assumption of existing city
indebtedness by the area to be annexed.
This page is the first of a group of pages containing identical text material. It is intended by the
signers that such multiple pages of the Notice of Intention be presented and considered as one
Notice of Intention. It may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which
cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention.
Page 1 of 2
PETITION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL CALLING FOR
AN ANNEXATION BY PETITION UNDER REC 35A.14.120
(10% Petition to Commence Annexation — [Name o] Annexation
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
The undersigned property owners (the "Petitioners") who represent ownership of 10 percent or more of the acreage of the
proposed annexation area hereby give notice of our intention to commence annexation proceedings and call upon. the City
Council of the City of Renton, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City"), which is a code city, to authorize the
circulation of a Petition to Annex to the City of Renton that certain portion of unincorporated King County, Washington
the boundaries of which circumscribe the property that is legally -described on Exhibit A attached hereto and all existing
street rights -of -ways adjacent thereto. A map of the proposed 13ry /x= -.P:D4 5;E,I
Annexation area and surrounding properties is. .'attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Council also authorized
(see Exhibit Q.The proposed Annexation area is contiguous to the City of Renton.
PROPERTY OWNERS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
S�1g ture'and
Date Przrited lae
{��3 � I I
WNW c,
���n u
LDS i3ew&.4
Adis �.
$S S�f&b WANK
A �.cit al No
Sim Qf
1.13 U Aa :91-**XWT51W
BC-4ZCyueF," qffOO.r
"pia-3� = p66R
eeei
wa3oS - 90y6 0
0032366--9oxf
36s spa <
New 10% Petition.doc\
NG _ V _ • �U •(J I(t,IF
C
wok
40
O° arwt v
5 go
tiw tb • 1 i"'1
iIV
,!
2 ♦r a � i 4 — —
•
VOa
T ST — _ S
Alp
� a to S w Q !1• � ,r
12 ��� �0 1 s• 2 •.n.a wnrYy-�Siw ° �"r I1ll.si•
y •s" 1� fW
1 - t ' $ : IY 4" 4 KCSM 406017 — 8 03039001 CORRLOT 2 %of +sa"T
J a , eT06260 0 LOT
"•..�W� �Q =s t LOT 3
i !p y.►x � nib ! I ;= . ilrR• � �' ; �'� 1 �. O
W
21+; 2 i .,4 do#, y� JJ/:.�t: we i>: Is rm w, aI�.Fl► q., p,K v 614 c
N
�Y
�"iD dl Yl: 7io[ l.1LMf./I/. L�INs #'R. '1�7•+�•If •L Y� 1
it
ms_ N N
� AWAIT
as a4 � e�c
R 2! s4 y0
� ;I,"„ Y .;�' R "..0 .1� � � Lot a 1NO
M cn
tZ 2a�� Q a!
a.
IV
Ir
N!
'9O�'1 y1.� {�• �1" �O ` 1�IM i.•rtYM•f/R/IIGt e '
\e�� •` .r 27. 4 y A IN OR � � R LOt 4Ow
f•� � ►*'.c �"f.
`i
MW
to
I F �i �•"' It A ' GIs
it Lor
' \fir 'c°� � �e ' '` � • � *':`I" !� v � �.a Z ~ � *�`� �. ��°� I� �' ` , lllp�� "*i �
;lrnr-,ncha
:11'.. I ire
cz
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
AI a: ,
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div/Board.. Finance & IS Department.
Staff Contact...... Dave Tibbot, x-6874
Ronald Hansen x-6873
Subject:
Contract for Installation and Certification of Low
Voltage Data, CATV, and Paging Systems for Fire
Station No. 12
Exhibits:
Issue Memorandum
Contract with Veca Electric Company, Inc.
For Agenda of:
August 18, 2003
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution............
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information.........
X
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Legal Dept......... X
Council Concur Finance Dept...... X
Other ..... HR&RM.......... X
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... $52,821.36 Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... $55,000.00 Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Award contract for installation of low -voltage data, CATV, and paging systems wiring at new
Fire Station No. 12, as shown on the contract plans.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council approve the contract with Veca Electric Company, Inc. and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract.
Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh
�*R CITY OF RENTON
Mu
Finance & Information Services Department
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 11, 2003
To: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President
City Council Members
Via: Mayor Jesse Tanner
From: Dave Ti bbot, Information Services Manager, ext. 6874
Staff Contact: Ronald Hansen, Network Systems Supervisor, ext. 6873
Subject: Contract for Installation and Certification of Low Voltage
Data, CATV, and Paging Systems for Fire Station No. 12
ISSUE:
Fire Station No. 12 requires installation and certification of low voltage data, CATV, and paging systems
at Fire Station No. 12.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Finance & Information Services Department recommends that Council approve the contract with
Veca Electric Company, Inc., in the amount of $50,306.36, along with a 5 percent contingency of
$2,515.00. The total expenditure is $52,821.36.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
Installation and certification of low -voltage data, CATV, and paging systems are required in the Fire
Station and E.O.C. In addition to acting as the City's E.O.C., Fire Station No. 12 will also act as the
Information Services Disaster Recovery Center in the event City Hall should become uninhabitable. A
publicly advertised Request for Proposals was published. Two proposals were received. Veca Electric
Company, Inc. submitted the only responsive and qualified proposal.
CONCLUSION:
The contract amount falls within the budgeted funds established for this project. As such, staff
recommends that Council approve the contract.
VAR/dlf
cc: Jay Covington, CAO
Derek Todd, Assistant to the CAO
George McBride, Information Services
Ron Hansen, Network Systems Supervisor
CITY OF RENTON — FIRE STATION #12
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLE AND INFRASTRUCTURE
OWNER - CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT
DATE OF CONTRACT: July 18, 2003
CONTRACT NUMBER: CAG-03-120
PROJECT NUMBER: IS-2003-7
THIS AGREEMENT, in three (3) copies, made this eighteenth day of July 2003
By and between:
Owner: City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
And
Contractor: VECA Electric Company, Inc.
5614 7th Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98108
All correspondence, submittals and notices relating to or required under this Contract shall be sent in
writing to the above address; unless either party is notified in writing by the other, of a change of address.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Owner to obtain the services of the Contractor in conjunction with the
installation and certification of a Low Voltage Data, CAN, and Paging System for Fire Station #12,
hereinafter referred to as the "Project' or the "Work"; and
WHEREAS, the Contractor desires to perform such construction in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises made herein and other good and valuable
consideration, the following terms and conditions are hereby mutually agreed to, by and between the
Owner and the Contractor:
VECA ELECTRIC
JUL 2 5 2003
RECEIVED
CONTRACT FORM CF -1
CITY OF RENTON — FIRE STATION #12
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLE AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Article 1
DEFINITIONS
1.1 All terms in this Agreement, which are defined in the Request For Proposals, including the
Instructions to Bidders, and special and general terms and conditions, dated June 2003, shall have
the meanings designated therein.
1.2 The Contract Documents consist of this document and the entire Request for Proposals, including
the Instructions to Bidders and special and general terms and conditions, dated July 2003. These
documents form the contract, and all are as fully a part thereof as if attached to this Agreement or
repeated herein.
Article 2
STATEMENT OF WORK
2.1 The Contractor shall furnish and pay for all material, labor, tools, expendable supplies, and all utility
and transportation services necessary to perform and complete in a workmanlike manner, all of the
Work required for complete construction as specified in and in accordance with the Contract
Documents.
2.2 The Contractor shall further provide and pay for all related facilities described in any of the Contract
Documents, including all work expressly specified therein and such additional work as may be
reasonably inferred therefrom, saving and excepting only such items of work as are specifically
stated in the Contract Documents not to be the obligation of the Contractor. The totality of the
obligations imposed upon the Contractor by this Article and by all other provisions of the Contract
Documents, as well as materials to be installed and the labor to be performed is herein referred to as
the "Work".
Article 3
CONSULTANT
3.1 The Consultant for this project shall be:
Northwest Information Services, Inc.
10300 S. W. G.reenburg Road, Suite 280
Portland, Oregon 97223
Provided, however that the Owner may, without liability to the Contractor, unilaterally amend this
Article from time to time by designating a different person or organization to act as the Consultant
and or Project Manager at which time the person or organization so designated shall be the
Consultant for purposes of this Contract.
Article 4
TIME OF COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION
4.1 The Contractor shall commence work promptly upon the date established in the Notice to Proceed
Letter as issued by the Owner.
4.2 Time is of a critical nature for this Project. Projected time for Substantial Completion is on or before
August 29, 2003 with Final Completion of September 11, 2003. Should Contractor fail to achieve
Substantial Completion be the designated date, as adjusted for any extension of time, Owner shall
be entitled to recover from Contractor Owners actual damages resulting from such failure, including
without limitation any costs or expenses caused by such failure.
CONTRACT FORM CF-2
CITY OF RENTON — FIRE STATION #12
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLE AND INFRASTRUCTURE
4.3 If Final Completion is not achieved through no fault of the Contractor, the Owner may process final
payment and withhold 100 percent (100%) of the value of the uncompleted work. The Owner shall
determine this value.
Article 5
CONTRACT SUM
5.1 Provided the Contractor shall strictly and completely perform all of its obligations under the Contract
Documents, and subject only to additions and deductions by modification or as otherwise provided in
the Contract Documents, the Owner shall pay to the Contractor, in current funds and at the times
and installments hereinafter specified, the sum of Forty-six thousand one hundred and ninety-
five dollars ($46,195), (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract Sum").
5.2 The Contract Sum is based upon the following "Base Bids", "Alternates" and unit prices, which are
set forth in the Contract Documents and which are hereby accepted by the Owner.
1. $46,195
2. Add Alternate(s) Number(s): None Taken
Article 6
PROGRESS PAYMENTS
6.1 The Contractor hereby agrees that on the date established for updates for every month during the
performance of Work, the Contractor will deliver to the Owner payment request as outlined in
SECTION 00100.3.19.A-D of the Instructions to Bidders. This date may be changed upon mutual
agreement, stated in writing, between the Owner and the Contractor.
Article 7
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
7.1 The Contractor shall submit the Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond, Certification of
Insurance, Certification of Compliance with Washington tax laws, Public Work Contract Fee
Information Form, and Notice of Award of Public Works Contract as required by Contract
Documents, prior to commencement of work.
7.2 The Contractor shall comply with all provisions of the Prevailing Wage Rates of the State of
Washington, effective March 2003 as amended, attached by reference, governing all covered
workers for all work on this project.
7.3 The Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees
and volunteers, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability, or any portion thereof,
including attorneys fees and costs, arising from injury or death to persons, including injuries,
sickness, disease or death of Contractor's own employees, or damage to property by a negligent act
or omission of the Contractor, except for those acts caused by or resulting from a negligent act or
omission by the City and its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. It is specifically and
expressly understood the indemnification provided herein constitutes the Contractor's waiver of
immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51, RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification.
This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive
the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
CONTRACT FORM CF - 3
CITY OF RENTON — FIRE STATION #12
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLE AND INFRASTRUCTURE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The CITY OF RENTON (herein before called the "Owner") by resolution of the
CITY COUNSEL, authorizing and directing the same and adopted at a Counsel Meeting thereof, duly
called and held on August , 2003, has caused these presents to be signed, and the Veca Electric
Company, Inc. (herein before called the "Contractor") has caused these presents to be signed, by its duly
appointed officer as hereinafter attested, all as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF RENTON - OWNER
By:
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
Date
VECA Electric Company, Inc.
By: J tt Hood, Secretary Treasurer
Attest: C7`
CONTRACTFORM CF-4
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
SUBMITTING DATA
Dept/Div/Board.... Police
Staff Contact ........ Garry Anderson (XT 7503)
SUBJECT:
Interlocal cooperative agreement
to provide law enforcement mutual aid and
mobilization between the cities of King County,
University of Washington Police and King County.
EXHIBITS:
(1) Issue Paper
(2) Washington State Law Enforcement
Emergency Mutual Aid and Mobilization Plan
(3) Interlocal agreement between the Cities of
King County
(4) King County Mutual Aid Response
Protocols for Law Enforcement
(5) Resolution
Al11 #:
FOR AGENDA OF: August 18, 2003
AGENDA STATUS:
Consent .................
Public Hearing.....
Correspondence...
Ordinance .............
Resolutnion
Old Business
New Business
Study Session
Other
09
RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS:
Council Concur Legal Dept............ X
Finance Dept........
Other .....................
FISCAL IMPACT:
Expenditure Required .... $0 Transfer/Amendment....
Amount Budgeted .......... $0 Revenue Generated.......
SUMMARY:
The Federal Government has indicated that local jurisdictions must have a plan for response and be
participants in mutual aid agreements, including a statewide mutual aid system to be eligible for
reimbursements of expenses. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs have
developed the plan and presented it to the legislature for approval. This plan is modeled after the fire
service plan currently adopted statewide.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Washington State Law Enforcement Emergency Mutual Aid and Mobilization Plan, and
adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Interlocal agreement with the Cities
of King County regarding this matter.
(AGEN
CITY OF RENTON
POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 11, 2003
TO: Council President Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
Members of the City Council
VIA:!( Jesse Tanner, Mayor
FROM: Garry Anderson, Chief of Police"
SUBJECT: Statewide Law Enforcement Emergency Mutual Aid and
Mobilization Plan
ISSUE:
Local police resources can be quickly overwhelmed in a severe emergency or
terrorist attack. While police departments have had mutual aid agreements in
place for several years, there has never been a statewide policy for mutual aid and
subsequent cost recovery. The Washington State Association of Sheriffs and
Police Chiefs has taken the lead on developing the Washington State Law
Enforcement Mutual Aid/Mobilization Plan, hereinafter referred to as the Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The Emergency Management Division, State Military Department will use the
plan as the basis for mobilization of police service resources in Washington State
in response to major law enforcement incidents or other critical events and it
should provide the framework for developing legislation and funding resources
when mobilization occurs.
This Plan was created for three purposes:
>- To describe the regional and state organizations, the resources, and the
process for mobilization of police resources in Washington State in
response to a law enforcement incident or other critical event which
overwhelms local and mutual aid resources. This plan should also be
}- To provide an educational tool for all police service and other
emergency response personnel to familiarize them with the state and
regional mobilization system. This plan is being distributed to all
county sheriffs, police departments, state and federal law enforcement
agencies, fire chiefs, fire agencies and local emergency management
agencies.
>- To be used as an "all risk" plan for the response of public police service
resources in Washington State to any emergency situation where they
are needed for the protection of life and property.
Recent history has shown this to be a time of civil unrest, riot, global terrorism and
our own homegrown natural disasters. As policing becomes more complex and
the demands on local police become greater it has become more imperative to
develop and formalize a Statewide Plan for Mutual Aid and Mobilization when
local resources become overwhelmed.
There are currently no means available to identify costs associated with a mutual
aid response and to adopt a mechanism to pay for those costs, specifically
detailing those costs and establishing who shall be responsible for them. The
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police have agreed to develop
this plan for the State and then to present it to the Washington State Legislature for
consideration and adoption by the state. WASPC envisions that this mobilization
plan will be modeled after, and very similar to the current statewide plan that the
fire service currently has in the state of Washington.
In a broader context, the United States Government has indicated that in its "First
Responder Initiative Grant Process" that local jurisdictions must have a plan for
response as well as be participants in mutual aid agreements, including a statewide
mutual aid system. This proposed plan would meet those requirements and enable
the City of Renton to avail itself of those grants if needed.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Washington State Law Enforcement Emergency Mutual Aid and
Mobilization Plan, and adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to
sign the Interlocal agreement with the Cities of King County regarding this matter.
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Washington State
Law Enforcement
Mobilization Plan
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Draft Law Enforcement plan
Introduction
Emergency incident progression
Purpose, requirements, and authority
Mobilization procedure
Mobilization flow chart
Roles and responsibilities
Reimbursement of costs
Law enforcement agency costs
Equipment
Additional costs
Mobilization reimbursement claims and review process
Personal injury
Liability coverage
Appendix 1
Delegation of authority
pg 6
pg 8
pg 10
pg 15
pg 17
pg 18
pg 22
pg 25
pg 26
pg 27
pg 28
pg 29
pg 30
2
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) have long recognized the need for the
ability to rapidly respond law enforcement officers to major emergencies statewide. Beginning in 1977
WASPC started working on the development of the Peace Officers Powers and Reform Act and Mutual
Aid Plan.
On July 1, 1985 the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Power Act, RCW 10.93 became law. The
WASPC Mutual Aid Committee then began working on a Mutual Aid Plan. After numerous meeting and
work sessions, the Mutual Aid Plan was presented to the general membership of WASPC at the fall
conference in Kennewick, 1986. The membership approved the plan, which was published and distributed
in early 1987 as the Washington Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Plan.
The Mutual Aid Committee then began work on a mobilization plan, which was not completed. The
Washington Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Plan remained in effect, but was not exercised or utilized
beyond local jurisdictions and gradually became dormant.
In 1992, in the wake of the Spokane "Firestorm" in October 1991, the Washington State Legislature
directed the creation of a Washington State Fire Services Resource Mobilization Plan. The first formal
adoption and approval of this plan was completed in July 1994, only a few days before the major
mobilization to Chelan County for the Tyee/Leavenworth Fire Complexes. The plan proved to be very
successful in management of these fires and others since. The Washington State Fire Services
Resource Mobilization Plan has since been revised in 1995 and 1999. It is included in the Washington
State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan as ESF4 (Firefighting).
In the late 1990s numerous major law enforcement situations occurred in Washington State including;
the Washington State University riot May 3, 1998, the Maka Tribe whale hunt, Clallam County,
August 1999; the World Trade Organization rioting in Seattle, November 1999 and the response to
Year 2000 concerns in December 1999 — January 2000. In addition to these critical incidents,
suspected international terrorist Ahmed Ressam was apprehended at Port Angeles in December 1999
with bomb making materials. He has since been linked to Osama Bin Laden's organization, Al Qaede.
These major law enforcement incidents all point to the increased frequency of incidents requiring
mutual aid and mobilization of police resources and led WASPC President Doug Blair to request
development of an updated mutual aid / mobilization plan.
Using the 1987 Washington Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Plan and the 1999 Washington State Fire
Services Resource Mobilization Plan as a starting point, the WASPC Emergency Management/Mutual
Aid Committee began work on this project in January 2000. Recognizing the effectiveness of the fire
mobilization plan, the committee decided to model law enforcement mobilization in the same manner.
This establishes consistency between the police and fire services and should lend itself well when
mobilization of both services is required (as is often the case). Adoption of the Incident Command
System by law enforcement further facilitates this process.
Efforts to create legislation which would create a Washington State Law Enforcement Mobilization
Plan failed in 2000 and again in 2001. The Terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 refocused attention
on the need for this plan. As the Federal government tries to decide how to distribute 3.2 billion dollars
of federal aid to state and local communities to combat and respond to terrorist events, it is paramount
that we establish a plan that will enable law enforcement resources in the state of Washington to
respond in a timely, organized and efficient manner.
Effective with the approval of the general WASPC membership at the spring conference in Wenatchee,
May 2002, the Washington State Law Enforcement Mutual Aid /Mobilization Plan, hereinafter
referred to as the Plan, is established.
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
The Emergency Management Division, State Military Department, in co-operation with WASPC can use
the plan as the basis for mobilization of police service resources in Washington State in response to major
law enforcement incidents or other critical events and it should provide the framework for developing
legislation and funding resources when mobilization occurs.
This Plan was created for three purposes:
➢ To describe the regional and state organizations, the resources, and the process for mobili2ation of
police resources in Washington State in response to a law enforcement incident or other critical
event which overwhelms local and mutual aid resources. This plan should also be used to
mobilize fill-in resources to support communities, which have expended their resources at
emergency scenes.
➢ To provide an educational tool for all police service and other emergency response personnel to
familiarize them with the state and regional mobilization system. This plan is being distributed to
all county sheriffs, police departments, state and federal law enforcement agencies, fire chiefs, fire
agencies and local emergency management agencies.
➢ To be used as an "all risk" plan for the response of public police service resources in Washington
State to any emergency situation where they are needed for the protection of life and property.
4
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Emergency Incident Progression
The chart below is a graphic representation of the significant resource providers to a law
enforcement incident or other major emergency incident, which could involve regional,
state, and federal resources. Time is reflected from the point of incident beginning until
the incident ends
State mobilization
Mutual aid resonders
Local responders
All resources become State mobilization
assets
The graph portrays the progression of an incident. At the outset, the incident jurisdiction
responds utilizing local resources, blue. That jurisdiction will remain involved in the
event through its duration, regardless of its magnitude. If the event is within the resource
capabilities of the local jurisdiction, it will be handled by that jurisdiction exclusively.
If the event escalates beyond the local capability mutual aid resources will augment the
local jurisdiction. Mutual aid is represented by the red line. They respond to the incident
without compensation, on a voluntary basis, when the incident jurisdiction requests them
and may be terminated at any time by the chief law enforcement officer of the agency
providing the mutual aid. Mutual aid resources are not automatically requested after the
pasage of a certain amount of time or the expenditure of specific resources. Mutual aid is
invoked when the incident jurisdiction realizes that it cannot contain or control the
incident using its own resources. In most situations, mutual aid resources, when
combined with the other local assets, can achieve incident stabilization and control. If the
event overwhelms all available local and mutual aid resources, state mobilization of
additional law enforcement resources is warranted.
The green line represents the mobilization of law enforcement resources by the state
according to the mobilization plan. This will occur when the incident commander
dertemines that both local and mutual aid resources are overwhelmed by the incident and
events and a request for state mobilization is made. Once again, this action is not fixed
by the occurrence of some specific event or passage of time. A mobilization request is a
judgment decision suported by an assessment of the event at the scene which prompts the
incident commander to conclude that the resources present/available will not be able to
stabilize and control it.
Once mobilization occurs, all local and mutual aid resources become state mobilized
resources. Additional available resources from beyond the local mutual aid network will
be summoned in response according to this plan.
Future amendments
The development of mobilization and reimbursement procedures for efficient movement
and equitable reimbursement of law enforcement resources statewide is a dynamic
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
process. Additional lessons gained from the experience of actual mobilization of law
enforcement resources to major emergency incidents of all types will prompt future
revisions and refinement to this plan.
6
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Purpose,
Requirements and Authority
Purpose
The purpose of the mobilization Plan is to provide a process to quickly notify, assemble,
and deploy law enforcement personnel and equipment to any local jurisdiction in the state
that has expended all available local and mutual aid resources in attempting to plan for
and or control an emergency incident.
This plan will only be utilized in response to an emergency or disaster situation that has n
exceeded the capabilities of available local resources, including those available through
existing mutual aid agreements..
Mutual aid requirements
This plan provides for mobilization when:
• All available local and mutual aid resources have been depleted or committed.
Or
• In addition to local resources, the deployment of additional resources, as determined
by the Region Law Enforcement Mobilization Plan, is required
Mobilization is not a replacement for mutual aid
The provisions within this plan provide for mobilzation when mutual aid resources are
inadequate or over extended.
Mutual aid agreements provide for rapid assistance from neighboring law enforcement
jurisdictions to meet the immediate need requirements of an emergency situation
demanding resources beyond those available form the local jurisdiction. The key
elements of mutual aid quick response from closest resources cannot be provided by state
mobilizations.
Rapid intervnetion by mutual aid resources can secure control overan emergency
indicent which may otherwise continue to escalate. Mutual aid is an essential element of
local law enforcement emergency response.
All local law enforcement authorities should join in county -wide mutual aid
agreements
Regional mutual aid agreements are encouraged
At a minimum, mutual aid agreements should encompass all adjacent law
enforcement jurisdictions, including those in other counties, regions, or states as
applicable.
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Extensive and deep mutual aid networks between local law enforcement authorities
provide optimal emergency incident response and control potential, thereby maximizing
community protection. The parameters for an authorization of state law enforcement
resource mobilization proved for the recognition of emergency situations which place
excessive demands on mutual aid. It is the intent of those parameters that mutual aid be
extended and strengthened insofar as possible
Declaration of State Mobilization
Authorization of state law enforcement resources mobilization may be requested when
one of the following occurs:
o All available local and mutual aid resources have been expended in attemting to
stabilize and control an emergency incident presenting a clear and present danger
to life and property.
o A non -stabilized incident or simultaneous incidents presenting a clear and present
danger to life and property, and requiring, in addition to local resources and
mutual aid, the deployment of additional resources as established by the region
law enforcement mobilization plan approved by the State Law Enforcement
Policy Board.
Region law enforcement response plans shall provide for incident and resource situation
and status tracking to ensure that the Region Resource Coordinator is aware of the
development of any of the above situations.
Support of Mobilized Resources
All incidents for which law enforcement resources mobilization is requested and
authorized must be managed and operated using the NIIMS Incident Command System.
Mobilization support objective
To establish a person responsible for overall coordination of mobilized resources
Authority of State. Adjutant General
It is the responsibility of the Adjutant General to mobilize emergency response under the
Washington State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. The Washington State
Patrol shall provide personnel to serve as the State Law Enforcement Resource
Coordinator when the mobilization plan is activated.
Under authority and to effect the implementation of this statute, the State Law
Enforcement Resource Coordinator shall appoint a Mobilization Incident Commander
(MIC) for any authorized mobilization of law enforcment resources, from an established
list of qualified personnel.
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Additionally, the State Law Enforcement Regions shall provide staff to help the State.
l Law Enforcement Coordinator manage the acquisition and disposition of resources and
shall provide incident command staff to the MIC.
The MIC and his/her command staff shall be selected from an established list of qualified
individuals prepared by WASPC. The MIC shall be appointed as soon as practical after
the decision to activate the mobilization plan.
Mobilization Support Team
Once assigned and after a briefing (incident status and potential, resource status and
requirements; incident management), the MIC shall activate a Mobilization Support
Team (MST) as deemed necessary. The Mobilization Support Team may have the
following general staff positions appointed:
■ Operations Section Chief
■ Plans Section Chief
■ Logistics Section Chief
Additional command and general staff positions may be filled, if in the opinion of the
MIC, the incident requires them.
Additional command staff may include the following:
■ PIO liaison
■ Safety officer
Additional General staff may include the following:
■ Resource unit leader
■ Situation unit leader
■ Finance Section Chief
Incident Command
An incident may be under the command of:
■ The local jurisdictions IC
■ Unified Command (Local IC with other jurisdictions)
■ Local / region incident management team
■ Mobilization Incident Support Team*
*Delegation of Authority is required to transfer command
The MIC will not automatically become the Incident Commander but may be requested
to assume that role by the local host jurisdiction.
If the incident remains under the local IC or a local / region command team, the MIC and
the MST will coordinate with the IC or unified command structure for the incident and
support the logistical and operational needs of the mobilized resources.
9
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
By statutory provision:
0�5
Upon implementation of state law enforcement mobilization, the host agency
resources shall become state law enforcement mobiliztion resources consistent C�
with the law enforcement mobiliztion plan. (RCW 38.54. VM
Of paramount responsibility of the MIC is to ensure that mobilized resources are matched
to incident requirements, i.e., that mobilized resources are deployed and utilized in
keeping with their training, experience, and abilities under the direction of qualifies
command, thereby ensuring effective and safe operations. The MIC has authority to
assign, reassign and demobilize resources in keeping with this mandate.
In the event that the MIC is not from the host jurisdiction, the MIC will work in
cooperation with the authorities of the local jurisdictions to ensure that local policy, as
established by the local agency administrators and priorities for control are complied with
insofar as possible.
Transfer of Incident Command to Mobilization Incident Commander
The local host IC may wish to transfer command of the incident to the MIC for a variety
of reasons, Examples may include:
■ Insufficient expereicne and qualifications for major incident management
■ Multiple incidents within the jurisdiction
■ Other demands precluding sole concentraiton of mobilized incident
■ Insufficient qualified Incident Command personnel available to staff multiple
operational periods
This requires a Delegation of Authority from the local jurisdiction administrator to the
MIC.
Delegation of Authority
The Delegation ofAuthority is a written transfer of authority vesting the MIC with
control and management of the incident. Delegation (from agency administrator / unified
agency administrator group) of full responsibility and authority for incident management
is desribed under certain terms and conditions (see Appendix XX for model delegation of
Authority Form)
Role and responsibility of the Mobilization Incident commander
■ Fills Mobilization Support Team positions with qualified personnel
■ Joins Unified incident / area comand as IC for all mobilized resources
■ May assume overall incident command and responsibility and authority under a
Delegation of Authority, in which event the MIC:
■ Works in cooperation with authorities of the local jurisdictions.
■ Establishes incident area priorities and objectives
■ Determines strategies
10
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
■ Provides coordination and communications between local jurisidictions and
incident
■ Ensures that mobilized resources are matched to incident requirements
■ Orders assigns and demobilizes mobilized resources as necessary to support
incident objectives
■ Procures logistical support, as required, to sustain mobilized resources
■ Coordinates and supports area command authority if established. In this event,
another MIC must be activated to take that position with area command.
■ Provides incident information to the state emergency operations center (EOC) and
the state Law Enforcement Coordinator through established communications
channels.
■ Collaborates with the State Law Enforcement Resource Coordinator on critical
issues concerning mobilized resources.
■ Interfaces with multi -agency command at an incident
■ Provides after -action report input to the State Emergency Managent Division
(EMD), Plans Section (law enforcment mobilization)
At a minimum, input should include the following
■ Mission number / name of incident
■ Person / agency reporting
■ Summary of what worked well
■ Summary of what needs improving
Authority
The Mobilization Plan is developed in support of RCW 38 54, the state Law Enforcement
Mobilization Act.
In implementing this act, consistency will be sought with:
■ RCW 38.52 governing emergency management
■ RCW 35, governing cities and towns
■ RCW 10 governing law enforcement
■ RCW 9 and 9A criminal code
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Mobilization Procedure
The Mobilization Procedure is as follows
Local Jurisdiction Responsibility
Upon determining that:
• All available local and mutual aid resources have been used; and ,
• Available resources are inadequate to achieve incident stabilization and control and
additional resources are required, the the local Incident Commander shall determine:
✓ Specific numbers and types of law enforcement resources required
✓ Functional assignment intended for mobilized resources.
✓ Assembly point and contact for mobilized resources
✓ Radio frequency assignment for incoming mobilized resources
• To request state mobilization resources, contact the Regional Law Enforcement
Resource Coordinator and provide the following information:
✓ Name of incident commander
✓ Current description of the situation
✓ Detail of local and mutual aid resources involved
✓ Confirmation that local mutual aid resources are expended or depleted
✓ Specific description of additional resource needs (number and type)
✓ Intended functional assignment of mobilized resources
✓ Location of the local mobilization point (assembly area)
✓ Name of the contact person for incident check in and
✓ Radio frequency assignment for incoming mobilized resources
Use the mobilization request checklist (see Appendix XX) to gather information.
Region Law Enforcement ResourceCoordinator
(Regions Receiving or Requesting Resources)
• Contact the State Emergency Management Division Emergency Operations
Center. Relay the local jurisdiction information and
✓ Request the needed resources.
• Record the responding resources information provided by the State
Emergency Management Division Emergency Operation Center, including
✓ Assigned mission number
✓ Resource request numbers.
• Convey mobilized resources information and status to the IC.
Washington State Military Department, Emergency Management Division,
Emergency Operations Center WMD, EMD, EOC
• Receive the mobilization request with required supporting information.
• Make a determination to authorize mobilization
• Assign a mission number to the emergency event
• Activate the state EOC, as appropriate
• Notify other state agencies as necessary
• Confirm with the affected Region Law Enforcement Resource Coordinator that
mobilization has been declared
12
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
• Notify designated (duty scheduled) Mobilization Incident Commander (MIC) of
incident. Provide MIC with incident information and contact number
• Ensure state law enforcement resource coordination, tracking, incident
timekeeping, verification, and related law enforcement resource allocation
activities.
• Obtain / confirm current commitment of region law enforcement resources to the
incident. ,
• Access a commitment of resources from the nearest affected region
• The principle of closest resources should be adhered to insofar as possible
• Assign request numbers to resources being mobilized
• Responding agencies will be provided with both (1) mission number and (2)
request numbers
• Direct resources to incident mobilization assembly areas as designated by the
Regional Law Enforcement Resources Coordinator
• Notify the Region Law Enforcement, Resource Coordinator of the resources
ordered and responding.
Responding Region Law Enforcement Resource Coordinator (Region Providing
Resources)
• Utilize Region Law Enforcement Mobilization Plan and resource lists to meet
resource requests
• Confirm to the Washington State EOC within one hour that resource request order
will be filled
• Provide responding resources with the assigned mission number and request
numbers.
• To be eligible for cost reimbursement, a responding jurisdiction must obtain both
mission and request numbers prior to responding.
Responding Region - Resources
• Assemble and depart from home jurisdiction for region assembly or incident
within two (2) hours
• Team.leader: Complete Mobilization Manifest form (MOBE 5) prior to departure
from final assembly point to the incident. Two copies of this multi -part form will
be used for incident check -in.
• Travel to the incident assembly area, check in, and receive incident assignment
13
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Mobilization Flow Chart
Incident Commander
(Request)
(notify)— Local Dispatch
Local DEM (request) (reply)
Regional Law Enforcement
Resources Coordinator/agency
(Name and phone number)
(request) (reply)
IF
EMD, Camp Murray
(800) 258 5990
(notify) (reply)
Local DEM Mobi]'ze Other Regions
Transit to Receiving
Jurisd'ction Staging Area
Check -in
Response to incident
Mutual aid and local resources are depleted
Authority to request mobiliztion resides with
Police Chief
Sheriff
Local DEM
Disaster support functions provided by
receiving jurisdictions
24 hour regional contact point
Decision to Mobilize
(24-hour state contact point)
Local assembly Time (2hours maximum)
14
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Roles and responsibilities
Local Jurisdiction Receiving Mobilization
Prerequisite .
See declaration of State Mobilization,
Jurisdiction receiving resources
Request Resources
Request in accordance with the mobilization plan
■ Mutual aid request
■ Regional Resource Coordinator
■ State Mobilization
Information needed by responding resources
The regional Resource Coordinator shall assist the Mobilization Incident Commander to
insure the following information and services are available to the responding resources.
• Operations
✓ Situation report
✓ Mission tasking
✓ Command and control
■ Delegation of authority
✓ Communications
✓ Information on incident communications frequencies should be disseminated
as soon as possible by the communications Unit
✓ Secure mobilization assembly points
✓ Proceedure for resource tracking
• Logistical support
✓ Guides, maps, etc, as required
✓ Food
✓ Shelter
✓ Fuel and other support services
✓ Transportation
• After Action Report
✓ Provide input for an after action report to be completed by the Washington State
Department of Emergency Mangement.
Jurisdiction providing resources
Preparation
Maintain:
✓ List of available resources (utilize appendix c.2)
✓ Reference copy of the mobilization plan
✓ Contact procedures with region Law Enforcement Resource Coordinator
15
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
✓ Decision mechanism to send resources
Mobilization
Only personnel and equipment that meet the following will be committed to any state
wide mobilzaiton request;
✓ Qualified personnel, appropriately equipped and trained for identified mission
✓ Accept or decline mission request within 1 hour
✓ Capable of 72-hour deployment
✓ With common communications
✓ With appropriate supervision
Law Enforcement Region
Preparation
• Know local jurisdiction roles and responsibilities
• Know how to access Washington State EMD and be able to relay the necessary
incident information for mobilization.
• Develop and maintain an approved Regional Law Enforcement Mutual aid plan.
Region plan must;
✓ Meet the basic requirements for mutual aid plans as established by WASPC
✓ Be compatible with the local mutual aid nets and other interagency or interlocal
agreements for law enforcement resource response
✓ Provide a communications plan to ensure communications in the event of an in
region mobilization.
• Maintain a 24 hour contact point to;
✓ Receive requests from local jurisdictions for resources
✓ Act as an information resource for WSEMD during implementation of this plan
✓ Contact the regional law enforcement coordinator
Regional Law Enforcement Coordinator
✓ Maintains current Region Resources lists.
✓ Provides current resource lists to WSEMD
✓ Receive resource requests from the local jurisdiction
✓ Confirms status of local and mutual aid resources already in use
✓ Obtains required information from requesting jurisdiction for State EOC duty
officer
✓ Obtain mobilization authority and mission number from the state EOC
✓ Assign issued mission numbers to mobilized in region resources
✓ Advise requesting jurisdiction of the state EMD action in response to request for
state mobilization
✓ Send planned resources from within region after state law enforcement
mobiliztion is authorized
16
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
✓ Utilizes regional resource lists to meet resource requests
! ✓ Confirms to WSEMD that the region can meet the request within one hour
✓ Secures from WSEMD mission numbers for non law enforcement support
resources
✓ Provides mobilization plan overviews and training within their region
Resource Ordering and Tracking
■ Each region must designate or establish a 24 hour EOC through which law
enforcement resources within the region are coordinated.
■ Only resources tasked by the regional resource coordinator and assigned mission
numbers will be eligible for state reimbursement.
■ All requests for resources must be made through the regional resource coordinator
■ The regional Resource Coordinator shall obtain the WSEMD tracking and mission
number prior to committing region resources.
■ Local agencies and dispatch centers shall not accept resource requests placed directly
by outside agencies.
■ Regions shall not shop for resources outside their region.
■ Resource tracking must start at the beginning of an incident.
Local/Region Incident Management team
The region will develop local region Incident Management Teams (IMT) and provide for
their activation as part of the region plans. Early deployment of Incident Management
Teams will ensure enhanced incident control and management and smoother integration
of mobilized resources into the field.
Roles and responsibilities
Washington State Military Department EMD and WSP
Military Department, Emergency Management Division
Preparation
■ Maintain 24 hour contact availability through the Stae EMD duty officer
■ Develop and maintain standard operation guidelines to implement department roles
and responsibilites
■ Maintain and operate the state EOC for use by all state coordinating agencies
■ Review and approve the mobilization plan
Mobilization
■ Receive notice of incident and resource requests from regional law enforcement
coordinator
■ Provide required information of the adjutant eneral for a decision to authorize
mobilization
Activate the State EOC and advise the Washington State Patrol and other state
agencies as necessary of the incident.
17
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
■ Assign incident mission number
■ Assist local jurisdictions with appropriate support f inctions ( food, shelter, fuel,
communications, emergency public information, and personnel) as needed and
requested.
■ Receive and pay mobilization reimbursement claims
■ Prepare and coordinate an after -action report of all mobilization efforts.
WSP
Preparation
■ Develop and maintain standard operation guidelines to implement state mobilization
requests
■ Maintain a resource order and tracking system that is compatible with the state fire
mobilization system.
■ Assign personnel to EMD to facilitate a mobilization request
Mobilization Emergency operations resource coordinator
■ Provide state coordination of law enforcement activities at the state EOC
■ Access and order law enforcement resources from non -affected regions as provided
by the mobilization plan as requested by the host regional law enforcement
coordinator to local jurisdictions.
■ Assign request numbers for all mobilized resources
■ Support affected local jurisdictions in tra king incident costs and completing
administrative paperwork
■ Participate in preparation of the after -action report
■ Collect, maintain, and archive the original documentaion package after
demobilization. Distribute copy of the documentaion package to the host jurisdiction
and the MIC.
Mobilization Field operations
■ Assist in support and preparation for incoming mobilized law enforcement resources
■ Coordinate with region coordinator in assessment of courrent and projected
commitment of mobilized law enforcement resources to the incident.
■ Advise mobilization incident commander (MIC) of any special needs or requirements
■ Confirm and clarify single point ordering process
■ As requested by MIC, assist in prepartion of the first work period, incident action
Plan (IAP)
■ Coordinate communications between the MIC, state EOC, and the requesting region
■ Ensure that resources are tracked at the incident.
■ Verify the accuracy of resource documentation.
■ Coordinate with local authorities as necessary to evaluate continued need for
mobilized resources.
is
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Reimbursement of costs
In accordance with the mobilization plan, the Washington Military Department,
Emergency Management Division, will reimburse law enforcement agencies for the
eligible costs incurred while mobilized for a major emergency incident. In the event that
a mobilization incident later qualifies as a presidential or other federally reimbursable
disaster, the reimbursement policy will not change with regard to the local jurisdiction
participants. Local jurisdictions will be fully reimbursed for their eligible mobilization
expenses.
The amount and type of equipment and personnel mobilized and tasked to a major
emergency incident will be reasonable and necessary as determined by the incident
commander, will be mobilized according to this plan, and will be subject to the later.
review of the Washington Military Department.
Law enforcement agency costs, including personnel and equipment will be reimbursed as
provided below.
Authority for payment
The mobilization plan and the enabling law, Chapter 38.54 RCW, provide for
reimbursement of costs to law enforcement jurisdictions only. The logistical support of
mobilized resources is an inherent requiremnt of mobilzation and its procurement is
deemed to be within and essential to mobilization. The costs of necessary 1 gistial
support are therefore reimbursable as a mobilization cost.
The mobilization Incident Commander MIC, has the authority to and shall procure
the logistical support required to sustain the resources mobilized.
For the efficient and expeditious acquistion of required rsources of any kind, the MIC
or finance section chief may authorize direct vendor contracts. This process
minimizes the potential for error or delay in obtaining critical resources or paying
costs.
A request number is required for all resources. The Washington State Patrol
representative at WMD EOC will issue all request numbers.
Incident time
An emergency incident requiring the implementation of the mobilization plan for
resource procurement, incident management, stabilization, and control may escalate to
that point virtually instantly or over a period of time.
Some Law enforcement incidents, will require mobilization of resources prior to an
event for planning, prestaging and event management.
19
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Incident time for which costs will be paid begins at the time of mobilization
authorization. It ends with the end of the incident assignment for non -local mobilized
resources and with the declared end of the mobilization, as determined by the MIC for
local law enforcement resources.
Demobilization
Demobilization is the responsibility of the MIC and will be exercised in a reasonable and
prudent manner consistent with personnel safety and incident stabilization.
Demobilization will be determined in consultation with the requesting agencies unified or
area command.
Claims
Claims for the reimbursement of costs as provided by this plan shall be made using the
forms provided.
Law enforcement resource mobilizion costs are paid to responding law enforement
agencies by the EMD of the WSMD. EMD then requests recovery of expenses through
appropriation and or federal disaster funding. Timeliness is important for this process to
function.
Claims must be submitted to the WSP at EMD within sixty days of the end of the
mobilization.
Exceptions may be allowed only with notice to and approval from, the EMD.
Responsibilities
Sheriff or police chief providing resources
The chief law enforcment officer providing resources to a state law enforcement
mobilization will keep accurate records of resources and costs, including;
■ Vehicles and equipment types and rates
• Responding personnel and assigned positons
■ Required replacement and support personnel; positions, persons replaced, and times.
■ Times of dispatch/response
■ Personnel compensation, regular time and overtime
■ Other expenses incurred directly for mobilization
■ Copies of the ICS 212 check in and Mobilization Manifest forms completed prior to
resource departure
Upon the return of mobilized resources to the home agency, the chief law enforcement
officer will:
■ Confirm and verify personnel and equipment time reports from the incident
■ Prepare, verify, and certify all compensation, payment, and reimbursement claims for
all personnel, apparatus, and related mobilization expenses. Use incident
documentation and agency records to support all claims.
■ Submit the completed claims package to the WSP WMD.
20
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
l Mobilized resources
Prior to departure from home jursidiction
■ Complete ICS 211 check in form
■ Mobilization Manifest MOBE 5
■ Personnel Time Report MOBE 1 top section for each mobilized person
■ Equipment Report (MOBE 6) (top section)
■ Leave a copy of each form at the home jurisdiction
At incident
■ Provide completed forms to incident time unit at check in
■ Maintain a detailed record of all assignments, incidents, activities, and times in the
unit log and turn copies into time unit each day
At demobilization
■ Complete ics 221 (demobilization checkout) as instructed by demob unit
■ Verify and sign all personnel time reports and equipment reports. Take a copy of
each completed report form back to home jurisdiction
■ Provide copies of completed unit logs to the demobilization unit.
Upon return to home jurisdiction
■ Record final entries in Unit Log (return trip details and time of arrival)
■ Submit all copies of incident records, time reports, ics forms and unit logs to the
home jurisdiction for documentation and preparation of claims
Finance section at incident
■ Maintain complete time records for all mobilized resources
■ Prepare, authorize and maintain all vendor contracts
■ Verify and document claims.
Planning section at incident
■ Ensure and assemble complet documentation and records for all mobilized resources
at demobilization, including time records, unit logs and supporting documentation for
all claims
■ Assemble, organize and maintain the complete incident Documentation Package
■ Provide the Incident documentation package to the MIC. The MIC will later provide
copies of thw Washington State Patrol, EMD and chief officer of host jurisdictions.
Washington State Patrol / EMD
■ Coordinate communications between MIC, state EOC.
• Ensure resource tracking at the incident
■ Verify the accuracy of resource documentation
■ Report authorized resources with respective request numbers to state EOC supervisor
• Collect all claims packages from responding local jurisdictions, verify the claims, and
forward claims to the WMD EMD.
21
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Agency costs
Personnel
Certified costs incurred by the law enforcement agency for the mobilization will be
submitted to the Washinton State Military Department for reimbursement
Costs incurred by law enforcement agency employees tasked to a mobilization by their
home agency are considered reimbursable costs.
Resource order authority
A request number shall be asigned to each mobilized unit or overhead personnel. The
request number is the authority reference for all claims.
Mobilized personnel
Personnel who are regular paid or career employees of a law enforcement agency and
who are tasked to the mobilization by their home agency will continue to be employees
of that agency at all times.
Regular paid employees will be compensated in accordance with the policies, labor
agreements, and practices of the employer agency.
Support personnel
Law enforcement costs for personnel working in support role, such as personnel
responsible for coordinating the mobilization effort for their jurisdiction, may be
reimbursed for the hours spent on that activity, to include the mobilization itself,
coordination of the response team during the event, demobilization, and record keeping.
Reimbursable costs are those above and beyond normal and usual costs which are
incurred specific to the mobilization effort.
Replacement personnel
The excess costs of personnel required as replacements for mobilized personnel will be
paid.
Excess costs are those costs incurred over and above the costs that are normal and usual
for regular operations. (e.g., overtime)
Cost measure
The measure to be used for the personnel costs of law enforcement agencies is the total
cost of compensation (TCC), including benefits.
22
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Vehicles and equipment
Law enforcement vehicles and equipment utilized in the mobilization including patrol
cars, special vehicles and command vehicles will be eligible for reimbursement for the
cost of operation.
Vehicle milage rate is paid for all vehicles used during the mobilization. Standard
applicable state rates for vehicle milage will be utilized.
Support units
Support units and command vehicles will be paid mileage allowance only for mileage
incurred as necessary for the operaion. The mileae rate includes all costs of operation
(fuel, insurance, maintenance, repair and operation)
Equipment /vehicle loss or damage
Vehicle or equipment loss or damage for which any reimbursement of cost may be sought
must be reported to the on -scene division supervisor or higher officer when the
loss/damage is incurred, so that the circumstances can be confirmed and a record made.
A damage loss report containing pertinent information concerning the loss or damage,
supported by the record in the Unit Log, is required for the support of any claims made.
Utilize the lost/damaged equipment notice form (MOBE 9)
Limitations
Cost of vehicle or equipment repair or replacement due to loss or damage as a direct
result of mobilization activity will be paid provided that such loss or damage was not
caused by the willful misconduct, negligence or bad faith of the claimant.
The only costs which are reimbursable under this provision are for physical loss or
damage caused directly by the dynamics of the emergency event.
Examples; Losses incurred due to rioting crowds or violent criminal acts.
Losses resulting from flood, mud flow or volcanic activity.
The costs of mechanical or other physical damage repair are deemed to be included
whithin the milage rate paid for vehicles. There is no reimbursement for these costs.
Examples; Mechanical breakdowns, including major items (e.g., motor, transmission,
differential).
Body damage, minor (e.g., scratched paint from bursh and trees, or
damage sustained from running through fences) or major (e.g., body and
fender damage incurred).
Costs incurred due to incidental loss or damage to equipment or personal property are not
reimbursable.
The costs of temprary replacement for lost or damaged equipment (e.g., rental expense)
while permanent repairs or replacement are being pursued are not reimbursable.
23
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Additional costs
Telephone
Business call charges (land line or cellular telephone) incurred by personnel that are
working at the mobilizaton site will be reimbursed.
Per Diem
Fire agencies will be reimbursed for their actual costs in accordance with pre-existing
perdiem agreements, except when food is otherwise provided for, such as in a camp. If
no pre-existing per diem agreement exists, per diem will be at state rates.
Personnel Accommodations
The accomodations established for the housing, feeding and support of emergency
response personnel shall be used when provided. Alternative accommodations may be
utilized at the expense of the user; the costs of alternative accommodations are not
reimbursable.
Other expenses
Other expenses may be authorized for reimbursement on a case-bycase basis, such other
expenses will be requested and approved by the MIC prior to incurring the cost. A
request number will be required.
Claim forms
All claims for expenses and reimbursements are to be made utilizing the forms in the
Washington State Fire Mobilization Claims Reimbursement Packet.
To streamline the incident check -in process and ensure that all information
is acurate, all mobilized resources are to arrive at the incident with resource -
specific information already completed.
24
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Mobilization Reimbursement claims and review process
Appeal of reimbursement claim denial
A denial of payment of costs by the Military Department, whether based on being "not
reasonable and necessary" or any other reason, may be appealed in writing to the State
Law Enforcement Policy Board within thirty days of the notice of the denial.
Review of the appeal
Upon receipt of the appeal, the State Law Enforcement Policy Board will review the
appeal within ninety days and may request such other records, documents, or statements
as are needed for its review. After review, the committee will make a recommendation to
the adjutant General for appropriate disposition.
Decision on Appeal
The adjutant General will receive the Boards recommendation and within thirty days
make a determination on the appeal. The claimant will be advised of the decision by the
Adjutant General.
Further Remedy
Upon notification of the Adjutant General's decision, the claimant may pursue further
remedies according the the Washington Administrative Procedures act.
25
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Personal Injury
Compliance with the following procedures in the event of personal injury to any
mobilized personnel is required.
Notice to Medical Unit
The medical Unit is to be advised immediately. The medical unit will provide or airange
for the care of the injured person.
Report
The injury must be immediately reported to the on -scene division supervsor or higher
officer so that circumstances can be confirmed and a record made. This report, supported
by the record in the Unit Log, and supplemented by the report of the Medical Unit, is
required for the support of any claims made. Utilize the Personal Injury Notice form
(MOBE4)
26
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
l Liability Coverage
The mobilization Plan is to be consistent with and a part of the Washington State
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (RCW 38 54. 030)
The WSCEMP is mandate of RCW 38.52 which also includes liability provisions for
property damage. Bodily injury, death, immunity, and indemnification. 1
All legal liability for damage to property or injury or death to persoaaused by acts
done, or attempted, under the color of this chapter in a bona fide attemt to comply
therewith will be the obligation of the state of Washington. (RCW 38.52.180
The liability provisions of RCW 38. 52 are deemed to apply to the Mobilization Plan
Appendix B.I
Map of law enforcement regions
Appendix B.2
List of law enforcement region representatives
Appendix C.1
Mobilization Request Checklist
Appendix C.2
Region resources
Appendix D.1
Awareness training outline
Appendix D.2
Travel kit for responders
Appendix E.1
Delegation of authority letter
Appendix F
Ics forms
MOBE forms
27
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Administrative and Future development Issues
State Plan Review
The Mobilization Plan lays out the organizational and operational framework for the
Mobilization of state Law Enforcement Resources. It describes how nuberous agencies
intend to operate and interact when faced with the need to respond to disastrous events or
other major emergency incidents. The state law enforcement Policy Board will review
and debrief mobilization actions and develop recommendations for improvements to this
plan.
Region Plans
Each Law Enforcement region will develop region law enforcement plans that are
consistent with the Mobilization plan, the incident command system and other regional
response plans (fire Mob Plan) that are already adopted and in use. Region plans should
contain the following:
Administrative provisions
■ Date of adoption by region law enforcement committee
■ Tabel of Contents
■ Plan Purpose statement
■ Definition of Terms
■ Regional Law Enforcement committee member roster
■ Copy of existing Mutual aid agreement
■ Roster of regional agencies particpating and desription of roles
■ Criteria for determination of when mutual aid is exhausted
Operational Provisions
■ Concept of operations
■ Map of region
■ Designation of Regional Fire Resource Coordinator and an alternate with 24 hour
contact points
■ Regional available resources list
■ Description of local and regional support functions
■ Reference to any other pertinant docuents, including standard operating guides
■ Designate potential primary and secondary staging areas, mobilization points for
departure assembly, and resources bases (fuel, food)
■ Communications system
Plan Maintenance, Training, And Testing
■ Description of training program
■ Plan testing method
■ Description of Communication needs and training
■ Regional plan review and revision process
28
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Training
The mobilization Plan serves as a major training tool for developing knowledge of how
mobilization will occur in Washington. It is the goal of the State Law Enforcement
Policy Board to develop appropriate training to support the plan.
29
Law Enforcement Mobilization Draft By Major Thomas Miner
Appendix 1
Delegation of Authority
Purpose and Scope of the Delegation of /Authority
The purpose of the Delegation of Authority is to transfer the responsibility and authority
for incident management (ie. Legal command and incident decision authority) to the
recipient; in this case, to a designated IC. The Delegation of Authori9ty is a written
transfer of aouthority vesting the designated IC with the control and management of the
incident in caccordance with prescribed instructions and limitations.
The Delegation of Authority provides...
o Delegation (from agency administrator / unified agency administrator group) of
full responsibility and authority for incident management under prescribed terms
and conditions.
o Terms, conditions, and limitations of the authority granted
o Local Law Enforceemnt policy (established inview of legal, financial, and
political considerationss)
o Delineation of line of authority (source of continuing local direction)
o Priorities for incident control
o Direction for unified command
o Documentation requirements
o Direction for media relations
o Direction for incident management reporting
o Termination conditions
o Other terms and conditions established by the local jurisdiction administrator
A delegation of Authority may only be granted by action of the political governing body
of the local jurisdiction. However, it may, by appropriate resolution, entrust the power to
make that delegation to a specified jurisdiction official (e.g., a city manager, mayor, or
police chief or sheriff.) Upon certain maximum eeffectiveness, a procedure for the
timely granting of a delegation of authority should be in place as an emergency planning
measure.
It is important to understand that a /Delegation of Authority is not an abdication of
responsibility or authority, but rather a means of assuring them in an unusual emergency
setting by providing for an assignment with prescribed conditions and limitations, the
authority granted must be broad enough to ensure that local law enforcement policy and
priorities can be effectively implemented, accountability must be provided for, limitations
as to scope, time, and or incident may be included, and the poewer of review and
termination retained.
30
I
INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
TO PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT MUTUAL AID AND MOBILIZATION
BETWEEN THE CITIES OF KING COUNTY, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
POLICE, AND KING COUNTY
1. DATE OF AGREEMENT AND PARTIES. This agreement, dated the first day of June
2003 for reference purposes only, is entered into by the undersigned municipal
corporations or towns organized or created under the laws of the State of Washington,
the University of Washington Police Department, and the King County Sheriff's Office.
2. AUTHORITY FOR AGREEMENT. This Agreement is entered into as an interlocal
agreement pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act as codified in Chapter 39.34 of
the Revised Code of Washington, specifically RCW 39.34.080.
3. PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT. Each party has the power, authority and
responsibility to provide police protection for its citizens within its boundaries. On
occasion, the demand for law enforcement services within a jurisdiction may exceed
that department's ability to respond in a timely manner. When that occurs, the police
department or departments of other jurisdictions may be capable of providing backup
law enforcement services. In order to fulfill their respective obligations to their
citizens, the parties desire to provide backup law enforcement services to each other
under the terms and conditions set forth below.
4. MUTUAL AID LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES. Each party will to the best of its
ability, furnish mutual aid law enforcement services to, and at the request of, any other
party whose police department is taxed beyond its ability to respond, and render law
enforcement services in a timely manner. Each jurisdiction shall confer police authority
on those police officers from other jurisdictions providing mutual aid law enforcement
services and enforcing the requesting jurisdiction's ordinances. The mutual aid officers
shall proceed at the direction of the requesting department's police chief or sheriff or
their designee. The responding department maintains the discretion to determine
whether its own police department will not or cannot provide the requested mutual aid
services. The responding department also maintains the discretion to determine at any
time during the response that it may stop providing assistance. Upon determining that it
will not respond or that it will stop assisting, the department shall immediately notify
the requesting department of the change in mutual aid law enforcement services
provided. The responding department shall be the sole judge of its ability to respond or
to remain, and assumes no liability for declining to respond or for leaving.
5. SERVICES INCLUDED. For purposes of this Agreement, mutual aid law enforcement
services shall mean supplemental response to assist at least one officer from the primary
agency. Such services will typically be of a first responder type of service such as
patrol response. Response protocols for this Agreement are outlined in "Addendum A".
6. TERM. This Agreement shall be effective on June 1, 2003 for one (1) year, regardless
of the date of execution and shall be automatically renewed on May 31" of each
successive year. Any party may terminate its participation in this Agreement by giving
60 days notice of termination to all participating parties hereto.
7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The parties acknowledge and agree that in the
performance of this Agreement, they are acting as independent contractors and not as
agents of each other.
8. INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS. Each jurisdiction which is a party to this
Agreement hereby agrees to accept liability for any act, error or omission of its own
employees of whatever kind and nature and from whatever cause arising out of or
connected with the performance of this Agreement, and to indemnify and hold the other
jurisdictions and their employees harmless from any such liability, claim, or cause of
action, including amounts arising out of the performance, by that jurisdiction's
employees, of this Agreement. All liability for salaries, wages and other compensation
of law enforcement officers shall be that of their respective employers.
9. GOVERNING BODY. This Agreement shall be administered by a joint board, which
consists of the police chief of each named jurisdiction and the King County Sheriff.
Administration of this Agreement includes, but is not limited to, (1) each participant
identifying the resources available to aid participating jurisdictions; (2) review of the
response protocols (Addendum A); and (3) participation in the Regional and/or State
Mobilization efforts. A quorum of the membership is necessary for any modification of
the mobilization plan. Meetings may be called upon the request of any 3 board
members with 30 days minimum notice.
10. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement shall be signed in counterparts and, if so signed,
shall be deemed one integrated agreement.
11. MODIFICATION. The parties may amend, modify, or supplement this Agreement
only by written agreement executed by all the parties hereto.
12. MERGER AND ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement merges and supersedes all
prior negotiations, representations and/or agreements between the parties relating to the
subject matter of this Agreement and constitutes the entire contract between the parties.
Signature page immediately following
INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
TO PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT MUTUAL AID AND MOBILIZATION
BETWEEN THE CITIES OF KING COUNTY, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
POLICE, AND KING COUNTY
SIGNATURE PAGE
CITY OF
Algona
By:
Date
CITY OF
Bellevue
By:
Date
CITY OF
Bothell
By:
Date
CITY OF
Carnation
By:
Date
CITY OF
Covington
By:
Date
CITY OF Duvall
By:
Date
CITY OF Auburn
By:
Date
CITY OF
Black Diamond
By:
Date
CITY OF
Burien
By:
Date
CITY OF
Clyde Hill
By:
Date
CITY OF
Des Moines
By:
Date
CITY OF
Enumclaw
By:
Date
CITY OF Federal Wa
By:
Date
CITY OF Kenmore
By:
Date
CITY OF
Kirkland
By:
Date
CITY OF
Maple Valley
By:
Date
CITY OF
Mercer Island
By:
Date
CITY OF
Normandy Park
By:
Date
CITY OF
Pacific
By:
Date
CITY OF
Renton
By:
Date
CITY OF Issaquah
By:
Date
CITY OF
Kent
'
By:
Date
CITY OF
Lake Forest Park
By:
Date
CITY OF
Medina
By:
Date
CITY OF
Newcastle
By:
Date
CITY OF
North Bend
By:
Date
CITY OF
Redmond
By:
Date
CITY OF
Sammamish
By:
Date
CITY OF SeaTac
By:
Date
CITY OF Seattle
By:
Date
CITY OF Snoqualmie
By:
Date
CITY OF Woodinville
By:
Date
County of King
BY:
David G. Reichert Date
King County Sheriff
County of King — Airport Police
BY:
Ron Griffin Date
KC Airport Police Chief
University of Washington Police
BY:
Weldon Ihrig I Date
Executive Vice President
CITY OF
By:
Date
CITY OF Shoreline
By:
Date
CITY OF Tukwila
By:
CITY OF
By:
Date
Date
Port of Seattle
By:
T. M. Kimsey Date
Chief of Police
ADDENDUM "A"
KING COUNTY MUTUAL AID
RESPONSE PROTOCOLS
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
I. Authori ,
All parties to the King County Mutual Aid Agreement will ensure a process is
established to commit manpower and resources.
II. Request For Mutual Aid
I . In the event of major disorder or other law enforcement operation the first law
enforcement resources to be used shall be those of the primarily responsible
agency. In the event that such resources are inadequate to control the situation
by the primarily responsible agency, or there is a need for a specialized unit, a
request for mutual aid under this plan will be made directly to an assisting
agency. Such requests for assistance shall, if possible, specify the number" of
police officers and types of equipment required, where and to whom such
officers are to report, and where and to whom the equipment should be
delivered.
2. Rendering assistance under the terms of this agreement shall not be
mandatory, except that if assistance can't be rendered, the requestee should
immediately inform the requestor if, for any reason, assistance can't be
rendered. It is understood that consideration as to whether assistance can be
provided or not must be determined by the requestee.
3. In the event of mobilization under this agreement, the primarily responsible
agency shall assume incident command, unless the primarily responsible
agency specifically requests that a different law enforcement agency fulfill
this responsibility, or unless the scope of the problem is multi jurisdictional,
in which case a unified command shall be established. This shall include
directing the assignment of all personnel and equipment. The assignment of
duties to officers of assisting agencies shall be made by the incident
commander of the primary responsible agency unless that responsibility is
delegated to a different law enforcement agency as indicated above.
4. The primary responsible agency shall have the responsibility of establishing a
command post and notifying all assisting agencies at the earliest possible time
of its location. The Incident Commander shall establish a -command post in
such a manner as to provide an area suitable for the staging and. directing of
all resources.
1
The primarily responsible agency will be responsible for providing supplies that
are reasonably needed to sustain the responding officers in enforcing the law and
maintaining order. Each agency will be responsible for any repairs and/or.
damages done to their own vehicles as a result of participation in mutual aid.
III. Insurance
No signatory shall be held liable to another signatory for damages, loss of
equipment, injury to personnel, or payment of compensation arising as a result of
assistance rendered under the terms of this agreement.
IV. Commissions & Authority
Full-time, paid, commissioned officers who are responding to any call for mutual
aid shall be automatically commissioned by virtue of the mutual aid agreement,
through the commissioning authority of the primarily responsible agency and,
therefore, shall be empowered to exercise the same police authority during the
time of the mutual aid as though they were full-time commissioned officers of the
primarily responsible agency. This provision shall apply whether the mutual aid
request is of:
(a) A formal nature between department heads;
(b) A less formal nature through agreement of watch commanders or shift
supervisors; or,
(c) When the officers of one jurisdiction cross jurisdiction boundaries to
aid or assist the officers of _another jurisdiction signatory to this
agreement.
If signatory agencies have reserve officers or part-time officers, in addition to
full-time paid, commissioned officers, they shall normally be exempt from the
automatic commissioning, except those reserve_ officers working under the
immediate supervision of a full-time officer. Reserve or part-time officers may be
extended automatic commissioning at the direction of the department head who
requests mutual aid, PROVIDED HOWEVER, that such determination should be
worked out in advance among the heads of the signatory agencies.
V. Command
The underlying principle of mutual aid is that other agencies are serving as a
resource to another agency's request. Therefore, the Chief of Police or his/her
designee (Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, etc.) of the requesting agency maintains
2
incident command and is aided by those resources sent in response to this request
for aid. In the event that the emergency is of such a nature that it exceeds the
individual jurisdictional boundaries, a unified command shall be established until
the mutual aid situation ceases to exist and operations return to normal
boundaries.
Whenever significant resources from other agencies must be mobilized and
brought into a jurisdiction in order to resolve a given problem, even when the
scope of the problem is such that it is physically contained within the boundaries
of the specific single jurisdiction requesting mutual aid, it is expected that an
appropriate incident command staff be developed and that the senior staff officers
responsible for the mutual aid assets will fill roles within the incident command
structure. Successful mutual aid operations must be based upon professional
respect and also upon acknowledgement of the fact that the Incident Commander
in charge also is responsible and legally liable for his decisions and actions. It
must also be borne in mind that those in charge of mutual aid assets are still free
to accept or refuse to carry out requests requiring specific missions, which would
utilize and exhaust the assets for which they are responsible.
VI. Control
While the question of technical command and responsibility is one, which
requires specific designation of an Incident Commander, the exercise of control
over responding mutual aid units and combinations of units brings up an entirely
different set of concerns. Wherever possible, the supervisor or staff officer in
charge of a group of responding units from an assisting agency would report to
the Incident Commander as liaison and be assigned to specific tasks or missions,
for which he/she would use his own departmental personnel. NOTE: Because of
the possibility that reserve officers will be used in many responses to requests for
mutual aid, it is important to establish and record their presence and to verify the
fact that they are certified reserves within the scope of the definition of the "Peace
Officer Powers Act," and have met the requirements established by the
Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission. Reserve officers should
generally work under supervisors or regular officers from their own agencies, but
under some circumstances (depending on the scope of the operation), might be
configured into a special reserve contingent for handling special assignments such
as roadblock, evacuation, fixed-point traffic control, etc.
VII. Press Relations
It shall be the responsibility of the requesting agency in conjunction with the
Incident Commander to establish a press area and to assign a public information
officer to handle immediate inquires during any given incident. All releases of
information through the public information function should be approved by the
Incident Commander.
3
VHL Record Keeping
It shall be the responsibility of the Incident Commander to establish a Planning.
and Intelligence Section. The Planning and Intelligence Section. will keep an
accurate log of what mutual aid agencies, personnel and vehicles are involved in
the emergency, and during what periods, along with the assignments, which they
were given and any actions, which they took. A formal written Incident,Action
Plan and After Action Report will be completed by the Planning and Intelligence
Section and the requesting agency following the incident.
The King County Chiefs Association through the Regional Operations Committee
shall annually update and review plans and policies, and make recommendations
for change.
0
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT ENTITLED "INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT MUTUAL AID
AND MOBILIZATION BETWEEN THE CITIES OF KING COUNTY,
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON POLICE, AND KING COUNTY."
WHEREAS, RCW 39.34.080 authorizes the City of Renton to enter into an interlocal
agreement with other public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the law enforcement agencies of King County, the University of
Washington, and the cities in King County have the power, authority and responsibility to
provide police protection for its citizens within its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, on occasion, the demand for law enforcement services within a jurisdiction
may exceed that department's ability to respond in a timely manner, and the police departments
of other jurisdictions may be capable of providing backup law enforcement services; and
WHEREAS, the law enforcement agencies of the state have identified a need to provide
rapid response by law enforcement officers to major emergencies; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs has
developed a in odel p Ian f or in obilization o f t aw e nforcement o fficers i n t he event of a major
emergency; and
WHEREAS, local police resources can be quickly overwhelmed in a severe emergency
or terrorist attack; and
1
RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, the federal government has created a funding mechanism for
reimbursement to local communities that have to respond to a major emergency and that
mechanism requires that there be a mobilization plan; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to document the terms and conditions under which the City
will participate in the mutual aid law enforcement services; and
WHEREAS, a Mutual Aid and Mobilization Plan for the cities of King County, the
University of Washington Police, and King County has been created;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into an
interlocal agreement entitled "Interlocal Cooperative Agreement to Provide Law Enforcement
Mutual Aid and Mobilization between the Cities in King County, the University of Washington
Police Department, and King County."
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2003.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2003.
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
2
RESOLUTION NO.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES.1003:8/12/03:ma
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Al H: i
Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works
For Agenda of:
Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Division
August 18, 2003
Agenda Status
Staff Contact...... Ryan Zulauf, 7471
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Subject:
Approval of AirO, Inc. Ground and Building Lease
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution........... .
Old Business........
New Business ....... X
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Study Sessions......
Building Lease Agreement
Information.........
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee Legal Dept......... X
Finance Dept......
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... - Revenue Generated....$56,351.07
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
AirO, Inc. has negotiated a ground and building lease agreement with the City of Renton to
lease the City owned building at 800 West Perimeter Road. Mike O'Leary, owner of
WorldWind Helicopters, Inc, owns AirO, Inc. WorldWind Helicopters, Inc. has subleased
space in the Aerodyne building since August 2001 under a City approved operating permit and
agreement. The property will be used as a fixed base operation selling fuel and maintenance
services to the public, aircraft storage and air taxi/charter business. WorldWind Helicopters'
current operation will move to the 800 West Perimeter Road building.
The negotiated ground and building lease for the 800 building requires AirO, Inc. to accept the
building in an "as -is" condition and make specific improvements to the City owned building
estimated at a cost of $146,000. AirO, Inc. will be given ten (10) years to amortize the
improvements to the building. The lease stipulates that AirO, Inc. will be responsible for all
building and ground maintenance. The lease will generate $56,351 in annual building and
ground lease revenue with a consumer price index boost in the ground and building lease rates
occurring every three (3) years. At the end of the initial ten (10) year period, the City may
grant an additional five (5) year building and ground lease to AirO, Inc. However, the building
will be re -appraised and a new lease rate will be established based on the value of the
improvements to the building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the AirO, Inc. ground and building lease for the 800 West
Perimeter Road building.
Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 8, 2003
TO: Don Persson, Chair
Members of the Transportation Committee
VIA: Jesse Tanner, Mayor
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator "
STAFF CONTACT: Ryan Zulauf, x 7471
SUBJECT: Approval of AirO, Inc. Ground and Building Lease
ISSUE:
City staff has negotiated a ground and building lease with AirO, Inc. to open a fixed base
operation in a City owned building north of the control tower on the west side of the airport.
RECOMMENDATION:
• Staff recommends approval of the AirO, Inc. ground and building lease for the 800 West
Perimeter Road building.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
AirO, Inc. has negotiated a ground and building lease agreement with the City of
Renton to lease the City owned building at 800 West Perimeter Road. The building is
located approximately one quarter mile north of the control tower on the west side of
the airport.
Mike O'Leary, present owner of WorldWind Helicopters, Inc., owns AirO, Inc.
WorldWind Helicopters, Inc. has subleased space in the Aerodyne building since
August 2001 under a City approved operating permit and agreement. WorldWind
Helicopters, Inc. operates air taxi/charter business providing fire suppression and
support services to state and federal agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service.
The property will be used as a fixed base operation selling fuel and maintenance
services to the public, aircraft storage and air taxi/charter business. WorldWind
Helicopters' current operation will move to the 800 West Perimeter Road building.
August 8, 2003
Page 2
The negotiated ground and building lease for the 800 West Perimeter Road building
requires AirO, Inc. to accept the building in an "as -is" condition. AirO, Inc. is required
to make specific improvements to the City owned building estimated at a cost of
$146,000.
In exchange for the improvements, AirO, Inc. will be given ten (10) years to amortize the
improvements to the building with a ten (10) percent capitalization rate that benefits the
City. The lease stipulates that AirO, Inc. will be responsible for all building and ground
maintenance. The lease will generate $56,351 in annual building and ground lease
revenue with a consumer price index boost in the ground and building lease rates
occurring every three (3) years.
At the end of the initial ten (10) year period, the City may grant an additional five (5)
year building and ground lease to AirO, Inc. However, the building will be re -appraised
and a new lease rate will be established to capture the value of the improvements to the
building.
Currently, there is a monopoly on fuel sales at the airport as a result of the loss of Action
Aviation, which did not possess an operating permit and agreement with the City. The
new fixed base operation by AirO, Inc. will improve services to the public, enhance sales
tax revenue to the City, improve a City owned building at no cost to the City, and
generate lease revenue on property which is currently vacant.
BUILDING AND GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT
City of Renton to AirO, Inc.
STANDARD LEASE FORM
THIS IS A LEASE AGREEMENT between THE CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal
corporation ("Lessor"), and AirO, Inc. a Washington corporation ("Lessee")
IN CONSIDERATION of the covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as
follows:
1. GRANT OF LEASE:
la. Legal Description: A plat of ground and hangar building, located at 800 West
Perimeter Road being a portion of the real property described in Exhibit "A" Legal Description
and illustrated Lease Map attached hereto and made a part hereof as is fully set forth herein (the
"Premises").
SUBJECT TO:
(1) Easements, restrictions and reservations of record and as further set forth
herein;
(2) Such rules and regulations as now exist or may hereafter be promulgated
by the Lessor from time to time, including the Airport's Minimum
Standards which are incorporated herein by this reference, and Lessor's
standards concerning operation of public aviation service activities from
the Airport; and
(3) All such non-discriminatory charges and fees for such use as may be
established from time to time by Lessor; and
TOGETHER WITH the privilege of Lessee to use the public portion of the
Airport, including runway and other public facilities provided thereon, on a
non-exclusive basis.
lb. Non Conveyance of Airport: This Lease Agreement shall in no way be deemed to
be a conveyance of the Airport, and shall not be construed as providing any special privilege for
any public portion of the Airport except as described herein. The Lessor reserves the right to
lease or permit the use of any portion of the Airport for any purpose deemed suitable for the
Airport, except that portion that is leased hereby.
LEASE AGREEMENT 1
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
lc. Nature of Lessor's Interest: It is expressly understood and agreed that Lessor
holds and operates the Airport, and the Premises under and subject to a grant and conveyance
thereof to Lessor from the United States of America, acting through its Reconstruction Finance
Corporation, and subject to all the reservations, restrictions, rights, conditions, and exceptions of
the United States therein and thereunder, which grant and conveyance has been filed for record in
the office of the Recorder of King County, Washington, and recorded in Volume 2668 of Deeds,
Page 386; and further that Lessor holds and operates said airport and premises under and subject
to the State Aeronautics Acts of the State of Washington (chapter 165, laws of 1947), and any
subsequent amendments thereof or subsequent legislation of said state and all rules and
regulations lawfully promulgated under any act or legislation adopted by the State of Washington
or by the United States or the Federal Aviation Administration. It is expressly agreed that the
Lessee also accepts and will hold and use this lease and the Premises subject thereto and to all
contingencies, risks, and eventualities of or arising out of the foregoing, and if this lease or the
period thereof or any terms or provisions thereof be or become in conflict with or impaired or
defeated by any such legislation, rules, regulations, contingencies or risks, the latter shall control
and, if necessary, modify or supersede any provision of this lease affected thereby, all without
any liability on the part of or recourse against the Lessor in favor of Lessee, provided that Lessor
does not exceed its authority under the foregoing legislation, rules and regulations.
ld. Future Development/Funding: Nothing contained in this lease contained shall
operate or be construed to prevent or hinder the future development, improvements, or operation
of Airport by Lessor, its agents, successors or assigns, or any department or agency of the State
of Washington or of the United States, or the consummation of any loan or grant of federal or
state funds in aid of the development, improvement, or operation of the Renton Airport.
2. TERM:
2a. Initial Term: The term of this lease shall be for a ten (10) year period commencing
on November 1, 2003 or earlier if power and water are supplied to the building prior to
November 1, 2003, and terminating on November 1, 2013.
2b. Option to Extend Term: In the event that Lessee has fully and faithfully complied
with all the terms and conditions of this Lease Agreement through November 1, 2013, Lessor
may grant unto Lessee the option to renew or extend this Lease for a further five (5) year term.
2c. Rental: The amount of rental to be paid during any extended term shall be computed
based on the fair market value of the ground and building with improvements at the time when
the extended term is being considered by Lessor.
2d. Notice: Notice of Lessee's intent to exercise the option to extend the term of this
lease shall be the notice specified in Paragraph 23. Upon the exercise of this option to extend the
term of this lease, the parties shall execute an addendum acknowledging the extension of the
term of this lease and the new termination date of this lease.
LEASE AGREEMENT 2
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
3. RENTAL:
3a. Initial Rental: As rental for the above -described premises through November 1,
2006, Lessee shall pay unto Lessor a monthly rental in the sum of four thousand, six hundred
ninety-five and 92/100 Dollars ($4,695.92), plus Leasehold Excise Tax as described in Paragraph
4. below, payable promptly in advance on the first day of each and every month. Lessee
covenants that AirO, Inc. shall make all monthly rental payments to the Lessor. All such
payments shall be made to the Director of Finance, City of Renton, City Hall, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The initial rental is computed as follows, and is based upon an
estimated ground lease area (which the parties stipulate to be accurate) of 93,001 square feet and
an estimated building lease area (which the parties stipulate to be accurate) of 22,746 square feet.
Rental Payment Schedule
Ground Rental Rate - 93,001 sq. ft. @ $.3271/sq. ft. per year =
$30,420.63 annual rental, plus Leasehold Excise Tax.
Building Rental Rate — 22,746 sq. ft. @ $.095/sq. ft./month/year =
$25,930.44 annual rental, plus Leasehold Excise Tax.
3b. Rental Adjustment Date: Effective as of November 1, 2003, the starting date of this
lease, and every three (3) years thereafter, said rental rate as herein specified shall be readjusted
by and between the parties to be effective for each ensuing three (3) year period.
3c. Periodic Rental Adjustment: Lessor and Lessee do hereby agree that the annual rate
of thirty two seventy one cents ($0.3271) per square foot for ground and the monthly rate of nine
and one half cents ($0.095) per square foot for the building shall remain in effect until November
1, 2006, and effective as of that date the rental rate shall automatically be readjusted by and
between the parties as specified in paragraph 3b, utilizing the increase of the Consumer Price
Index, for each three (3) year period thereafter. Minimum base rental for any extended period
shall not be less than the current annual rental of $56,351.07.
3d. Use of Consumer Price Index -Urban: Lessor and Lessee do hereby further agree that
the Consumer Price Index information to be used for rental adjustments shall be the Consumer
Price Index - Urban (CPI-U) then in effect for all urban consumers, as published by the US
Department of Labor for the Seattle -Tacoma Metropolitan Area.
3e. Notice of Request for Readjustment of Rental: Lessor and Lessee do hereby further
agree that at least thirty (30) days prior to the Rental Adjustment Date, either party shall, if they
desire to adjust the base land rental rate for the ensuing three (3) year period by a means other
than the Consumer Price Index -Urban, provide to the other party a written request for
readjustment of the rental rate pursuant to RCW 14.08.120(5).
LEASE AGREEMENT 3
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
3f. Arbitration: If the parties are unable to agree upon such adjusted rental by negotiation
for a period of thirty calendar (30) days, then the parties shall submit the matter of the adjusted
rental for the ensuing period to arbitration. Lessor and Lessee do hereby agree that the arbitration
process shall be limited to not more than one hundred fifty (150) calendar days, using the
following procedures:
3f(1). Lessor shall select and appoint one arbitrator and Lessee shall select and appoint
one arbitrator, both appointments to be made within a period of sixty (60) days from the end of
the negotiation period cited in paragraph 3e. Lessor and Lessee shall each notify the other, by
Certified Mail, of the identity of their arbitrator and the date of the postmark of the letter shall be
considered the date of appointment. The two appointed arbitrators shall meet, and if unable to
agree within a period of thirty (30) days after such appointment, shall, within a period of thirty
(30) days, select a third arbitrator. For this process, a maximum of one hundred twenty (120)
calendar days shall be allowed.
3f(2). The three arbitrators shall have thirty (30) days from the date of selection of the
third arbitrator to reach a majority decision. The decision of the majority of such arbitrators shall
be final and binding upon the parties hereto. For this process, a total of thirty (30) calendar days
shall be allowed.
3f(3). The arbitrators shall be experienced real estate appraisers and be knowledgeable in
the field of comparable airport rentals and use charges in King County and shall give due
consideration to any change in economic conditions from the preceding rental period.
3f(4). Leasehold improvements made by the Lessee shall not be considered as part of the
leased premises for the purpose of future adjustments or readjustments of the rental rates during
the period from November 1, 2003 to November 1, 2013.
3f(5) The two arbitrators shall make their decision in writing within sixty (60) days after
the date of their appointment, or in the event of a third arbitrator, within sixty (60) days after the
third arbitrator's appointment, unless the time is extended by the agreement of both parties.
After a review of all pertinent facts the board of arbitrators may increase or decrease such rental
rate or continue the previous rental rate for the ensuing three (3) year term.
3f(6). Each party shall pay for and be responsible for the fees and costs charged by the
arbitrator selected by him. The fee of the third arbitrator shall be shared equally by the parties.
3f(7). The readjusted rental in each case, whether determined by arbitration or by
agreement of the parties themselves, shall be effective as of the Rental Adjustment Date.
3g. Late Payment Charge: It is hereby further agreed that if such rental is not paid before
the loth of each month then there will be added a late payment charge of 5% per month for each
month of delinquency until paid. It is agreed that this late payment charge is a reasonable
estimate of the increased costs to the city of the staff effort to monitor and collect late payments,
LEASE AGREEMENT 4
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
as well as related city expenses due to such late payment. If any check received by Lessor is
returned unpaid for any reason, Lessor reserves the right to make an additional charge up to the
maximum amount allowed by law.
3h. Attorneys Fees/Collection Charges: Should it be necessary to refer this lease to an
attorney for collection or other court action involving breach of lease, occupancy after
termination, or enforcement or determination of any other right and/or duty under this lease, then
it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and
costs of litigation as established by the court. If the matter is not litigated or resolved through a
lawsuit, then any attorney's fees expenses for collection of past -due rent or enforcement of any
right or duty hereunder shall entitle the city to recover, in addition to any late payment charge,
any costs of collection or enforcement, including attorney's fees.
3i. Sewer Pump Station Special Assessment: Lessee further agrees to pay, in addition to
the rentals above, a special assessment for annual maintenance of the sewage pump station and
sewer lines from the building to the pump station. Lessee will pay its proportionate share of the
annual maintenance costs for use of the sewer pump station and sewer lines leading to the pump
station. The parties acknowledge that the annual maintenance costs will be shared equally by
those leased area properties that use the pump station and sewer lines leading to the pump
station.
3j. Other Charges: Lessee further agrees to pay, in addition to the rentals hereinabove
specified and other charges hereinabove defined, all fees and charges now in effect or hereafter
levied or established by Lessor, or its successors, or by any other governmental agency or
authority, being or becoming levied or charged against the premises, structures, business
operations, or activities conducted by or use made by Lessee of, on, and from the leased premises
which shall include, but not be limited to, all charges for light, heat, gas, power, garbage, water
and other utilities or services rendered to said premises.
3k. Emergency Response: Lessee must provide reasonable access and response to the
Airport Manager in times of emergency or urgency. The Lessee is wholly responsible to keep an
up-to-date listing of aircraft types, identification, and owners on file and at the Airport Manager's
office.
4. LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX: Lessee hereby agrees and covenants to pay unto Lessor
that certain leasehold excise tax as established by RCW Chapter 82.29A, as amended, or any
replacement thereof, which tax shall be in addition to the stipulated monthly rental and shall be
paid separately to the Director of Finance, City of Renton, at the same time the monthly rental is
due. In the event that the State of Washington or any other governmental authority having
jurisdiction thereover shall hereafter levy or impose any similar tax or charge on this lease or the
leasehold estate, then Lessee agrees and covenants to pay said tax or charge, when due. Such tax
or charge shall be in addition to the regular monthly rentals.
LEASE AGREEMENT 5
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
5. PAYMENT OF UTILITIES AND RELATED SERVICES. Lessee shall pay for all
light, heat, gas, power, garbage, water, sewer and janitorial service used in the Premises. Lessor
shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused by or resulting from any variation, interruption,
or failure of said utility services due to any cause whatsoever; and no temporary interruption or
failure of such services incident to the making of repairs, alterations or improvements, or due to
accident, strike, act of God, or conditions or events not under Lessor's control, shall not be
deemed a breach of the Lease or as an eviction of Lessee, or relieve Lessee from any of its
obligations hereunder.
6. LESSEE'S ACCEPTANCE OF PREMISES.
6a. General Acceptance of Premises: By occupying the Premises, Lessee formally
accepts the same in AS IS condition, and acknowledges that the Lessor has complied with all the
requirements imposed upon it under the terms of this Lease with respect to the condition of the
Premises at the commencement of this term. Lessee hereby accepts the premises subject to all
applicable zoning, municipal, county and state laws, ordinances and regulations governing and
regulating the use of the premises, and accepts this Lease subject thereto and to all matters
disclosed thereby and by any exhibits attached hereto. Lessee acknowledges that neither Lessor
nor Lessor's agent has made any representation or warranty as to the suitability of the Premises
for the conduct of Lessee's business or use. Except as otherwise provided herein, Lessor
warrants Lessee's right to peaceably and quietly enjoy the premises without any disturbance from
Lessor, or others claiming by or through Lessor.
6b. Provision of Restroom Facilities: Lessee agrees to construct and/or provide restroom
and/or toilet facilities for use by sub -tenants of hangars. The facilities so provided must be
accessible by sub -tenants 24-hours per day, 7-days per week. The restroom/toilet facilities must
be available to the flying public consistent with the Airport Rules and Regulations and Minimum
Commercial Standards.
6c. Improvements to the Premises: Lessee agrees to install one motorized sixty (60')
foot bifold door and one motorized forty (40') foot bifold door, demolish an area measured to be
twenty (20) feet by fourty four (44) feet to eighty eighty (88) feet of the center office area running
east/west in the main portion of the hangar bay, install a secondary fire escape stairway to the
remaining portion of the center office area, install a fire monitoring system, paint the outside of
the building and grout the voids beneath the entire slab floor of the building in an effort to re -
level those portions of the slab floor where settling has occurred. Lessor agrees to remove at
Lessor's expense any asbestos in the center office area to be demolished as described in this
subsection or renogiate the initial lease term as specified in Section 2a to allow Lessee
amoritization of the additional improvements to the building. These improvements to the
premises shall be completed by November 1, 2004.
LEASE AGREEMENT 6
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
7. PURPOSE:
7a. Use of Premises: The Premises are leased to the Lessee for the following described
purposes:
7a(1) The operation of a Fixed Based Operation (FBO) which includes Avgas and Jet A
Fuel Sales to the Public, in accordance with the Airport Minimum Standards for Aeronautical
Activities.
7a(2) The operation of an Aircraft Maintenance and Repair business, in accordance with
the Airport Minimum Standards for Aeronautical Activities.
7a(3) The operation of an Aircraft Storage and Hangar Services business, in accordance
with the Airport Minimum Standards for Aeronautical Activities.
7a(4) The operation of an Air Taxi/Charter business, in accordance with the Airport
Minimum Standards for Aeronautical Activities.
7b. Easement Granted: An easement area twenty five (25) feet by one hundred ninety
(190) feet will be granted to the adjacent leased area to the south for the purpose of aircraft
taxiing. The easement area is illustrated in the attached lease area map Exhibit A.
7c. Continuous Use: Lessee covenants that the premises shall be continuously used for
each of those purposes during the term of the lease, shall not be allowed to stand vacant or idle,
and shall not be used for any other purpose without Lessor's written consent first having been
obtained. Consent of Lessor to other types of activities will not be unreasonably withheld.
7d. Non -Aviation Uses Prohibited: Lessee agrees that the Premises may not be used for
uses or activities that are not related, directly or indirectly, to aviation.
7e. Sig_ns:
7 e(1) Advertising: No advertising matter or signs shall be at any time displayed on the
leased premises or structures without the prior written approval of Lessor, which will not be
unreasonably withheld.
7 e(2) Building Address: The building street number, as assigned by the City of Renton,
shall be displayed in the upper right-hand corner of the (east/west) end of each building, as
viewed from East/West Perimeter Road. The number type and color shall be as directed by the
Airport Manager, and the number size shall be as required by current Fire Code.
7f. Conformity with Rules: Lessee further covenants to keep and operate the Premises
and all structures, improvements, and activities in conformity with all rules, regulations and laws
now or hereafter adopted by Lessor, including the Airport's Minimum Standards which are
LEASE AGREEMENT 7
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
incorporated herein by this reference, the Federal Aviation Administration, the State Aeronautics
Commission, or other duly constituted governmental authority, all at Lessee's cost and expense.
7g. Waste; Nuisance; Illegal Activities: Lessee covenants that he will not permit any
waste, damage, or injury to the Premises or improvements thereon, nor allow the maintenance of
any nuisance thereon, nor the use thereof for any illegal purposes or activities.
7h. Increased Insurance Risk: Lessee will not do or permit to be done in or about the
premises anything which will be dangerous to life or limb, or which will increase any insurance
rates upon the premises or other buildings and improvements.
7i. Hazardous Waste:
7i(1). Lessee's Representation and Warranty: In particular, Lessee represents and
warrants to the Lessor that Lessee's use of the Premises will not involve the use of any hazardous
substance (as defined by R.C.W. Chapter 70.105D, as amended), other than fuels, lubricants and
other products which are customary and necessary for use in Lessee's ordinary course of business.
7i(2). Standard of Care: Lessee agrees to use a high degree of care to be certain that no
such hazardous substance is improperly used, released or disposed on the Premises during the
term of this lease by Lessee, its agents or assigns, or is improperly used, released or disposed on
the premises by the act of any third party.
7i(3). Indemnity:
7i(3)(a) The parties agree that Lessor shall have no responsibility to the Lessee, or any
other third party, for remedial action under R.C.W. Chapter 70.105D, or other legislation, in the
event of a release of or disposition of any such hazardous substance on, in, or at the Premises,
and not caused by Lessor, during the term of this Lease. Lessee agrees to indemnify and hold
harmless the Lessor from any obligation or expense, including fees incurred by the Lessor for
attorneys, consultants, engineers, damages, including environmental resource damages, etc.,
arising by reason of the release or disposition of any such hazardous substance upon the Premises
not caused by Lessor, including remedial action under R.C.W. Chapter 70.105D, during the term
of this Lease.
7i(3)(b) The parties agree that Lessee shall have no responsibility to the Lessor, or any
other third party, for remedial action under R.C.W. Chapter 70.105D, or other legislation, in the
event of a release of or disposition of any such hazardous substance on, in, or at the Premises,
and not caused by Lessee, prior to the term of this Lease. Lessor agrees to indemnify and hold
harmless the Lessee from any obligation or expense, including fees incurred by the Lessee for
attorneys, consultants, engineers, damages, including environmental resource damages, etc.,
arising by reason of the release or disposition of any such hazardous substance upon the Premises
LEASE AGREEMENT 8
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
not caused by Lessee, including remedial action under R.C.W. Chapter 70.105D, prior to the
term of this Lease.
7i(4). Dispute Resolution: In the event of any dispute between the parties concerning
whether any release of or disposition of any such hazardous substance on, in or at the premises
(a) occurred during the term of this lease, or (b) was caused by Lessor, the parties agree to submit
the dispute for resolution by arbitration upon demand by either party. Each party shall select one
(1) arbitrator. The two (2) selected arbitrators, if unable to agree upon an arbitration award
within a period of thirty (30) days after such appointment, shall select a third arbitrator. The
third arbitrator shall be an engineer with experience in the identification and remediation of
hazardous substances. The arbitrators shall make their decision in writing within sixty (60) days
after their appointment, unless the time is extended by the agreement of the parties. The decision
of a majority of the arbitrators shall be final and binding upon the parties. Each party shall bear
the cost of the arbitrator named by it. The expenses of the third arbitrator shall be borne by the
parties equally.
7j. Aircraft Registration Compliance: The Lessee is hereby notified of the Washington
State law concerning aircraft registration. See Exhibit "C" Aircraft Laws and Regulations, Title
47.68.250 RCW: Public Highways and Transportation.
7j(1). Lessee shall annually, during the month of January, submit a report of aircraft
status to the Airport Manager. One copy of this report shall be used for each aircraft owned by
the Lessee, and sufficient forms will be submitted to identify all aircraft owned by the Lessee and
the current registration status of each aircraft using the Aircraft Status Report form, See Exhibit
"D". If an aircraft is unregistered, an Unregistered Aircraft Report, See Exhibit " E", will also be
completed and submitted to the Airport Manager.
7j(2). Lessee shall require from an aircraft owner proof of aircraft registration or proof of
intent to register an aircraft as a condition of leasing or selling tiedown or hangar space for an
aircraft. Lessee shall further require that annually, thereafter, each aircraft owner using the
Lessee's premises submits a report of aircraft status, see Exhibit "D" or an Unregistered Aircraft
Report, see Exhibit "E". The Lessee shall annually, during the month of January, collect the
aircraft owners' reports and submit them to the Airport Manager.
7k. Aircraft airworthiness: Aircraft placed, parked or stored other than within hangar
buildings must be airworthy. Whenever an aircraft is temporarily undergoing repairs exceeding
30 days, the Lessee will notify the Airport Manager of the repair status, and the date repairs will
be completed. When requested by the Lessor, the Lessee must provide a schedule showing when
repairs will be completed as to each such aircraft. If Lessee fails to adhere to an agreed -upon
repair schedule, or fails to place and maintain the required red tag on the aircraft, the Lessee may
be subject to Civil Penalties or termination of this lease upon proper notice from the City of
Renton.
LEASE AGREEMENT 9
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
8. MAINTENANCE:
8a. Maintenance of Premises: The Premises and all of the improvements or structures
thereon shall be used and maintained by Lessee in a neat, orderly, and sanitary manner. Lessor
shall not be called upon to make any improvements, alteration, or repair of any kind upon the
Premises. Lessee is responsible for the clean-up and proper disposal at reasonable and regular
intervals of rubbish, trash, waste and leaves upon the Premises, including that blown against
fences bordering the Premises, whether as a result of the operation of Lessee's aircraft tie -down
storage activities or having been deposited upon the Premises from other areas. Lessee shall
maintain in good condition and repair of the leased premises, including without limitation, the
interior and exterior walls, floors, roof, and ceilings, and any structural portions of the premises,
the exterior and interior portions of all doors, windows, glass, utility facilities, plumbing and
sewage facilities within the building or under the floor slab including free flow up to the nearest
manhole, parking areas, landscaping, fixtures, heating, air conditioning including exterior
mechanical equipment, exterior utility facilities, and exterior electrical equipment serving the
premises. Lessee shall maintain and make all repairs, replacements and renewals, whether
ordinary or extraordinary, seen or unforeseen to maintain the Premises as described in Exhibit A.
8b. Removal of Snow/Floodwater/Mud: Lessee shall be responsible for removal of snow
and/or floodwaters or mud deposited therefrom from the Premises, with the disposition thereof to
be accomplished in such a manner so as to not interfere with or increase the maintenance
activities of Lessor upon the public areas of the Airport.
8c. Repair of Personal Property: It is further agreed that all personal property on the
Premises shall be used at the risk of Lessee only, and that Lessor or Lessor's agents shall not be
liable for any damage either to persons or property sustained by Lessee or other persons due to
the Premises or improvements thereon becoming out of repair.
8d. Maintenance, Repair and Marking of Pavement: Lessee shall be responsible for the
maintenance, repair and marking (painting) of pavement surrounding the buildings within the
leased area. Such maintenance and repair shall be to Federal Aviation Administration standards
as though the pavement were non -leased, public -use taxiway and/or apron pavement. Such
maintenance and repair shall include, as a minimum, crack filling, weed control, slurry seal and
the replacement of unserviceable pavement, as necessary.
8e. Lessor May Perform Maintenance: If Lessee fails to perform Lessee's obligations
under this Paragraph, Lessor may at its option (but shall not be required to) enter the Premises,
after thirty (30) days' prior written notice to Lessee, and put the same in good order, condition
and repair, and the cost thereof together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve (12%) percent
per annum shall become due and payable as additional rental to Lessor together with Lessee's
next rental installment.
LEASE AGREEMENT 10
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
9. ALTERATIONS.
9a. Lessor's Consent Re uq fired: Lessee will not make any alterations, additions or
improvements in or to the Premises without the written consent of Lessor first having been
obtained.
9b. Protection from Liens: Before commencing any work relating to alterations,
additions and improvements affecting the Premises, Lessee shall notify Lessor in writing of the
expected date of commencement thereof. Lessor shall then have the right at any time and from
time to time to post and maintain on the Premises such notices as Lessee reasonably deems
necessary to protect the Premises and Lessor from mechanics' liens, materialmen's liens or any
other liens. In any event, Lessee shall pay, when due, all claims for labor or materials furnished
to or for Lessee at or for use in the Premises. Lessee shall not permit any mechanics' or
materialmen's liens to be levied against the Premises for any labor or material furnished to Lessee
or claimed to have been furnished to Lessee or to Lessee's agents or contractors in connection
with work of any character performed or claimed to have been performed on the Premises by or
at the direction of Lessee.
9c. Bond: At any time Lessee either desires to or is required to make any repairs,
alterations, additions, improvements or utility installation thereon, or otherwise, Lessor may at its
sole option require Lessee, at Lessee's sole cost and expense, to obtain and provide to Lessor a
lien and completion bond in an amount equal to one and one-half (1-1/2) times the estimated cost
of such improvements, to insure Lessor against liability for mechanics and materialmen's liens
and to insure completion of the work.
9d. Lessor May Make Improvements: Lessee agrees that Lessor, at its option, may at its
own expense make repairs, alterations or improvements which Lessor may deem necessary or
advisable for the preservation, safety or improvement of the Premises or improvements located
thereon, if any.
9e. Notification of Completion: Upon completion of capital improvements made on the
Premises, it is the Lessee's responsibility to promptly notify Lessor of such completion.
10. IMPROVEMENTS: As further consideration for this lease, it is agreed that upon any
expiration of the term of this lease by default, or at the normal expiration of the term of this
lease, to wit, November 1, 2013, or at the end of executed extensions thereof, if any, as provided
within this lease, but in no case later than November 1, 2018, all structures and any and all
improvements of any character whatsoever installed on the Premises shall be and become the
property of the Lessor, except the overhead crane and above ground fuel tank(s), and title thereto
shall pass and revert to Lessor at such termination, and none of such improvements now or
hereafter placed on the Premises shall be removed therefrom at any time without Lessor's written
consent. The Lessor shall have the alternative, at its option, to require Lessee, upon the expiration
LEASE AGREEMENT 1 I
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
of the term or extensions thereof, if any, to remove any and all improvements and structures
installed by Lessee from the Premises and repair any damage caused thereby, at Lessee's expense.
11. LIMITATION UPON LESSOR'S LIABILITY. Lessor shall not be liable for any
damage to property or persons caused by, or arising out of (a) any defect in or the maintenance or
use of the Premises, or the improvements, fixtures and appurtenances of which the premises
constitute a part; or (b) water coming from the roof, water pipes, flooding of the Cedar River or
other body of water, or from any other source whatsoever, whether within or without the
Premises; or (c) any act or omission of any Lessee or other occupants of the building, or their
agents, servants, employees or invitees thereof.
12. HOLD HARMLESS: Lessee covenants to indemnify and save harmless Lessor
against any and all claims arising from the conduct and management of or from any work or
thing whatsoever done in or about the Premises or the improvements or equipment thereon
during the lease term, or arising from any act or negligence of the Lessee or any of its agents,
contractors, patrons, customers, or employees, or arising from any accident, injury, or damage
whatsoever, however caused, to any person or persons, or to the property of any person, persons,
corporation or other entity occurring during the lease term on, in, or about the Premises, and from
and against all costs, attorney's fees, expenses, and liabilities incurred in or from any such claims
or any action or proceeding brought against the Lessor by reason of any such claim, except such
claims arising directly or indirectly out of Lessor's sole act or omission. Lessee further covenants
that AirO, Inc will satisfy all outstanding liens, or other debts, before transfer of ownership of the
buildings to the City of Renton on the date of expiration of the second extended term, i.e.,
November 1, 2013, or upon termination of the lease, for any reason, prior to November 1, 2013.
Lessee, on notice from Lessor, shall resist or defend such action or proceeding forthwith.
13. ASSIGNMENT:
13a. Assignment/Subletting: This lease or any part hereof shall not be assigned by
Lessee, by operation of law or otherwise, nor shall the premises or any part thereof be sublet
without the prior written consent of Lessor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld,
subject to Lessor's receipt of commercially reasonable evidence that the proposed assignee or
subtenant is in a financial condition to undertake the obligations of this lease, and, in the event of
assignment, Lessor's receipt of an affidavit from the proposed assignee stating that it has
examined this lease and agrees to assume and be bound by all of Lessee's obligations under this
lease, to the same extent as if it were the original Lessee. If Lessee is a corporation, the transfer
of a majority of Lessee's stock shall constitute an assignment for purposes of this paragraph.
13b. Subletting: Lessee may sublet portions of the Premises for the purpose of aircraft
hangar storage, only, without the prior written approval by the Lessor of this permitted use, on a
month -to -month or longer basis (but not longer than the term of this Lease), provided that Lessor
is informed on at least an annual basis, in writing, of the name of the sublessee(s), the purpose of
LEASE AGREEMENT 12
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
the sublease, the amount of the rental charged, and the type of aircraft stored (make, model and
registration number. Such information shall be disclosed upon request by Lessor.
13c. Subsequent Consent Required: In the event written consent to assignment or
subletting shall be given by Lessor, no other subsequent assignment, assignments, or subletting
shall be made by such assignee or assignees, or sublessee, without the prior written consent of
Lessor. It is expressly agreed that if consent is once given by the Lessor to the assignment of this
lease or any interest therein or to the subletting of the whole or any part of the premises, then
Lessor shall not be barred from afterwards refusing to consent to any further assignment of said
lease or subletting of said leased premises.
13d. Release of Lessee's Liability: No subletting shall release Lessee of Lessee's
obligation to pay the rent and to perform all other obligations to be performed by Lessee
hereunder for the term of this Lease. No assignment shall so release Lessee unless Lessor's
consent is obtained pursuant to Paragraph 13.1. In the event that Lessor's consent to assignment
is so obtained, Lessee shall be relieved of all liability arising from this lease and arising out of
any act, occurrence or omission occurring after Lessor's consent is obtained. The Lessee's
assignee shall be deemed to have assumed and agreed to carry out all of the obligations of Lessee
under this lease.
14. DEFAULT:
14a. Events of Default: It is expressly understood and agreed that in the event the
Premises shall be deserted or vacated, or if default be made in the payment of the rent or any part
thereof as herein specified, or if, without consent of the Lessor, the Lessee shall sell, assign, or
mortgage this lease, or if default be made in the performance of any of the material covenants
and agreements in this lease contained on the part of the Lessee to be kept and performed, or if
Lessee shall fail to comply with any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders, regulations, and
requirements of the federal, state, and city governments, or if Lessee shall file a petition for
bankruptcy or be adjudicated a bankrupt, or make assignment for the benefit of creditors or take
advantage of any insolvency act, the Lessor may, if it so elects, at any time thereafter, terminate
this lease and the term hereof, on giving to the Lessee thirty (30) days notice, in writing, of the
Lessor's intention to do so if the event causing the default is not corrected.
14b. Additional Security: In the event of default as provided above, which default
remains uncured for more than ten (10) days after Lessor notice of default, Lessor may request
and Lessee shall provide adequate assurance of future performance of all obligations under this
lease. The adequacy of any assurance shall be determined according to commercially reasonable
standards. Adequate assurance shall include, but not be limited to, a deposit in escrow, a
guarantee by a third party acceptable to Lessor, a surety bond, or a letter of credit. Lessee's
failure to provide adequate assurance within twenty (20) days of receipt of a request by lessor
shall constitute a material breach and Lessor may in its discretion terminate this lease.
LEASE AGREEMENT 13
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
14c. Termination of Lease: Upon the expiration of either of the notice periods
specified in Paragraphs 14.a or 14.b above, and if the event causing the default is not corrected,
this lease and the term hereof, together with any and all other rights and options of Lessee herein
specified, shall expire and come to an end on the day fixed in such notice, except that Lessee's
obligation and liability for any unpaid rentals or other charges heretofore accrued shall remain
unabated. Lessor may thereupon re-enter said premises with or without due process of law, using
such force as may be necessary to remove all persons or property therefrom, and Lessor shall not
be liable for damages by reason of such re-entry or forfeiture.
15. BINDING AGREEMENT: Subject to the restriction upon assignment or
subletting as set forth herein, all of the terms, conditions, and provisions of this Lease shall be
binding upon the parties, their successors and assigns, and in the case of a Lessee who is a natural
person, his or her personal representative and heirs.
16. RIGHT OF INSPECTION. Lessee will allow Lessor, or Lessor's agent, free access at
all reasonable times to the Premises for the purpose of inspection, or of making repairs, additions
or alterations to the Premises, or any property owned by or under the control of Lessor.
17. CONDEMNATION: If the whole or any substantial part of the Premises shall be
condemned or taken by Lessor or any county, state, or federal authority for any purpose, then the
term of this lease shall cease as to the part so taken from the day the possession of that part shall
be required for any purpose, and the rent shall be paid up to that date. From that day the Lessee
or Lessor shall have the right to either cancel this lease and declare the same null and void, or to
continue in the possession of the remainder of the same under the terms herein provided, except
that the rent shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of the premises taken for such public
purposes. All damages awarded for such taking for any public purpose shall belong to and be the
property of the Lessor, whether such damage shall be awarded as compensation for the
diminution in value to the leasehold, or to the fee of the premises herein leased. Damages
awarded for the taking of Lessee's improvements located on the premises shall belong to and be
awarded to Lessee.
18. SURRENDER OF PREMISES: Lessee shall quit and surrender the premises at the
end of the term in as good a condition as the reasonable use thereof would permit, normal wear
and tear excepted. Alterations, additions or improvements which may be made by either of the
parties hereto on the Premises, except movable office furniture or trade fixtures put in at the
expense of Lessee, shall be and remain the property of the Lessor and shall remain on and be
surrendered with the Premises as a part thereof at the termination of this lease without hindrance,
molestation, or injury. Lessee shall repair at its sole expense any damage to the Premises
occasioned by its use thereof, or by the removal of Lessee's trade fixtures, furnishings and
equipment which repair shall include the patching and filling of holes and repair of structural
damage.
LEASE AGREEMENT 14
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
19. INSURANCE:
19a. Personal Property: It is agreed that Lessor shall not be held liable in any manner for,
or on account of, any loss or damage to personal property of the Lessee, Lessee's invitees or other
persons, which may be sustained by fire or water or other insured peril, or for the loss of any
articles by burglary, theft or any other cause from or upon the Premises. It is acknowledged that
Lessor does not cover any of the personal property of Lessee, Lessee's invitees or other persons
upon the Premises through its insurance. Lessee, its invitees and other persons upon the
Premises are solely responsible to obtain suitable personal property insurance.
19b. Liability Insurance. The Lessee agrees to maintain in force during the term of this
Lease a policy of comprehensive public liability and property damage insurance written by a
company authorized to do business in the State of Washington against any liability arising out of
the ownership, use, occupancy or maintenance of the Premises and all areas appurtenant thereto.
The limits of liability shall be in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 for injury to or death
of one person in any one accident or occurrence and in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00
for injury to or death of more than one person in any one accident or occurrence, and of not less
than $1,000,000.00 for property damage. The limits of said insurance shall not, however, limit
the liability of Lessee hereunder. The insurance policy shall list the Lessor as an additional
insured..
19c. Insurance Policies: Insurance required hereunder shall be written in companies
acceptable to Lessor and rated A-10 or better in "Best's Insurance Guides". Lessor reserves the
right to establish and, from time -to -time, to increase minimum insurance coverage amounts.
Notice of increased insurance requirements shall be sent to the Lessee at least thirty (30) days
prior to the annual renewal date of the Lessee's insurance. Coverages shall be submitted on
forms prescribed by Lessor. Prior to possession, the Lessee shall deliver to Lessor copies of
policies of such insurance acquired by Lessee, or certificates evidencing the existence and
amounts of such insurance, with loss payable clauses satisfactory to Lessor. Lessor shall be
named as an additional insured. No such policy shall be cancelable or subject to reduction of
coverage or other modification except after forty five(45) days' prior written notice to Lessor.
Lessee shall, not less than forty five (45) days prior to the expiration of such policies, furnish
Lessor with renewals or "binders" therefor. Lessee shall not do or permit to be done anything
which shall invalidate the insurance policies referred to above. Lessee shall forthwith, upon
Lessor's demand, reimburse Lessor for any additional premiums attributable to any act or
omission or operation of Lessee causing such increase in the cost of insurance. If the Lessee
shall fail to procure and maintain said insurance the Lessor may, but shall not be required to,
procure and maintain the same, but at the expense of Lessee.
19d. Waiver of Subrogation: Lessee and Lessor each waives any and all rights of
recovery against the other, or against the officers, employees, agents and representatives of the
other, for loss of or damage to such waiving party or its property or the property of others under
its control, where such loss or damage is insured against under any insurance policy in force at
LEASE AGREEMENT 15
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
the time of such loss or damage. Lessee shall, upon obtaining the policies of insurance required
hereunder, give notice to the insurance carriers that the foregoing mutual waiver of subrogation is
contained in this Lease.
20. TAXES: Lessee shall be responsible for the payment of any and all taxes and
assessments upon any property or use acquired under this agreement.
21. HOLDING OVER: If, without execution of any extension or renewal of this lease
Lessee should remain in possession of the premises after expiration or termination of the term of
this lease, then Lessee shall be deemed to be occupying the Premises as a tenant from
month -to -month. All the conditions, terms, and provisions of this lease, insofar as applicable to a
month -to -month tenancy, shall likewise be applicable during such period.
22. NO WAIVER: It is further covenanted and agreed between the parties hereto that no
waiver by Lessor of a breach by Lessee of any covenant, agreement, stipulation, or condition of
this lease shall be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same covenant,
agreement, stipulation, or condition, or a breach of any other covenant agreement, stipulation, or
condition. The acceptance by the Lessor of rent after any breach by the Lessee of any covenant
or condition by Lessee to be performed or observed shall be construed to be payment for the use
and occupation of the premises and shall not waive any such breach or any right of forfeiture
arising therefrom.
23. NOTICES: All notices under this lease shall be in writing and delivered in person,
with receipt therefor, or sent by certified mail, in the case of any notice unto Lessor, at the
following address:
Airport Manager
616 West Perimeter Road
Renton, Washington 98055
and in case of any notice unto Lessee, to the address of the Premises, or such address as may
hereafter be designated by either party in writing.
24. DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED:
24a. Discrimination Prohibited: Lessee covenants and agrees not to discriminate against
any person or class of persons by reason of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the use of
any of its facilities provided for the public in the Airport. Lessee further agrees to furnish services
on a fair, equal and not unjustly discriminatory basis to all users thereof, and to charge on a fair,
reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory basis for each unit of service; provided that Lessee
may make reasonable and non-discriminatory discounts, rebates, or other similar types of price
reductions to volume purchasers.
24b. Minority Business Enterprise Policy: It is the policy of the Department of
Transportation that minority business enterprises as defined in 49 C.F.R. Part 23 shall have the
LEASE AGREEMENT 16
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of leases as defined in 49 C.F.R. 23.5.
Consequently, this lease is subject to 49 C.F.R. Part 23, as applicable. No person shall be
excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of or otherwise discriminated against in
connection with the award and performance of any contract, including leases covered by 49
C.F.R. Part 23, on the grounds of race, color, national origin or sex.
24c. Application to Sub -leases: Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 13 of this Lease,
Lessee agrees that it will include the above clause in all assignments of this lease or sub -leases,
and cause its assignee(s) and sub-lessee(s) to similarly include the above clause in further
assignments or sub -leases of this Lease.
25. FORCE MAJEURE: In the event that either party hereto shall be delayed or
hindered in or prevented from the performance of any act required hereunder by reason of strikes,
lockouts, labor troubles, inability to procure materials, failure of power, restrictive governmental
laws or regulations, riots, insurrections, war, or other reason of like nature not the fault of the
party delayed in performing work or doing acts required under the terms of this Lease, then
performance of such act shall be extended for a period equivalent to the period of such delay.
The provisions of this paragraph shall not, however, operate to excuse Lessee from the prompt
payment of rent, or any other payment required by the terms of this Lease, to be made by Lessee.
26. CAPTIONS: Article and paragraph captions are not a part hereof.
27. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Lease contains all agreements of the parties with
respect to any matter mentioned herein. No prior agreement or understanding pertaining to any
such matter shall be effective. This Lease may be modified in writing only, signed by the parties
in interest at the time of the modification.
28. CUMULATIVE REMEDIES: No remedy or election hereunder shall be deemed
exclusive, but shall wherever possible, be cumulative with all other remedies at law or in equity.
29. CORPORATE AUTHORITY: If Lessee is a corporation, each individual executing
this Lease on behalf of said corporation represents and warrants that he is duly authorized to
execute and deliver this Lease on behalf of said corporation in accordance with a duly adopted
resolution of the Board of Directors of said corporation and in accordance with the Bylaws of
said corporation, and that this Lease is binding upon said corporation in accordance with its
terms.
30. TRANSFER OF PREMISES BY LESSOR: In the event of any sale, conveyance,
transfer or assignment by Lessor of its interest in the Premises, Lessor shall be relieved of all
liability arising from this Lease and arising out of any act, occurrence or omission occurring after
the consummation of such sale, conveyance, transfer or assignment. The Lessor's transferee shall
be deemed to have assumed and agreed to carry out all of the obligations of the Lessor under this
Lease, including any obligation with respect to the return of any security deposit.
LEASE AGREEMENT 17
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
LESSEE:
AirO, Inc.
a Washington corporation
by
its:
Date:
Approved as to legal form:
City Attorney
LEASE AGREEMENT
City of Renton to AirO, Inc
a Washington corporation
LESSOR:
THE CITY OF RENTON
a Washington municipal
corporation
by
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Director
Date:
ATTEST:
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
Date:
18
,J VmTTi�+—
p
a
N0014' "E
27.16
—5
I
N15'02' 6"W
_}i9�J
142.1' i
_I&I —J I
I ` PARCEL
893,001. 00 I
1135 acres
I
`
_
8510^1 "E
Ev.semcn f ,r0 Ltax\
(sec 7b.
1
247.32 I TPOB
\
I
T
�
a
35+
n `
375.00' .
35+00 T
0+00
RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
RENTON, WASHINGTON E
MAY 22, 2003
PARCEL 800 REFERENCE. BEING A PORTION OF BOEING APRON 'C' LEASE
No. 877-65.
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINES OF
RAINIER AVENUE NORTH AND AIRPORT WAY NORTH;
THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF AIRPORT WAY NORTH,
S'8730'17'E A DISTANCE OF 744.03 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION
WITH THE SOUTHERLY PRODUCTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RUNWAY;
THENCE NOV49'43'W, ALONG SAID RUNWAY CENTERLINE A DISTANCE
OF 294.74 FEET TO A POINT REFERRED TO AS STATION 0+00;
THENCE NOC49'43"W, A DISTANCE OF 3,586.03 FEET;
THENCE S85'10'17'W, A DISTANCE OF 375.00 FEET;
THENCE N04'49'43"W, A DISTANCE OF 198.06 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE S85'10'17'W, A DISTANCE OF 247.32 FEET;
THENCE N04'49'43"W, A DISTANCE OF 118.34 FEET;
THENCE S8910'17-W, A DISTANCE OF 120.09 FEET;
THENCE N15'02'06"W, A DISTANCE OF 142.11 FEET;
THENCE N00'14'56'E, A DISTANCE OF 27.16 FEET;
THENCE N85'10'17'E, A DISTANCE OF 390.18 FEET;
THENCE SO4 49'43"E, A DISTANCE OF 285.25 FEET
TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 93,001 SQUARE FEET OR 2.135 ACRES, MORE OR
LESS.
0
100' 50, 0 00' 200'
SCALE IN FEET
DUANE HABT1iAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
— surveyors —
PARCEL 600 LEASE —
RENTON MUNICIPAL �,,
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Al N:
Submitting, Data: Planning/Building/Public Works
Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems
Staff Contact...... James Wilhoit, x7319
Subject:
Berger/Abam Engineers, Inc. Contract for King
County Portion of the Duvall Avenue NE Widening
Project
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
2004-2009 TIP Project #55
Consultant Agreement
For Agenda of:
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution........... .
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information........ .
18.2003
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Legal Dept......... X
Refer to Transportation Committee Risk Management.... X
Expenditure Required
Total
Amount Budgeted..
Total Project Budget
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
$134,298 (2003)
$352,702 (2004 budeet reauest)
$487,000 (PE & partial ROW)
-0-
$4, 670, 800
Transfer
Revenue Generated
City's Total Share
$135,000 from Duvall
Ave. NE/Sunset to City
Limit (2003)
$4,670,800
$0 (King County
Reimbursable)
June 10, 2002, the City entered into an agreement with the Transportation Improvement Board
(TIB) to accept grant funding for design and construction of the Duvall Avenue NE Widening
Project. The project will widen Duvall Avenue NE from two lanes to five lanes from SR-900
(NE Sunset Blvd) to the north City limits. This project should reduce congestion and accident
frequency, raising levels of service (LOS) towards the service standards adopted by the City to
achieve compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA).
King County has also entered into an agreement with the TIB to accept grant funding for design
and construction for the widening/improvement of Duvall Avenue NE directly north of the City's
Duvall Avenue NE Widening Project (between the Renton north city limits and the City of
Newcastle south city limits at SE 95th Way).
On July 241h the Transportation Committee recommended approval of an interlocal agreement
with King County to combine the City's Duvall project with the County's TIB-funded project
under the project management of the City of Renton. The County will fund its share of both
design and construction. The Transportation Division has selected Berger/Abam to design the
project.
The King County portion of Duvall Avenue is a new project in the recently adopted 2004-2009
TIP that requires some expenditures in 2003.
Funding had not been allocated for the County portion in the 2003 CIP budget. With the
approval of the Interlocal Agreement some funding will now be needed in 2003. The Renton
Duvall Ave NE project has $570,900 allocated for 2003. Only $328,695 ($269,695 for Renton
Duval Ave NE Roadway Improvements and $59,000 for the intersection improvements of Duvall
Ave NE at NE Sunset Boulevard previously approved by the City Council) will be needed to
complete design this year. Therefore, $242,205 is available and part of that could be transferred
to this project in 2003. Remaining funding required for the design contract will be requested in
2004.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Transportation Systems staff recommends Council:
• Add this additional King County Duvall Avenue CIP project to the 2003 Transportation
budget pursuant to the TIP.
• Approve a budget adjustment in Transportation Capital Improvement Fund (317) to
transfer $135,000 from Duvall Avenue NE/NE Sunset Boulevard to the City limits project
2003 allocation into this project. (The overall total 2003 appropriation will not be
revised.)
• Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the proposed agreement with Berger/
ABAM for design services for the Duvall Avenue NE Widening Project in unincorporated
King County.
H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\ADMIN\Agenda_2003\DuvaIKINGCODesign Contract for BergerAbam July 31.doc
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 18, 2003
TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA: Jesse Tanner, Mayor
FROM: Gregg Zimmerma?A]?ministrator
STAFF CONTACT: James P. Wilhoit, x7319
SUBJECT: Berger/Abaco Engineers, Inc. Contract for the King County Portion
of the Duvall Avenue NE Widening Project
ISSUE:
Council approval is needed to:
Enter into an agreement with Berger/Abam and proceed with design on the King County Duvall
Avenue NE project so construction can begin in 2005 and be completed in 2006.
Add this additional King County Duvall Avenue CIP project to the 2003 Transportation budget
pursuant to the TIP.
Approve a budget adjustment in the Transportation Capital Improvement Fund (317) to transfer
$135,000 from Duvall Avenue NE/NE Sunset Boulevard to City limits project 2003 allocation into
this project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the agreement with Berger/ABAM for
design services for the King County Portion of the Duvall Avenue NE Widening Project; and to
add this additional King County Duvall Avenue CIP project to the 2003 transportation budget
pursuant to the TIP; and approve a budget adjustment in Transportation Capital Improvement
Fund (317) to transfer $135,000 from Duvall Avenue NE/Sunset to City limits project 2003
allocation into this project.
BACKGROUND:
June 10, 2002, the City entered into an agreement with the Transportation Improvement Board
(TIB) to accept grant funding for design and construction of the Duvall Avenue NE Widening
Project. The project will widen Duvall Avenue NE from two lanes to five lanes from SR-900 (NE
Sunset Blvd) to the north City limits. This project should reduce congestion and accident
frequency, raising levels of service (LOS) towards the service standards adopted by the City to
King County Portion of Duvall Avenue
Page 2 of 2
August 18, 2003
achieve compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA).
King County has also entered into an agreement with the TIB to accept grant funding for design and
construction for the widening/improvement of Duvall Avenue NE directly north of the City's
Duvall Avenue NE Widening Project (between the Renton north city limits and the City of
Newcastle south city limits at SE 95th Way).
On July 24ih the Transportation Committee recommended approval of an interlocal agreement with
King County to combine the City's Duvall project with the County's TIB-funded project under the
project management of the City of Renton. The County will fund its share of both design and
construction. The Transportation Division has selected Berger/Abaco to design the project. Design
is programmed for 2003 and 2004. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2005 and be completed in
2006.
H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\ADM1N\Agenda_2003\Duva1KINGCODesign Contract for BergerAbam July 31.doc
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION
gnna _ gnna SIX -YEAR TIP
Duvall Ave NE (Coal Creek Parkway) - King County Functional Classification: Minor Arterial Fund: 317
Proj. Length: Proj:
Type: 1 - INFRASTRUCTURE RANK: 55 CONTACT: .lames Wlhoit 425.430.7319
DESCRIPTION:
Widening roadway to 5 lanes, includes: curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements, street lighting,
channelization, signal modification and interconnection, and bikeway from Renton's north city limits to SE
95th Way (Newcastle's south city limits).
JUSTIFICATION:
Growing residential areas use this route which is also becoming a major through route between Renton
and Bellevue, as well as freight traffic. There are currently two general-purpose lanes with little or no
pedestrian facilities, and left -turn lanes at various locations. Because there are uncompleted gaps
between the five -lane sections from unincorporated King County to Sunset Bv., the arterial exhibits
congestion and travel -time delays for all modes of traffic.
STATUS:
King County received a TIB grant award of $3,196,000.
CHANGES:
The City will manage the King County project with full reimbursement from the County. An
interlocal agreement is being developed for presentation to Council. The programmed
funding is subject to King County approval.
lFunded 14,670,000 JUnfunded
Protect Totals
Programmed Pre-2004
Six -Year Program
ITEM
Programme
Spent Pre-2003
2003
Total
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Project Development
Precon ng/ min
600
83,100
232, 00
232, 00
R-O- (includes Admin)
993,600
96
942,402
9 ,000
8, 02
Construction Contract Fee
2,92 00
2,922,400
1,461,200
6120
Construction Eng/Admin
438,405
438,400
219,200
219,200
Other
TOTAL EXPENSE�
,670,000
134,298
4,535,702
26,500
, 28,802
,680,400
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
1 2 Cent Gas Tax
Business License Fee
Vehicle License Fee
Grants In -Hand
3,196,000
91,900
3,104,100
633, 00
320,000
1,151,000
Mitigation In -Hand
L..D.'s Formed
Other In -Hand (King Count)
1,474,000
42,398
1,431,602
293,40
608,8 2
29,400
Grants Propose
Mitigation Proposed
L.I.D. s roposed
Other Proposed
Undetermined
TOTAL SOURG11=51
4, 0,000
3 ,298
4,53 2
926,500
,928,802
1,680, 00
07/03a003 9'13 qM
5 - 55 DRAFT
Standard Consultant
CONSULTANT/ADDRESS/TELEPHONE
Agreement
BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc.
33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300
AGREEMENT NUMBER
FEDERAL AID NO.
Federal Way, WA 98003
206/431-2300
A
❑ LUMP SUM
PROJECT TITLE AND WORK
G
Lump -Sum Amount $
DESCRIPTION
R
Coal Creek Parkway
Renton City Limits to SE 95`h Wa
E
Q COST PLUS FIXED FEE
DBE Participation
E
Overhead Progress Payment
❑Yes Q No
M
Rate $
MBE Participation
E
Overhead Cost Method
❑ Yes Q No
N
❑ Actual Cost Not To Exceed:
Federal ID No.
Do you require a 1099
T
_%
Q Fixed Rate: 158.00%
or SSN
for IRS?
Fixed Fee: $30,693
91-1422812
❑ Yes Q No
C
❑ SPECIFIC RATES OF PAY
Completion Date
Maximum Amount
E
❑
Payable
C
Negotiated Hourly Rate
K
❑ Provisional Hourly Rate
October 31, 2004
$487,000
0
N
❑ COST PER UNIT OF WORK
E
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,
, between the Local Agency of City of Renton Planning/Building/Public
Works, Washington, hereinafter called the "AGENCY", and the above organization hereinafter called
the "CONSULTANT'.
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires to accomplish the above referenced project, and
WHEREAS, the AGENCY does not have sufficient staff to meet the required commitment and
therefore deems it advisable and desirable to engage the assistance of a CONSULTANT to provide
the necessary services for the PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that he/she is in compliance with the Washington State
Statutes relating to professional registration, if applicable, and, has signified a willingness to furnish
Consulting services to the AGENCY,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants and performance contained
herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, the parties hereto agree as follows:
FA PWT 03 156 1 8 April 2003
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The work under this AGREEMENT shall consist of the above described work and services as herein
-defined and necessary to accomplish the completed work for this PROJECT. The CONSULTANT
shall furnish all services, labor and related equipment necessary to conduct and complete the work as
designated elsewhere in this AGREEMENT.
I
SCOPE OF WORK
The Scope of Work and project level of effort for this project is detailed in Exhibit "B" attached hereto,
and by this reference madea part of this AGREEMENT.
III
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
All aspects of coordination of the work of this AGREEMENT, with outside agencies, groups or
individuals shall receive advance approval by the AGENCY. Necessary contacts and meetings with
agencies, groups or individuals shall be coordinated through the AGENCY.
The CONSULTANT shall attend coordination, progress and presentation meetings with the
AGENCY or such Federal, Community, State, City or County officials, groups or individuals as may
be requested by the AGENCY. The AGENCY will provide the CONSULTANT sufficient notice prior
to meetings requiring CONSULTANT participation. The minimum number of hours or days notice
required shall be agreed to between the AGENCY and the CONSULTANT and shown in Exhibit "B"
attached hereto and made part of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a monthly
progress report, in a form approved by the AGENCY, that will outline in written and graphical form
the various phases and the order of performance of the work in sufficient detail so that the progress
of the work can easily be evaluated. Goals for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) and
Women Owned Business Enterprises (WBE) if required shall be shown in the heading of this
AGREEMENT.
All reports, PS&E materials, and other data, furnished to the CONSULTANT by the AGENCY shall
be returned. All designs, drawings, specifications, documents, and other work products prepared by
the CONSULTANT prior to completion or termination of this AGREEMENT are. instruments of
service for this PROJECT and are property of the AGENCY. Reuse by the AGENCY or by others
acting through or on behalf of the AGENCY of any such instruments of service, not occurring as a
part of this PROJECT, shall be without liability or legal exposure to the CONSULTANT.
IV
TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION
The CONSULTANT shall not begin any work under the terms of this AGREEMENT until authorized
in writing by the AGENCY. All work under this AGREEMENT shall be completed by the date shown
in the heading of this AGREEMENT under completion date.
The established completion time shall not be extended because of any .delays attributable to the
CONSULTANT, but may be extended by the AGENCY, in the event of a delay attributable to the
AGENCY, or because of unavoidable delays caused by an act of GOD or governmental actions or
other conditions beyond the control of the CONSULTANT. A prior supplemental agreement issued
by the AGENCY is required to extend the established completion time.
FA PWT 03 156 2 8 April 2003
r-lufflin
The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed work and services rendered under
this AGREEMENT as provided in Exhibit "C' attached hereto, and by this reference made part of this
AGREEMENT. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered
and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete the work
specified in Section 11, "Scope of Work". The CONSULTANT shall conform withall applicable
portions of 48 CFR 31.
VI
SUBCONTRACTING
The AGENCY permits subcontracts for those items of work as shown in Exhibit G to this Agreement.
Compensation for this subconsultant work shall be based on the cost factors shown on Exhibit G,
attached hereto and by this reference made apart of this AGREEMENT.
The work of the subconsultant shall not exceed its maximum amount payable unless a prior written
approval has been issued by the AGENCY.
All reimbursable direct labor, overhead, direct non -salary costs and fixed fee costs for the
subconsultant shall be substantiated in the same manner as outlined in Section V. All subcontracts
exceeding $10,000 in cost shall contain all applicable provisions of this AGREEMENT.
The CONSULTANT shall not subcontract for the performance of any work under this AGREEMENT
without prior written permission of the AGENCY. No permission for subcontracting shall create,
between the AGENCY and subcontractor, any contract or any other relationship.
VII
EMPLOYMENT
The CONSULTANT warrants that he/she has not employed or retained any company or person, other
than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this contract,
and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee
working solely for the CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any
other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For
breach or violation of this warrant, the AGENCY shall have the right to annul this AGREEMENT
without liability, or in its discretion, to deduct from the AGREEMENT price or consideration or
otherwise recover the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or
contingent fee.
Any and all employees of the CONSULTANT or other persons while engaged in the performance of
any work or services required of the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT, shall be considered
employees of the CONSULTANT only and not of the AGENCY, and any and all claims that may or
might arise under any Workmen's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees or other persons
while so engaged, and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any act or
omission on the part of the CONSULTANT's employees or other persons while so engaged on any of
the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of
the CONSULTANT.
FA PWT 03 156 3 8 April 2003
The CONSULTANT shall not engage, on a full or part time basis, or other basis, during the period of
the contract, any professional or technical personnel who are, or have been, at any time during the
period of the contract, in the employ of the United States Department of Transportation, the STATE,
or the AGENCY, except regularly retired employees, without written consent of the public employer
of such person.
VIII
NONDISCRIMINATION
The CONSULTANT agrees not to discriminate against any client, employee or applicant for
employment or for services because of race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sex, age or
handicap except for a bona fide occupational qualification with regard to, but not limited to the
following: employment upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or any recruitment advertising,
a layoff or terminations, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, selection for training, rendition
of services. The CONSULTANT understands and agrees that if it violates this provision, this
AGREEMENT may be terminated by the AGENCY and further that the CONSULTANT shall be
barred from performing any services for the AGENCY now or in the future unless a showing is made
satisfactory to the AGENCY that discriminatory practices have terminated and that recurrence of
such action is unlikely.
During the performance of this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT, for itself, its assignees and
successors in interest agrees as follows:
A. COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS: The CONSULTANT shall comply with the
Regulations relative to nondiscrimination in the same manner as in Federal -assisted
programs of the Department of Transportation, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part
21, as they may be amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations),
which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this AGREEMENT. The_
consultant shall comply with the American Disabilities Act of 1992, as amended.
B. NONDISCRIMINATION: The CONSULTANT, with regard to the work performed by it
during the AGREEMENT, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, creed color, sex, age,
marital status, national origin or handicap except for a bona fide occupational qualification in
the selection and retention of subcorisultants, including procurements of materials and leases
of equipment. The CONSULTANT shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the
discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including employment practices
when the contract covers a program set forth in Appendix If of the Regulations.
C. SOLICITATIONS FOR SUBCONSULTANTS, INCLUDING PROCUREMENTS OF
MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT: In all solicitations. either by competitive bidding or
negotiation made by the CONSULTANT for work to be performed under a subcontract,
including procurements of materials or leases of equipment, each potential subconsultant or
supplier shall be notified by the CONSULTANT of the CONSULTANT's obligations under
this AGREEMENT and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race,
creed, color, sex, age, marital status, national origin and handicap.
D. INFORMATION AND REPORTS: The CONSULTANT shall provide all information and
reports required by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit
access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be
determined by the AGENCY to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Regulations or
directives. Where any information required of the CONSULTANT is in the exclusive
possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information the CONSULTANT
FA PWT 03 156 4 8 April 2003
shall so certify to the AGENCY, or the United States Department of Transportation as
appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information.
E. SANCTIONS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE: In the event of the CONSULTANT's noncompliance
with the nondiscrimination provisions of this AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall impose such
sanctions as it or the Federal Highway Administration may determine to be appropriate,
including, but not limited to:
Withholding of payments to the CONSULTANT under the AGREEMENT until the
CONSULTANT complies, and/or
2. Cancellation, termination or suspension of the AGREEMENT, in whole or in part.
F. INCORPORATION OF PROVISIONS: The CONSULTANT shall include the provisions of
paragraphs (A) through (G) in every subcontract, including procurements of materials and
leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto.
The CONSULTANT shall take such action with respect to any subconsultant or procurement
as the AGENCY or the Federal Highway Administration may direct as a means of enforcing
such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, however, that, in the event
a CONSULTANT becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subconsultant
or supplier as a result of such direction, the CONSULTANT may request the AGENCY to
enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the AGENCY, and in addition, the
CONSULTANT may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the
interests of the United States.
G. UNFAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES: The CONSULTANT shall comply with RCW
49.60.180 and Executive Order Number E.O. 77-13 of the Governor of the State of
Washington which prohibits unfair employment practices.
IX
TERNIINATION OF AGREEMENT
The right is reserved by the AGENCY to terminate this AGREEMENT at any time upon ten days
Written notice to the CONSULTANT.
In.the event this AGREEMENT is terminated by the AGENCY other than for default on the part of
the CONSULTANT, a final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT as shown in Exhibit F for
the type of AGREEMENT used.
No payment shall be made for any work completed after ten days following receipt by the
CONSULTANT of the Notice to Terminate. If the accumulated payment made to the CONSULTANT
prior to Notice of Termination exceeds the total amount that would be due computed as set forth
herein above, then no final payment shall be due and the CONSULTANT shall immediately
reimburse the AGENCY for any excess paid.
If the services of the CONSULTANT are terminated by the AGENCY for default on the part of the
CONSULTANT, the above formula for payment shall not apply. In such an event, the amount to be
paid shall be determined by the AGENCY with consideration given to the actual costs incurred by the
CONSULTANT in performing the work to the date of termination, the amount of work originally
required which was satisfactorily completed to date of termination, whether that work is in a form or
a type which is usable to the AGENCY at the time of termination; the cost to the AGENCY of
employing another firm to complete the work required and the time which maybe required to do so,
and other factors which affect the value to the AGENCY of the work performed at the time of
FA PWT 03 156 5 8 April 2003
termination. Under no circumstances shall payment made under this subsection exceed the amount
which would have been made using the formula set forth in the previous paragraph.
If it is determined for any reason that the CONSULTANT was not in default or that the
CONSULTANT's failure to perform is without it or it's employee's fault or negligence, the
termination shall be deemed to be a termination for the convenience of the AGENCY in accordance
with the provision of this AGREEMENT.
In the event of the death of any member, partner or. officer of the CONSULTANT or any of its
supervisory personnel assigned to the project, or, dissolution of the partnership, termination other
corporation, or disaffiliation of the principally involved employee, the surviving members of the
CONSULTANT hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this AGREEMENT, if
requested to do so by the AGENCY. The subsection shall not be a bar to renegotiation of the
AGREEMENT between the surviving members of the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY, if the
AGENCY so chooses.
In the event of the death of any of the parties listed in the previous paragraph; should the surviving
members of the CONSULTANT, with the AGENCY's concurrence, desire to terminate this
AGREEMENT, payment shall be made as set forth in the second paragraph of this section.
Payment for any part of the work by the AGENCY shall not constitute a waiver by the AGENCY of
any remedies of any type it may have against the CONSULTANT for any breach of this
AGREEMENT by the CONSULTANT, or for failure of the CONSULTANT to perform work required
of it by the AGENCY. Forbearance of any rights under the AGREEMENT will not constitute waiver
of entitlement to exercise those rights with respect to any future act or omission by the
CONSULTANT.
X
CHANGES OF WORK
The CONSULTANT shall make such changes and revisions in the complete work of this
AGREEMENT as necessary to correct errors appearing therein, when required to do so by the
AGENCY, without additional compensation thereof. Should the AGENCY find it desirable for its
own purposes to have previously satisfactorily completed work or parts thereof changed or revised,
the CONSULTANT shall make such revisions as directed -by the AGENCY. This work shall be
considered as Extra Work and will be paid for as herein provided under Section XIV.
XI
DISPUTES
Any dispute concerning questions of fact in connection with the work not disposed of by
AGREEMENT between the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY shall be referred for determination to
the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer, whose decision in the matter shall be final and
binding on the parties of this AGREEMENT, provided however, that if an action is brought
challenging the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer's decision, that decision shall be
subject to de novo judicial review.
XII
VENUE, APPLICABLE LAW AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION
In the event that either party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce
any right or obligation under this AGREEMENT, the parties hereto agree that any such action shall
be initiated in the Superior court of the State of Washington, situated in the county the AGENCY is
FA PWT 03 156 6 8 April 2003
located in. The parties hereto agree that all questions shall be resolved by application of Washington
law and that the parties to such action shall have the right of appeal from such decisions of the
Superior court in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT hereby
consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Superior court of the State of Washington, situated in the
county in which the AGENCY is located in.
XIII
LEGAL RELATIONS AND INSURANCE
The CONSULTANT shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances applicable to
the work to be down under this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT shall be interpreted and
construed in accord with the laws of Washington.
The CONSULTANT shall indemnify and hold the AGENCY and the STATE, and their officers and
employees harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands, 'or
suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part from the CONSULTANT's negligence or breach of
any of its obligations under this AGREEMENT; provided that nothing herein shall require a
CONSULTANT to indemnify the AGENCY and the STATE against and hold harmless the AGENCY
and the STATE from claims, demands or suits based solely upon the conduct of the AGENCY and the
STATE, their agents, officers and employees and provided further that if the claims or suits are
caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) the CONSULTANT's agents or employees
and (b) the AGENCY and the STATE, their agents, officers and employees, this indemnity provision
with respect to (1) claims or suits based upon such negligence, (2) the costs to the AGENCY and the
STATE of defending such claims and suits, etc. shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the
CONSULTANT's negligence or the negligence of the CONSULTANT's agents or employees.
The CONSULTANT's relation to the AGENCY shall be at all times as an independent contractor.
The CONSULTANT specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the
CONSULTANT's own employees against the AGENCY and, solely for the purpose of this
indemnification and defense, the CONSULTANT specifically waives any immunity under the state
industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. The CONSULTANT recognizes that this waiver was
specifically entered into pursuant to the provisions of RCW 4.25.115 and was the subject of mutual
negotiation.
Unless otherwise specified in the AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall be responsible for
administration of construction contracts, if any, on the project. Subject to the processing of an
acceptable, supplemental agreement, the CONSULTANT shall provide on -call assistance to the
AGENCY during contract administration. By providing such assistance, the CONSULTANT shall
assume no responsibility for: proper construction techniques, job site safety, or any construction
contractor's failure to perform its work in accordance with the contract documents.
The CONSULTANT shall obtain and keep in force during the terms of the AGREEMENT, or as
otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State
Insurance Commissioner pursuant to RCW 48.
Insurance Coverage
A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the STATE.
B. Regular public liability and property damage insurance in an amount not less than a single
limit of one million and 00/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for bodily injury, including death and
property damage per occurrence.
FA PWT 03 156 7 8 April 2003
Excepting the Worker's Compensation insurance and any professional liability insurance secured by
the CONSULTANT, the AGENCY will be named on all certificates of insurance as an additional
insured. The CONSULTANT shall furnish the AGENCY with verification of insurance and
endorsements required by this AGREEMENT. The AGENCY reserves the right to require complete,
certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time.
All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of
Washington. The CONSULTANT shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within
14 days of the execution of this AGREEMENT to the AGENCY.
No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty (30) days prior notice to the
AGENCY.
The CONSULTANT's professional liability to the AGENCY shall be limited to the amount payable
under this AGREEMENT or one million dollars, whichever is the greater unless modified by Exhibit
H. In no case shall the CONSULTANT's professional liability to third parties be limited in any way.
The AGENCY will pay no progress payments under Section V until the CONSULTANT has fully
complied with this section. This remedy is not exclusive; and the AGENCY and the STATE may take
such other action as is available to them under other provisions of this AGREEMENT, or otherwise in
law.
FA PWT 03 156 8 8 April 2003
XIV
EXTRA WORK
A. The AGENCY may at any time, by written order, make changes within the general scope of
the AGREEMENT in the services to be performed.
B. If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the estimated cost of, or the time
required for, performance of any part of the work under this AGREEMENT, whether or not
changed by the order, or otherwise affects any other terms and conditions of the
AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall make an equitable adjustment in the (1) maximum
amount payable; (2) delivery or completion schedule, or both; and (3) other affected terms and
shall modify the AGREEMENT accordingly.
C. The CONSULTANT must submit its "request for equitable adjustment" (hereafter to as
claim) under this clause within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written order.
However, if the AGENCY decides that the facts justify it, the AGENCY may receive and act
upon a claim submitted before final payment of the AGREEMENT.
D. Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under the Disputes clause. However
nothing in this clause shall excuse the CONSULTANT from proceeding with the
AGREEMENT as changed.
E. Notwithstanding the terms and condition of paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the maximum
amount payable for this AGREEMENT, shall not be increased or considered to be increased
except by specific written supplement to this AGREEMENT.
XV
ENDORSEMENT OF PLANS
The CONSULTANT shall place his endorsement on all plans, estimates or any other engineering
data furnished by him.
XVI
FEDERAL AND STATE REVIEW
The Federal Highway Administration and the Washington State Department of Transportation shall
have the right to participate in the review or examination of the work in progress.
XVII
CERTIFICATION OF THE CONSULTANT
AND THE AGENCY
Attached hereto as Exhibit "A -I", are the Certifications of the Consultant and the Agency, Exhibit
"A-2" Certification regarding debarment, suspension and other responsibility matters - primary
covered transactions, Exhibit "A-3" Certification regarding the restrictions of the use of Federal -funds
for lobbying, and Exhibit "A-4" Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. Exhibits "A-3 " and "A-4"
are. only required in Agreements over $100,000.
FA PWT 03 156 9 8 April 2003
XVIII
COMPLETE AGREEMENT
This document and referenced attachments contains all covenants, stipulations and provisions agreed
upon by the parties. No agent, or representative of either party has authority to make, and the
parties shall not be bound by or be liable for, any statement, representation, promise or agreement
not set forth herein. No changes, amendments, or modifications of the terms hereof shall be valid
unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties as an amendment to this AGREEMENT.
XIX
EXECUTION AND ACCEPTANCE
This AGREEMENT may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed to be an original having identical legal effect. The CONSULTANT does hereby ratify and
adopt all statements, representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements contained in the
proposal, and the supporting materials submitted by the CONSULTANT, and does hereby accept the
AGREEMENT and agrees to all of the terms and conditions thereof.
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year first
above written.
By
By
Consultant BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc.
Agency City of Renton
Planning/Building/Public Works
FA PWT 03 156 10 8 April 2003
EXHIBIT A-1
CERTIFICATION OF CONSULTANT
Project No.
Local Agency City of Renton
Planning(Building/Public Works
I hereby certify that I am James S. Guarre and duly authorized representative of the firm of
BERGERIABAM Engineers Inc. whose address is 33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300,
Federal Way, WA 98003 and that neither I nor the above firm I here represent has:
(a) Employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingent fee or other
consideration, any firm or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or
the above CONSULTANT) to solicit or secure this contract.
(b) Agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract, to employ or retain the
services of any firm or person in connection with carrying out the contract.
(c) Paid, or agreed to pay, to any firm, organization or person (other than a bona fide employee
working solely for me or the above CONSULTANT) any fee, contribution, donation or
consideration of any kind for, or in connection with procuring or carrying out the contract;
except as here expressly stated (if any):
I further certify that the firm I hereby represent is authorized to do business in the State of
Washington and that the firm is in full compliance with the requirements of the Board of Professional
Registration.
I acknowledge that this certificate is to be available to the State Department of Transportation and
the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, in connection with this
contract involving participation of Federal aid funds and is subject to applicable State and Federal
laws, both criminal and civil.
%_1 —03
Date
ature
CERTIFICATION OF AGENCY OFFICIAL
I hereby certify that I am the AGENCY Official of the Local Agency of City of Renton, Washington,
and that the above consulting firm or his representative has not been required, directly or indirectly
as an express or implied condition in connection with obtaining or carrying out this contract to:
(a) Employ or retain, or agree to employ or retain, any firm or person, or
(b) Pay or agree to pay to any firm, person or organization, any fee, contribution, donation or
consideration of any kind, except as here expressly stated (if any).
1 acknowledged that this certificate is to be available to the Federal Highway Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, in connection with this contract involving participation of
Federal aid highway funds and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and
civil.
Date
Signature
FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit A-1 8 April 2003
EXHIBIT A-2
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER
RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS -PRIMARY COVERED TRANSACTIONS
The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it
and its principals:
(a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible,
or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or
agency;
(b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had
a civil judgment rendered against them for commission or fraud or a criminal offense
in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal,
state, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of federal
or state antitrust statues or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery,
falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen
property;
(c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a
governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses
enumerated in paragraph Lb. of this certification; and
(d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or
more public transactions (federal, state, or local) terminated for cause or default.
Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this
certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
Consultant (Firm): BERGERJABAMFesident
Inc.
— 1 -- 0 3 Sen L'or- V P
Date or Authorized Official of Consultant
FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit A-2 8 April 2003
WOM, MOM M
CERTIFICATION REGARDING THE RESTRICTIONS
OF THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR LOBBYING
The prospective participant certifies, by signing and submitting this bid or proposal, to the best of his
or her knowledge and belief, that:
No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the
undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee
of any federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an
employee of a member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract,
the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any
cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or
modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
2. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any
person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency,
a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of
Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the
undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report
Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this
transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or
entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 3 1, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to
file the retired certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more
than $100,000 for each such failure.
The prospective participant also agrees by submitting his or her bid or proposal that he or she shall
require that the language of this certification be included in all lower tier subcontracts which exceed
$100,000 and that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
Consultant (Firm): BERGERIABAM =ne.
� -- 1- 03 S e n w r V
Date P sident or Authorized Official of Consultant
nature
FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit A-3 8 April 2003
4:11:
CERTIFICATE OF CURRENT COST OR PRICING DATA
This is to certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the cost or pricing data (as defined in
section 15.801 of the Federal Acquisition- Regulation (FAR) and required under FAR subsection
15.804-2) submitted, either actually or by specific identification in writing, to the contracting officer
or to the contracting officer's representative in support of the proposal (Exhibit D) are accurate,
complete, and current as of 5 June 2003. This certification includes the cost or pricing data
supporting any advance agreements and forward pricing rate agreements between the offeror and the
Government that are part of the proposal.
Firm: BERGERIABAM E gineers Inc.
Name: James S. Guarre
Title: Senior Vice Preside t
Date of Execution
j
FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit A-4 8 April 2003
Coal Creel Parkway
Renton City Limits to Southeast 951h Way
EXHIBIT "B"
SCOPE OF WORK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARTICLE I --PROJECT PURPOSE................................................................................................ 1
ARTICLE II --EXISTING PROJECT CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND ............... :............. 2
ARTICLE III --CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS................................................................... 2
ARTICLE IV --PROJECT PHASES............................................................................................... 2
1. PREDESIGN PHASE................................................................................................... 2
2. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN PHASE ........................... 3
3. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION PHASE .................................................. 4
4. FINAL PLANS PHASE................................................................................................. 4
ARTICLE V--PROJECT WORK TASKS......................................................................................4
1.
FIELD SURVEYS........................................................................................................4
2.
GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AND ANALYSIS ........................................................
.................
5
3.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PROPERTY OWNER CONTACTS .............................
6
4.
BRIDGE TYPE, SIZE, AND LOCATION (TS&L) STUDY ......................................
7
5.
CORRIDOR -LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT (ESA) .................
7
6.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND PERMITTING .............................
8
7.
SENSITIVE AREA STUDIES AND PLAN................................................................
9
8.
SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT...........................................................................9
9.
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS..............................:.......................................................12
10.
TRAFFIC NOISE...................................................................:....................................13
11.
CULTURAL RESOURCES..............................................................0.......0................14
12.
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT..................................................................................14
13.
PROJECT DESIGN AND PLANS.............................................................................15
14.
FINAL DESIGN REPORT.........................................................................................18
15.
RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN............................................................................................18
16.
MEETINGS.................................................................................................................
20
17.
TRAFFIC SIGNALS, SIGNING, AND CHANNELIZATION PLANS ....................
20
18.
CONSTRUCTION PLANS........................................................................................
20
19.
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROVISIONS.......................................................
21
20.
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE.........................................................................................
21
21.
COORDINATION......................................................................................................
22
22.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND QA/QC.................................... ...............
23
ARTICLE VI --SERVICES AND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY .............................. 24
Exhibit "B"
i August 1, 2003
Duvall Avenue NE/Newcastle Road
Renton City Limits to Southeast 95`h Way
EXHIBIT "B"
SCOPE OF WORK
ARTICLE I
PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of this project is to reconstruct an arterial roadway. The roadway will begin near
the Renton City Limits and proceed approximately 0.4 mile northerly to.near the intersection of
SE 95th Way. The roadway is proposed to be a four -lane facility with storm water conveyance,.
water quality/quantity facilities, and wetland mitigation.
Funding for design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction will come from a variety of public
and private sources. At this time, the City has acquired funding for the project. With the
available funding, the City intends to complete project specific SEPA environmental
documentation, complete preliminary design of the entire alignment to approximately 30% plans
stage (up through right-of-way plans completion) and complete final design.
Among other items described in Article V, project deliverables for this Scope of Work will
include the following:
A. Geotechnical Report with recommendations.
B. Preliminary Opinion of Costs.
C. Draft and Final Design Report including various technical tests, analyses, evaluations, and
documentation as necessary to support items A through F above and as detailed within this
Scope of Work.
D. Preliminary plan set (approximately 30% design level).
E. Final Contract Documents including Plans, Project Manual, Engineer's Estimate
F. Right-of-way plans for all right-of-way required from properties.
G. Permit matrix, Environmental Recommendations Technical Memorandum, and completed
SEPA and NEPA environmental documentation (including Flood Plain analysis, Biological
Assessment, Archeological/Cultural Resources Report, and Noise Analysis.
Plans for the deliverables outlined in D, E, F and G above shall be provided in half-size sheets
(11"x17" bond paper) and in electronic CAD files in a form compatible for use in AutoCAD
software (version currently in use by the City and County). Plans shall be prepared in
accordance with WSDOT's Plans Preparation Manual and City's drafting standards and symbols.
The Consultant agrees to furnish engineering services needed to prepare environmental and
design documents for this project. These services include conducting field tests and analysis;
preparing reports, plans, maps, evaluations, designs, technical specifications, and estimates for
the project.
Exhibit "B"
August 1, 2003
ARTICLE II
EXISTING PROJECT CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND
The proposed action involves improvements to a 0.4 mile segment of Coal Creek Parkway
between the Renton city limits and SE 951h Way at the City of Newcastle city limits. The
roadside elements consist of variable width gravel shoulders and variable depth drainage ditches.
All intersections along the project are currently stop -sign controlled.
The proposed improvements would provide four travel lanes, accommodation for bicycles, with
cubs, gutters, and sidewalks along both sides of the roadway, channelization, a TWLTL or
median, as appropriate, drainage and water quality facilities, retaining walls. Landscaping,
illumination, and possible signal construction. Upgrades and/or new water and sewer facilities
will be included as requested.
The existing land uses along the project are characterized as residential. The project supports
regional plans to provide improved traffic flow and circulation, relieve peak hour traffic
congestion, improve safety and reduce the number and types of accidents, accommodate project
traffic volumes, and provide improved pedestrian and bicycle access along the corridor.
King County previously completed a SEPA EIS (Final EIS published September 1995).
Substantive public input was encouraged and received throughout the EIS process and will
continue as an important part of efforts to develop environmental documentation, mitigation, and
preliminary plans.
ARTICLE III
CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS
Work described herein will be accomplished under a consultant contract between the City of
Renton and the Consultant. All work shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements
of the latest version of the WSDOT LAG manual. Unless otherwise noted, any documents or
written information to be given by the Consultant to the County, or by the County to the
Consultant, shall be transmitted via the City project manager. Any written or electronic
correspondence or communication between these parties shall be through the City project
manager.
ARTICLE IV
PROJECT PHASES
For management, scheduling, and accounting purposes, the scope of work described herein is
one project. The following provides approximate definitions for the various project phases:
1. PREDESIGN PHASE
This phase covers the predesign work needed to refine and define the major elements of the
project coming out of prior work completed and the EIS for improvements to Coal Creek
Parkway SE including such elements as alignment, intersection signal location, WSDOT
coordination, and local agency coordination. The Predesign Phase will be considered
Exhibit " B"
August 1. 2003
complete upon City's approval of the Final Design Report. The Predesign process will be
developed so that the following items are addressed by the Consultant:
a. Review and refine the recommended alignment. In particular, revisions to the King
County portion (northern limits) shall be reviewed to minimize wetland and property
impacts.
b. Review the recommended roadway cross-section and configuration.
C. Prepare a Geotechnical Report with recommendations.
d. Prepare a corridor -level environmental site assessment.
e. Prepare a traffic analysis and signal warrant analysis to determine the appropriate
design parameters for the traffic control at all intersections along the route.
f. Prepare a storm drainage analysis to determine the types, sizes, and locations of
proposed storm water quantity/quality facilities and conveyance systems.
g. Prepare a preliminary engineer's opinion of cost for the project as well as any
opinions of cost needed foi comparing various alternatives.
h. It is anticipated the work in all Phases, including the Predesign Phase, will be a
collaborative effort between the City of Renton, the City of Newcastle, King County,
WSDOT, FHWA, and the TIB. This coordination will be facilitated by the
formation of a Project Guidance Team to be staffed by representatives of each of
these organizations and the Consultant.
i. At the conclusion of the predesign process, a Draft Design Report for Coal Creek
Parkway will be prepared and submitted to the City of Renton for review (five bound
copies). Following one round of review by the City and County, submit the Final
Design Report (five bound copies). The Design Report will document all reports,
studies, analyses, and summarize the final alignment and design elements as selected
by the Project Guidance Team. The Design Report will be the basis for continuing
work into the Preliminary Design and Right -of -Way process.
2. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN PHASE
This phase covers the preliminary design needed to produce preliminary plans based on
results of the Predesign Phase as well as produce stamped and signed right-of-way plans
for the project from the vicinity of Renton city limits to SE 95i11 Way including right-of-
way plans needed for storm drainage conveyance facilities, water quality/quantity facilities,
and wetland mitigation.
It is anticipated a Value Engineering Study will be required during this phase of the project.
The Consultant will participate in the Value Engineering Study for the project by staffing
the initial VE Team project briefing, responding to questions during the study, and
attending the final VE Team presentation.
All engineering reports, analyses, and plans (when submitted in final form) will be stamped
and signed by a Professional Engineer licensed by the State of Washington. Any
preliminary reports, analyses, and plans submitted for review or editing will be marked
"Preliminary, Subject to Change," or with similar words or stamp.
The Preliminary Design and Right of Way Plan Phase will be considered complete upon
City and County approval of the stamped and signed right of way plans.
Exhibit "B"
August 1, 2003
3. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION PHASE
This phase includes the development of a permit matrix, reviewing past environmental
documentation for the project, and preparing an Environmental Recommendations
Technical Memorandum. This phase also covers the preparation of appropriate SEPA
documentation including all needed studies, modeling, and analysis in accordance with
State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21C) and SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11. It is
anticipated that an Addendum to the Coal Creek Parkway SE FEIS (published October
1995) may be the form of this document.
The work in this phase shall be complete in accordance with the recommendations
contained in the Technical Memorandum identified above.
The Consultant's staff will delineate all wetlands and coordinate all permit submittals. The
Consultant will incorporate this work into the environmental documents.
The Environmental Documentation Phase will be considered complete upon completion of
the SEPA and permitting processes.
4. FINAL PLANS PHASE
This phase covers the development of the final plans, technical special provisions, and final
engineer's estimate. The Final Plans Phase will be considered complete upon City's
advertisement of the construction contract(s).
ARTICLE V
PROJECT WORK TASKS
FIELD SURVEYS
The City will complete the surveying and base mapping for this project. The City will
prepare and provide to the Consultant an electronic copy of the completed base map with
all topographic features and known surface utility features shown. The City will provide to
the Consultant the stamped and certified existing right-of-way plan. The City will provide
title reports for properties along the project.
The base map will be at a scale of 1" = 20' with contours at 2' intervals.
The City will derive underground utility information from records provided by the utility
companies. This information will be collected, reviewed, and correlated with surveyed
surface features and a utility composite drawing prepared by the City's Survey Consultant.
The following utilities are expected along this route: power, gas, telephone, cable TV,
sanitary sewer, and water. The City will forward the utility composite drawing to the
various utility companies for verification.
The City will provide a complete topographic survey for any drainage features, wetland
mitigation sites, or other areas that will be part of the project and will provide the resultant
base mapping to the Consultant.
Exhibit "B"
August I, 2003
The Consultant will review the information contained on the composite base maps and
update the base maps as appropriate during the course of the project as new or additional
information becomes available.
2. GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AND ANALYSIS
The Consultant will complete all geotechnical testing and analysis for this project. The
Consultant will initially prepare a Geotechnical Recommendations Technical
Memorandum and submit it for City approval prior to commencing any geotechnical work.
The Technical Memorandum shall detail the proposed type and extent of field geotechnical
investigations and laboratory testing needed to develop information to accomplish the items
below. Once the geotechnical recommendations are approved by the City, the Consultant
shall prepare a plan for implementing the required work. The Consultant shall coordinate
all geotechnical work including borings and associated utility coordination. The results of
the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, analyses, and geotechnical design
recommendations will be presented in a Draft Geotechnical Report for one round of City
review (eight copies). The Consultant will respond to City review comments and submit a
Final Geotechnical Report to the City (eight copies). The Geotechnical work shall include
the following:
a. Review geologic maps, topographical maps, and geotechnical studies of the site and
vicinity, as available and appropriate.
b. Determine appropriate pavement design parameters (subgrade resilient modulus,
California Bearing Ratio, etc.) for use in pavement design.
C. Analyze and make recommendations for roadway pavement sections. Observe and
document existing conditions of the pavement surface along the project alignment.
Falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing will be considered to assist in evaluating
the existing pavement section for overlay design purposes.
d. Make recommendation for acceptable cuts and fill slopes and investigate for the
presence of unsuitable materials.
e. Evaluate the stability of proposed cut slopes and fill slopes associated with the new
roadway.
f. Make recommendations for embankment fill and analyze for settlement of the
embankment.
g. For any retaining structures, determine lateral earth pressures and friction
coefficients; evaluate different retaining wall types and their advantages,
disadvantages and suitability for each location; develop cost estimates and wall type
recommendations; and provide test pits or borings at appropriate locations.
h. Develop geotechnical design criteria and recommendations for traffic signal and light
pole foundations.
i. Evaluate soil parameters needed in the design of any water quality/quantity facilities
and evaluate the suitability of proposed sites for such facilities.
j. Provide recommendations for site preparation and earthwork including clearing.
criteria, suitability of on -site soils for use as structural fill including any constraints
for wet weather construction, gradation criteria for any structural fill material which
may have to be imported, and fill placement and compaction requirements. .
k. Develop preliminary recommendations for excavations, including temporary cut
slopes, and geotechnical considerations for trench support and dewatering.
1. Discuss seismicity at the site and provide seismic design parameters including peak
Exhibit "B"
August 1, 2003
ground acceleration and UBC site coefficient.
m. Provide recommendations for sedimentation and erosion control during and following
construction, and permanent site drainage.
n. Discuss geotechnical considerations related to groundwater conditions including
anticipated seasonal fluctuations.
o. Address City of Renton and King County sensitive areas ordinance issues as they
pertain to geotechnical and geological considerations.
p. Comment on any anticipated construction difficulties identified from the results of
our site studies and from our experience on projects at similar sites.
q. Provide test pits or borings at selected locations to obtain soil samples for laboratory
analysis. The initial plan for borings includes:
• Three borings on the east side of Coal Creek Parkway between SE 95th Way and
SE 100th Place where new retaining structures or embankments may be required
in areas with existing descending slopes.
• Three borings on the west side of Coal Creek Parkway between SE 95th Way and
SE 100th Place where new retaining structures or cut slopes may be required in
areas with existing ascending slopes.
• Two to Four borings throughout the remaining length- of the road improvement
segment to establish subsurface conditions for preliminary pavement design
evaluations and luminaire pole foundations
Existing pavement sections and materials will be evaluated at each boring location
For purposes of this Scope of Work it is assumed that:
a. Access to test boring locations may require some clearing of minor brush.
b. Some of the borings may be drilled with a truck -mounted rig while others may
require the use of a.track-mounted rig.
C. Traffic control may be necessary at some boring locations.
d. Right -of -entry permits will be obtained by the City from property owners as
necessary.
e. Restoration of private property will be provided.
f. Roadway alignment and configuration has been established prior to beginning field
work.
3. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PROPERTY OWNER CONTACTS
Normally, all property owner contacts will be done by County staff. In some cases,. the
Consultant will accomplish the following:
a. Property owners may be contacted, primarily through possible public open house
meeting(s). Provisions will be made at the meeting(s) by the Consultant to record any
input received. As required, the Consultant will arrange one-on-one meetings with
certain property owners to review individual concerns, interests, or requirements:
City staff will also attend these meetings.
Exhibit "B"
6 August 1, 2003
b. The Consultant will prepare the necessary mailings for public meeting(s) that may be
in the form of newsletters, notices, or other informative handouts. The City will be
responsible for addressing and actual mailing.
C. Project newsletters will be used periodically to. inform and update the public about the
project. Newsletters may be timed to announce public meetings or other significant
milestones. The Consultant will prepare the newsletters with City direction on format
and content. The Consultant will provide the final newsletters in electronic format for
printing and distributing by the City. The City will maintain the newsletter
distribution lists.
d. For budget preparation purposes, assume 3 newsletters.
e. The Consultant will prepare the displays required for the Public Outreach meetings.
For budget purposes, assume a project aerial graphic at 100 scale will be prepared and
10 graphic boards (foam core) will be prepared (approximate size 30"X40").
4. BRIDGE TYPE, SIZE, AND LOCATION (TS&L) STUDY
There are no bridges within this segment of the project corridor. The Consultant will
coordinate with the City of Newcastle and its phase 3 design consultant with regard to the
potential replacement and realignment of the May Creek Bridge north of SE 951h Way. The
Consultant will work with this other consultant to help ensure the final roadway alignment
is consistent with a future bridge replacement.
5. CORRIDOR -LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT (ESA)
The Consultant will conduct a corridor -level ESA reconnaissance study to evaluate. the
presence- or likely presence of potential hazardous substances that would have an effect on
the right-of-way or roadway work. Sites likely to be candidates may be those•that indicate
current or past uses as service stations, battery shops, chemical establishments; those with
storage tanks or drums present; or those with strong pungent or noxious odors. The
Consultant will prepare a report to describe the work completed and make
recommendations for follow-on site -specific site assessments that will be in accordance
with ASTM 1527-00 as a Phase 1 ESA. Follow-on site -specific assessments (Phase 1
ESA) will require a Supplement to the Contract. The scope of services for this study will
include:
a. A review of the results of a federal, state and local environmental database search
provided by an outside environmental data service for listings of known or suspected
environmental problems at the sites or nearby properties within the search distances
specified by ASTM. For this work, The Consultant will assume four database
searches with an expanded radius.
b. A review of historical aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, city directories, chain -
of -title reports and tax assessor records, as available and appropriate, to identify past
development history on the parcels relative to the possible use, generation, storage,
release or disposal of hazardous substances. The Consultant will attempt to identify
uses of the sites from the present to the time that records show no apparent
development of the site, or to 1940, whichever is earlier.
C. Conducting a visual reconnaissance of the parcels and adjacent properties to identify
visible evidence of potential sources of contamination. The Consultant will perform
Exhibit "B"
August I, 2003
one site visit per potentially affected parcel. There are estimated to be 45 affected
parcels.
d. Providing a letter report (eight copies) that will summarize the results of this study.
The letter report will briefly discuss the project activities and include a table ranking
the parcels (low, moderate, high) by their potential for contamination from either
onsite or offsite sources. The letter report will be provided as a draft for review and
comment. Upon receiving comments, the letter will be modified as appropriate and
made final.
Not included at this time are an environmental compliance audit, or an evaluation for the
presence of lead -based paint, polychlorinated biphenals (PCBs) in light ballasts, radon,
mold, lead in drinking water, asbestos -containing building materials or urea -formaldehyde
in onsite structures. Soil, surface water, or groundwater sampling and chemical analysis are
not included as a part of the Consultant services.
The City will provide basic information on each property (owner name and address) and a
"Recorded Document Guarantee" for each such parcel upon request from the Consultant.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND PERMITTING
Initial project environmental documentation was completed in the Coal Creek Parkway
SEPA Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS published February 1995).
The Consultant shall prepare a matrix to show all required permits, the timeframes
necessary to complete each permit process, and any inter -relations between the various
permits. The Consultant shall review past environmental documentation and prepare
recommendations (documented in a Technical Memorandum) for completing the project
specific SEPA documentation. The Consultant shall prepare the SEPA documentation and
other necessary studies such as a flood plain analysis to determine impacts to the May
Creek, a Biological Assessment for all special status species, an Archeological/Cultural
Resources Report, a Noise Analysis
The City presently anticipates a SEPA Addendum to the Coal Creek Parkway.
The Consultant shall complete appropriate SEPA documentation including all needed
studies, modeling, and analysis in accordance with State Environmental Policy Act (RCW
43.21C) and SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11
The Consultant shall develop the initial budget proposal for this task using these
assumptions, but environmental documentation shall be completed in accordance with the
approved recommendations contained in the Technical Memorandum identified above.
The budget proposal shall include separate subtasks and amounts for each individual study,
report or other documentation. If necessary, a Supplement to the Contract will be
negotiated to cover extra work not currently anticipated for this task.
The Consultant will prepare and coordinate all permit submittals.
7. SENSITIVE AREAS STUDIES AND PLAN
The CONSULTANT shall prepare a sensitive area analysis report for the City selected
Exhibit "B"
August I. 2603
design alternative. The analysis should include consideration of potential changes to
applicable regulatory requirements that may occur prior to anticipated permitting and
construction phases. The following potential topics will be addressed, as necessary:
• Wetlands
• Streams
• Erosion hazard areas
• Landslide hazard areas
40 Steep slope hazard areas
• Seismic hazard areas
• Identify, delineate, and characterize all sensitive areas within a minimum of 200
feet of the project limits
• Establish required buffer and setback areas
• Identify and assess the hazard(s) to the project due to the sensitive area
• Identify and assess the impacts of any proposed alteration to the sensitive areas
• Identify and assess other impacts by the project on the sensitive areas
• Propose mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring measures
The Consultant will complete all tasks involved in delineating, surveying, and classifying
sensitive areas and developing sensitive area mitigation plans, as appropriate. The
Consultant will be responsible for coordinating with City staff on the general development
of these plans and incorporating these plans into the draft and final Design Report,
environmental documentation, and follow-on PS&E packages.
Assemble this material into a Draft Sensitive Areas Report. Provide eight copies of the
draft document to the City for review. Finalize the Sensitive Areas Report based on one
round of City and County reviews and submit eight copies of the Final Sensitive Areas
Report.
8. SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
Socioeconomic analyses shall follow the guidelines for respective elements outlined in the
WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual M31-11 (2002). The scope of analysis
presented below is likely to require adjustments to address additional input from the public
and relevant resource agencies. The Consultant shall work with the City to focus each
element of the socioeconomic analysis as additional information regarding the alternatives
and baseline conditions are being developed.
a. Land Use:
Evaluate existing land uses along both sides of the project corridor. Direct and indirect
impacts resulting from road improvements under each alternative would be evaluated.
Existing and proposed land uses and current zoning in the project area would be
identified. Generally, this includes a site visit to the project area to verify existing land
Exhibit "B"
August 1. 2003
uses, and written analysis of potential project impacts and mitigation measures. This
would also include impacts related to residential or business displacements or relocations,
access disruptions, and right-of-way needs. Coordination with the City and adjacent
jurisdictions in identifying future (proposed) land uses in or near the project area would
be needed. A zoning map and/or existing land use map shall be prepared.
Review local plans and policies to determine the proposed project's consistency with
comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, sensitive areas ordinance, and other relevant
regulations. This requires coordination with the City to identify appropriate plans and
policies to be analyzed. This analysis may be summarized within the Land Use
discussion under separate heading of "Relationship to Plans and Policies."
b. Social Elements:
Community Impacts
Evaluation of potential changes in neighborhood cohesion and community character
as a result of possible splitting of neighborhoods, isolation of a portion of an existing
neighborhood, and the appearance of incompatible development within a
neighborhood. Identify mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potentially
significant short and long-term impacts.
2. Regional and Community Growth (Population)
Local population and growth patterns will be described, including review of current
and projected population data. A qualitative discussion of population changes
anticipated or accommodated as a result of the proposed roadway improvements
would be provided.
3. Environmental Justice and Title VI Population Groups
Identification of local populations which conform to U. S. Department of
Transportation definitions for "minority" and "low-income" would be provided.
Methods for identification include examination of current census information and
discussion with local agencies (for example: planners, social service providers, school
district officials), but would not include door-to-door visits in the project area. This
review also would include a comparison of demographic information of the people
within the study area to larger City populations to determine if any special
populations reside within the project limits that exceed the characteristics of the City
as a whole.
Based on this research, the absence or presence of special population groups shall be
documented. If such groups are present in the project area, potential impacts,
including the possibility for disproportionate adverse impacts, on these populations
would be evaluated consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Mitigation measures for such impacts would be identified.
4. Public Services and Utilities
A description of public services and utilities in the project area would be provided.
Services may include identification of schools, police, fire protection, emergency
medical services, and transit, religious institutions, hospitals, cemeteries, and /or
Exhibit "B"
10 August 1, 2003
government offices. A discussion of impacts both during construction and operation
of the proposed improvements including disruptions of service, access modifications,
and changes in service travel times would be provided.
Utilities would include identification of electrical power, telephone, cable television,
natural gas, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and solid waste routes would be made.
Existing information on route locations as provided by the lead agency would be used
as much as possible. Potential impacts including temporary service disruptions
during construction would be identified and mitigation measures proposed.
5. Recreation
Recreational facilities including parks and trails, within the project area would be
identified. Special consideration would be given to resources that qualify as Section
4(f) facilities. Potential impacts to recreational facilities during and after construction
would be evaluated, including access to, and the usability and integrity of, existing
and proposed facilities. Mitigation measures would be identified.
6. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Identification of existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the project
area. This would include determination of whether the project area is part of a
designated or planned bicycle route or trail or if such routes or trails cross the project
corridor. The relative amount of use of these facilities would be generally described,
however, this would not include pedestrian and bicycle counts unless specifically
required by the lead agency. Mitigation measures would be identified.
c. Visual Quality: Analysis of potential visual impacts of the proposed project will be
provided. A general assessment of project impacts on viewers in the project area will
be made. One field visit will be made to define the visual environment and identify
sensitive viewer groups based on a representative number, location, and duration of
visually sensitive viewpoints. Photographs of key views from these viewpoints will be
provided. A general, qualitative discussion of visual impacts both during construction
and operation of the proposed project will be provided. This assessment would relate
to impacts at key view locations and to specific viewer groups, and may include
generalized discussion of how headlight light and glare, highway lighting or other
lighting, could affect local views and viewers. Proposed mitigation measures,
including potential landscape treatments would be discussed.
d. Economics: Existing economic conditions in the project area would be described using
current applicable information and data (such as number and type of businesses,
employment, property values, tax base). Impacts of the proposed project would be
described, including construction -period economic impacts, temporary and long-term
changes in traffic associated with shopping patternsJoss of businesses and jobs as a
result of right-of-way acquisition, construction and long-term employment, and
business growth. Existing information would be used as much as possible and a
qualitative discussion of potential impacts would be provided to the extent that such a
description would be adequate. Measures to mitigate significant adverse impacts on
economic activity or employment would be proposed.
Exhibit "B"
11 August 1. 2003
Assemble this material into a Draft Socioeconomic Assessment Report. Provide eight
copies of the draft document to the City for review. Finalize the report based on one round
of City reviews and submit eight copies of the Final Socioeconomic Assessment Report.
9. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
The purposes of the Air Quality Report is to identify any significant impacts and necessary
mitigation measures, and to determine conformity with pertinent air quality rules. The air
quality modeling assessment will meet the requirements of federal and state conformity
regulations and the procedures in EPA's Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from
Roadway Intersections (1992), and will provide a project -level conformity determination
for the project.
a. After review of the proposed project alternatives and the results of the traffic analysis,
the Consultant -will select intersections for project -level air quality modeling. The
Consultant shall visit the project area to assess the presence of potentially sensitive
receivers and to measure the physical parameters of the selected intersections.
b. Traffic Impact Evaluation: The Consultant will conduct an air quality impact analysis
using approved regulatory models and modeling techniques. This analysis will include
use of the latest MOBILE series emission factor prediction model and version 2 of the
CAL3QHC dispersion model. In this process the Consultant will coordinate as
necessary with the appropriate regulatory agencies. The modeling will calculate carbon
monoxide (CO) concentrations near each intersection for the following scenarios: (1)
existing conditions; (2) opening and design year No Action; and (3) opening and design
year with a single worst -case selected from the four (4) build alternatives. The scenario
to be considered with modeling will be selected after review of predicted traffic
conditions, and in consultation with the City. Note. that even a comprehensive analysis
of only one configuration alternative may not provide definitive findings regarding the
air quality conformity of the other alternatives.
c. Mitigation Analysis: In the event the impact analysis modeling indicates the project
would cause significant air quality impacts, it will be necessary to quantitatively
consider mitigation measures for each of the intersections where impacts are expected.
For purposes of estimating a budget, the Consultant shall assume it will be necessary to
model mitigation measures at all four affected intersections for the worst -case of the
build alternatives, and will allow one (1) day for the iterative process of CAL3QHC and
Synchro modeling.
d. Air Quality Technical Study: The Consultant will prepare a draft technical air quality
report to document the methods and the results of the impact and mitigation analyses
and to provide a conformity statement for the project. City will review the draft report
and prepare consolidated comments. The Consultant will incorporate the City's
comments into a final technical report
Assemble this material into a Draft Air Conformity Analysis Report. Provide eight copies
of the draft document to the City for review. Finalize the report based on one round of City
reviews and submit eight copies of the Final Air Conformity Analysis Report. _
Exhibit " B"
12 August 1.2003
10. TRAFFIC NOISE
The purposes of the Traffic Noise Report are to evaluate traffic noise levels at sensitive
receptors near the project that would be potentially affected by traffic noise, and to identify
potential mitigation measures. The Traffic Noise Report will be developed in accordance with
the Washington State Department of Transportation's Environmental Procedures Manual.
a. Existing Conditions/Sound Level Measurements:
After review of the proposed project alternatives the Consultant shall visit the project
area to identify potentially sensitive noise receivers and to take measurements of
existing sound levels. The Consultant will measure existing noise levels at five to ten
receptor sites between approximately 6 AM and 6 PM. Each measurement of existing
noise will last at least 15 minutes. The Consultant will measure the Leq, minimum,
maximum, and other pertinent statistical measures of noise with Type 1 sound level
equipment. During these measurements, sources of existing noise and topographical
features will be noted and traffic speeds and vehicle numbers and mix will be
estimated where possible.
b. Construction Noise Impact Evaluation:
The noise analysis will evaluate potential short-term impacts of noise from
construction activities. Construction noise on nearby sensitive receptors will be
evaluated based on estimates published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) of maximum noise levels of typical construction equipment in conjunction
with simple distance attenuation. Computer modeling of construction noise levels
will not be performed.
c. Traffic Noise Impact Evaluation:
The Consultant will evaluate traffic noise impacts using the FHWA Traffic Noise
Model (TNM) to estimate future traffic noise levels for the worst -case build
alternative. The worst -case scenario will be selected from among the build
alternatives, and will be chosen based on expected future traffic volumes and the
location of the alignment relative to sensitive receivers. The noise modeling will
predict PM peak -hour Leq noise levels from traffic at a maximum of thirty (30)
receptor locations that could be affected by the proposed project, and will consider
existing conditions and design year conditions. Modeling to calculate noise contour
lines is not included.
d. Mitigation Analysis:
The Consultant will identify mitigation measures to reduce noise levels during
construction. If predicted long-term traffic noise levels from operation of the project
would cause noise impacts, mitigation measures will be developed in cooperation
with the lead agency and design engineers. Mitigation analysis, if required, will
include evaluation of the effectiveness and general size and location of natural and
man-made noise barriers using the TNM model.
e. Noise level Technical Study:
The Consultant will prepare a draft technical noise report to document the methods and
the results of the impact and mitigation analyses. City will review the draft report and
prepare consolidated comments. The Consultant will incorporate the City's comments
into a final technical report
Exhibit "B"
13 August 1. 2003
Assemble this material into a Draft Traffic Noise Report. Provide eight copies of the draft
document to the City for review. Finalize the report based on one round of City reviews
and submit eight copies of the Final Traffic Noise Analysis Report.
11. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Review available information and perform a site reconnaissance to identify possible impacts to
historic and archaeological resources and possible associated mitigation requirements for each
design alternative being considered.
The Consultant shall perform all of the following:
Conduct a historic resource inventory and prepare a technical report in accordance with
applicable Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) and
U.S. Secretary of Interior standards. The inventory and report shall cover study area defined by
the City based on their preliminary delineation of a proposed Area of Potential Effects (APE).
As additional project details are defined, the City may make adjustments to finalize the
proposed APE. The inventory and report shall be used in partial fulfillment of Section 106,
SEPA, and other regulatory requirements.
Assemble this material into a Draft Cultural Resources Report. Provide eight copies of the
draft document to the City for review. Finalize the report based on one round of City
reviews and submit eight copies of the Final Cultural Resources Report.
12. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
The Consultant shall coordinate with the City to address potential project impacts to
sensitive species, particularly with respect to applicable requirements of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA).
Federal permits will be needed and therefore this project will require ESA Section 7
concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). The consultant will confirm which species are federally listed
by NMFS and USFWS. The CONSULTANT will also provide the with priority species
and habitat information from (1) the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW), Priority Habitats and Species Program, (2) the Washington Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR), Washington Natural Heritage Program, and (3) the City
and/or County GIS. The Consultant shall review this information, as well as other
appropriate sources of information from existing literature and data resources, in
conjunction with any necessary field reconnaissance.
In conjunction with other sensitive areas site reconnaissance activities, the Consultant shall
verify the presence and availability of potential habitat for species of concern in the project
action area. These may require confirmation of potential habitat for bald eagles and other
federally listed species beyond the immediate project area.
The Consultant will prepare required documentation for ESA compliance. Documentation
for consistency with the ESA will consist of a Biological Assessment pursuant to section 7
Exhibit "B"
14 August 1, 2003
of the ESA. For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that a biological assessment will be
required.
If a Biological Assessment is "required, the report will be prepared consistent with the
WSDOT Guidelines. Assemble this material into a Draft Biological Assessment. Provide
eight copies of the draft document to the City for review. Finalize the report based on one
round of City reviews and submit eight copies of the Final Biological Assessment Report.
13. PROJECT DESIGN AND PLANS
This task initiates work on what will ultimately become construction plans for the project.
These plans will be the basis for both the right-of-way plans and final construction plans
for the project. Plans developed in the Predesign Phase shall be refined as necessary during
the subsequent Preliminary Design and Right of Way Plan Phase and the Final Plans Phase.
Plans shall be prepared in accordance with WSDOT's Plan's Preparation Manual except as
modified by the City of Renton drafting standards and symbols.
During the Predesign Phase, the Consultant shall review and refine the recommended
alignment based on the Coal Creek Parkway SE EIS preferred alternative. In particular,
revisions to the north terminus shall be reviewed to minimize wetland and property
impacts. The Consultant shall review the recommended roadway cross-section and
configuration.
The Consultant shall initially address each of the following items in the Design Report
plans and continue more detailed development in the Preliminary Design and Right of Way
Plan Phase:
a. Plans/Roadway Sections
• Prepare V = 20' preliminary plans and lay out the project with stationing
increasing from west to east and from south to north.
• Develop basic roadway sections including the number of lanes, lane and
shoulder widths, curbs, sidewalks, roadway ditch section, and cut and fill
slopes. Provide grading limits for the roadways.
• Analyze clear zone safety requirements per WSDOT Design Manual to
determine warrants for guardrail placement. Provide widening for guardrail, if
applicable.
• Provide slope treatment for all cut and fill areas and terraces for cut slopes as
required or as specified by the Geotechnical Report.
• Prepare cover sheet and vicinity map for project.
b. Profile Grade:
Shall be developed to account for:
• Stopping sight distance for all applicable criteria.
• Elevation of other roadway and driveway intersections.
• Entering sight distance at all locations along route.
• Drainage system(s) and patterns.
• Pipe cover at all cross culverts and driveway culverts.
• Retaining wall considerations.
Exhibit "B"
15 August 1, 2003
Slopes/guardrail.
Any other engineering considerations.
Following review by the City, develop the final Profile Grade and depict it on
plans at 1" = 5'vertical scale.
Cross -Sections
Compute earthwork quantity, plot cross -sections, and plot catch points on the
plan.
Determine right-of-way or slope easements that are needed.
d. Storm Drainage
This task involves preparing the storm drainage plan for the roadway. The WSDOE
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington shall be used.
• Complete or compile topographic mapping necessary to determine contributing
runoff areas and produce a Drainage Area Map showing all contributing areas,
no smaller than 1" = 200'.
• Design the storm drainage system for the project as follows:
i. Calculate required pipe sizes, slopes, inlet and outlet details, and riprap
requirements to convey roadway runoff.
ii. Size necessary ditches and channels and design accordingly for
conveyance of roadway and cut slope runoff.
ill. Design water quality and quantity facilities for roadway runoff only.
If additional Consultant services are required to develop a joint facility
to accommodate both roadway and offsite runoff, a separate scope of
work and budget will be negotiated and a Supplement to the Contract
will be executed.
iv. Analyze downstream impacts as needed.
A Surface Water Technical Information Report (TIR) for the drainage analysis will
be prepared for both sections of the roadway improvements; that section within the
County and that section within the City. The TIR will address the existing conditions
for the onsite, off -site and downstream effects of the project. The Consultant will
assemble this material into a Draft TIR. Provide eight copies of the draft document
to the City and County for review. Finalize the report based on one round of City
and County reviews and submit eight copies of the Final TIR.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
Prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) following the requirements
of the WSDOE Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington to address
roadway runoff.
g. Traffic Analysis / Signal Warrant Analysis
Prepare a traffic analysis and signal warrant analysis to determine the appropriate
design parameters for the traffic control at intersections and number of lanes along
the route. The City will provide basic traffic modeling services from the City's and
County's Transportation Model. King County Travel Forecasting Unit shall provide
any additional traffic modeling services. The Consultant shall evaluate traffic
Exhibit "B"
16 August I, 2003
17
conditions at appropriate locations along the project for current year, opening year,
and a 20 year design period.
The Consultant shall develop construction staging along the proposed roadway
alignment in enough detail to determine what, if any traffic control measures will be
necessary during construction. Traffic control measures will consist of lane closures,
lane narrowing, temporary roadway construction, road closures, and detours. The
staging plans will be adequate to show an approximate extent and duration of the.
most significant traffic impacts during construction for local residents and businesses
as well as through traffic. Simple graphics will be prepared and included in the
preliminary plans
h. Pavement Design
Develop a pavement section for the project to include subgrade requirements,
roadway surfacing type, base and paving depths. This is to be done in conjunction
with the Geotechnical Testing and Analysis task.
• The Consultant will compile and review Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and
growth -rate data provided by the City. The Consultant will contact King
County DOT about possible bus service and future growth. If bus route growth
cannot be determined, the growth of bus traffic will be assumed to be the. same
as that of the general traffic.
• The Consultant will use ADT traffic and growth -rate data to determine
appropriate Equivalent Single Axle Loading (ESAL) and use soil design
parameters determined previously in the Geotechnical Report to design a
pavement section suitable for the site. The pavement will be designed using the
"1995 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures" methodology.
The design will consider both ACP and PCC full -depth alternative sections --
each designed for a 20-year life.
i. Retaining Structures
Review the roadway plan, profile, cross sections, and geotechnical data to determine
needed retaining wall types and locations. These will be assembled into a retaining
wall preliminary report with clear presentation as to type, approximate length and
height, and approximate cost data. A definite recommendation for final selection
shall be given with the analysis. The City will review the report and return
recommendations for final design selection. This is to be done in conjunction with
the Geotechnical Report task.
j. Value Engineering
The Consultant will provide support to the City in the Value Engineering Study. The
Consultant will be expected to attend parts of the first and last days of the Value
Engineering Team week. On the first day, the Consultant will provide the Team with
plans and a briefing describing the evolution of the project, the design parameters
considered and selected, together with the current plans and expected future
development of the project. The Consultant will attend the last day of the Team week
to attend the out -briefing. Following receipt of the Value Engineering Report, the
Consultant will assist the City in evaluating all recommendations of the Report and
will provide input to the City for each recommendation. For those recommendations
Exhibit "B"
August I, 2003
selected, the Consultant will make changes and updates to the Preliminary Plans as
appropriate.
14. FINAL DESIGN REPORT (30% Submittal)
In the Final Design Report, the Consultant shall:
a. Review all work, geometric design, and design criteria developed to date to assure
that it still complies with current design standards and the design criteria established
in the internal Scope of Work.
b. Complete any incomplete plans.
C. Document the full project scope.
d. Document the design principles/standards used. For the County portion, the
improvements shall be consistent with King County Road Standards and applicable
requirements including King County Code Titles 16 and 21A. For the City's portion,
applicable City Road Standards shall be the basis of the design.
e. Identify environmental documentation and permits required in consultation with City
staff.
f. Identify any criteria that cannot be met or would involve excessive costs.
g. Prepare request for variance for any design criteria that cannot be met.
h. Assemble this material into a Draft Final Design Report. Provide eight copies of the
draft document to the City for review. Finalize the Design Report based on one round
of City reviews and submit eight copies of the Final Design Report. This will
constitute the 30% Review, and each copy shall include a complete set of 11 "x 17"
preliminary plans.
15. RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN
This task develops the right-of-way plan for the project including right-of-way needed for
drainage facilities, water quality/quantity facilities, and wetland mitigation sites- building
off of the Design Report plans. Title reports for all properties in the project vicinity will be
provided by the City.
a. Prepare a right-of-way plan with a cover sheet and plan -profile sheets using the
preliminary project plans as base maps. The Consultant shall prepare the draft
right-of-way plan for review by the City and County. Following review of the draft
plan, only those items shown in item f. below will be shown on the final right-of-way
plan.
b. Compute right-of-way and easement takes and remainders in square feet and tabulate
on each plan sheet.
C. Compute all distances and bearings to allow legal descriptions to be written. Legal
descriptions shall be prepared by the Consultant.. Right-of-way and easements shall
be referenced to roadway centerline stationing.
d. Show all construction permits that will be necessary for driveways.
Exhibit "B"
18 August 1, 2003
e. Show distances from the new right-of-way line to the closest part of houses, garages,
barns, pump houses, and other such significant structures within 40 feet from the new
right-of-way line.
f. Show the following items on the draft and final right-of-way plans:
• All structures affected by proposed right-of-way.
• Major landscaping, hedges, and ornamental trees 6 inches in diameter and
larger.
• Fences.
• Driveways.
• Rock walls.
• Signs.
• Proposed roadway section (on cover sheet).
• Vicinity map (cover sheet).
• All aboveground utilities, poles, and structures.
• Property lines and right-of-way lines.
• Ties to section corners and 1/4 section corners to show ties to the right-of-way
centerline.
• Centerline of roadway including stationing, curve data, bearings, and distances.
• Existing ground and proposed profile.
• Legend.
• Property ownerships and parcel numbers (provided by the City).
Draft and final right-of-way submittals shall be submitted to the City. Eight sets of each
submittal will be assembled by the Consultant.
g. The County will conduct the Right-of-way negotiations in coordination with the City.
There are 34 parcels along the existing alignment that have less than 50 feet of ROW
width from the existing centerline. For the purposes of this scope, the Consultant
assumes that 30 parcels will require a partial take of property. A meeting will be held
with each of these parcel property owners to present an offer. It is assumed that 20 of
the parcels will require a second meeting. Each of the 30 parcels identified as
requiring a partial parcel take will require a project funding estimate be prepared.
16. MEETINGS
Throughout all phases of the project, a number of various meetings are anticipated. These
will include regular meetings between the Consultant, County, and City staff; Project
Guidance Team meetings; as -needed meetings with various agencies, partners, property
owners/tenants and other interested parties; Washington State Department of
Transportation, city councils; and one or more public meetings.
Exhibit "B"
19 August 1. 2003
The following is a summary estimate of the number of these meetings:
MEETING
FREQUENCY
DURATION
Estimated
NOTES
Total No.
Project startup
Once
4 hours
1
With City, Include
County Staff
Project Guidance
Monthly
2 hours
8
Less frequent in
Team
design stage. Include
County Staff
Design Team/City
approximately
2 hours
24
Include County Staff
every 2 weeks
Public meeting
Twice
3 hours
2
Probably evening
Miscellaneous
1 to 2 hours
25
meetings/property
owner meetings
City Council
Once
2 hour
1
WSDOT
2 hours
3
Agencies
Twice each
2 hours
18
Value Engineer Team
3 hours
2
Start and end of team
work
17. TRAFFIC SIGNALS, SIGNING, AND CHANNELIZATION PLANS
This task involves the planning and design of the roadway regulatory signing, signal
systems, channelization, and other traffic -related appurtenances for the project.
a. Review traffic information provided by City and County, and reconfirm or modify
based on material developed to date.
b. Develop channelization plan and intersection layouts.
C. Develop regulatory signing plan.
d. Develop signal system plans
The Consultant will assemble eight sets of the traffic signal, signing and Channelization
plans for review by the City and County.
18. CONSTRUCTION PLANS (60% and 90% Submittals)
This task involves the finalization of the Preliminary Project Plans into plans appropriate
for contract advertisement and construction.
a. Review project files and Final Design Report to be sure all comments received -to date
have been incorporated into the plans.
b. Finalize all horizontal and vertical alignment with all grades, vertical curve, and
horizontal curve data determined.
Exhibit "B"
20 August I. 2003
C. Make final check on all stopping and entering sight distances for project.
d. Review environmental documentation completed to determine if the project plans
need to be modified or revised to accommodate the requirements of these documents.
e. Prepare all design detail sheets, intersection plan sheets, channelization plan sheets,
signal plan sheets, road approach profiles, drainage detail sheets, and summary of
quantities.
f. Perform the appropriate structural analyses and design on the retaining wall(s) and
prepare plans and special provisions in accordance with the Geotechnical Study,
AASHTO 15th edition, applicable WSDOT/APWA Standard Specifications. As a
minimum, retaining wall plans shall show the geometric layout, elevations, typical
section(s), and pertinent details.
g. Prepare final Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Measures may include silt
fence, hay bales, berms, ditches, hydroseeding, and similar features.
h. Prepare wetland mitigation plans into plan package.
i. Assemble and submit 60% plans, specifications, and engineer's estimate including a
set of half-size plans on 11 "x 17" bond paper sheets and applicable backup data. The
plans shall be considered "In Progress"; the specifications in outline form as
envisioned to date; and the engineer's estimate an estimate at this snapshot in time.
j. Assemble and submit 90% PS&E including a complete set of half-size plans on
11"x17" bond paper sheets and all applicable backup data. Combine this submittal
with the City Contract Provisions and reproduce and distribute for internal review.
The Consultant shall respond to the City's 90% review comments and prepare a final
set of PS&E. One original set of 22"04" stamped, final, reproducible plans shall be
submitted to the City.
k. Post PS&E Submittal Assistance --Once the package is finalized, the Consultant shall
remain "on call" until the construction contract has been awarded to the successful
bidder. This normally occurs within three months of the advertisement of the
contract. This work element shall be limited to the costs shown in the fee estimate.
19. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROVISIONS
This task involves the preparation of the Technical Special Provisions for the project.
APWA and WSDOT Standards as amended by the City of Renton will be used as the basis
for the Contract Provisions.
a. Review all data, reports, right-of-way commitments, and decisions made to date on
the project.
b. Review construction plans and the summary of quantities sheets to assure that all
special situations are covered by the contract Special Provisions; determine all non-
standard bid items and prepare technical specifications for them.
20. ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
This task involves the preparation of an engineer's estimate for the project using estimated
quantities derived from preparation of the plans and unit costs based on recent City
contracts and unit cost information provided by WSDOT. The engineer's estimate is
confidential and is not to be released to the public.
a. Prepare and tabulate estimate of quantities. Provide backup calculations for each bid
item.
Exhibit "B"
21 August 1, 2003
b. Review current costs from recent City, County and WSDOT contracts and select
appropriate costs for the project.
C. Prepare and tabulate engineer's estimate using the format provided by the City.
21. COORDINATION
It is the intent of this Agreement that the Consultant shall, notwithstanding the Consultant's
position as that of an independent contractor, act as an extension of City staff. The
Consultant shall coordinate all his activities through the City's assigned Project Engineer.
All correspondence to property owners, public/private utilities, other public agencies, or
any other entity outside of the City of Renton's Transportation Design Services will be
done by the City.
Specific coordination tasks are listed below:
a. Permits Coordination
• Complete Permits Coordination
• Determine what permits will be necessary for the project and what outside
agencies need to be contacted with specific project information. Those permits
necessary through DDES will be coordinated by the County, with the
documentation provided by the Consultant. (This work will performed in
conjunction with Task 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND
PERMITTING above.)
b. Utility Coordination
Provide reduced size copies of the preliminary construction plans for printing and
transmittal by the City to all affected utilities. This should be done as soon as the
preliminary plans are completed to the point where the utility can ascertain the impact
on their facilities.
The Consultant will perform the coordination with PSE and other utilities for location
and relocation of utilities and show the existing utilities and improvements on the
plans.
C. Utility Coordination Meeting
• Attend the utility coordination meetings to discuss project and go over details
that will impact the various utilities within the project limits.
• Incorporate identified utility impacts and improvements into the contract
documents. Detailed design of utility modifications will be performed by
others.
• Assume four utility coordination meetings (90 minutes each) for budget
development purposes.
Exhibit " B"
22 August I. 2003
d. Interagency Agreement
The Consultant will develop a supplement to the interagency agreement between the
City and the County to be used as the basis for negotiating the sharing of costs
associated with the development and construction of this project.
22. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND QA/QC
a. Project Management
The Consultant's assigned Project Manager shall provide appropriate direction and
guidance for the consultant's staff working on this project. Thorough oversight and
review shall be provided over the entire course of the project.
The Project Manager shall prepare and submit Monthly Progress Reports and
maintain the detailed Project Schedule. Monthly progress reports shall describe the
work underway or completed in the subject month, the status of individual tasks,
meetings attended, key milestones, critical path, monthly burden rate, i.e. percent
project expenditures versus percent project completion, and project issues of an
emergent or critical nature. Monthly Progress Reports shall provide information to
allow the City to monitor the Consultant's project budget. Current task status as well
as projections of costs to complete shall be shown. This is intended to help monitor
costs and budget increases or scope modifications or reductions.
Monthly Progress Reports shall accompany monthly invoices. This task provides for
the preparation of, attendance at, follow-up to, and documentation of various
meetings over the course of the project. These meetings will be the forum for the
City to provide input and guidance for the direction of the project. They will also be
used to discuss project issues, approve submittals, and develop potential solutions to
design issues. For budget development purposes, assume two meetings a month at
the City, of two-hour duration, from project kickoff through completion of the Final
PS&E package.
This task provides for the Consultant's development and maintenance of a system for
the filing of drawings and documents (hardcopy and electronic) generated over the
course of the project. This information will be filed in a manner that enables ready
and selective retrieval. This task provides for the development of a work plan that
defines the proposed project expenditures on a month by month basis. This will be
summarized on a task by task basis, as well as an overall total.
b. Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)
This task shall be necessary in order to provide the City a set of final deliverables
with the maximum level of accuracy. This task will involve Consultant staff to
review and control the outgoing documents through a process of Quality Assurance
and Quality Control.
Exhibit "B"
23 August I. 2003
The QA/QC and peer review program has particular emphasis on technical aspects
resting with the various technical disciplines (e.g., roadway, structural, drainage,
traffic, etc.). The overriding strategy of the program is to eliminate major defects in
project work products and limit minor defects so as not to impact client acceptance or.
contractor progress, and to minimize liability exposure. The program entails the
periodic review of study criteria, design, assumptions, and concepts and presentation
of product format. This helps assure that the overall project objectives are being
fulfilled.
QA/QC includes technical discipline review, lead designer review, and senior review.
Discipline reviews will be performed while the detailed technical work is in progress
(i.e., when computations are completed, when sketches and preliminary drawings
have been prepared but not yet submitted for drafting, and when specifications and
special provisions are ready for typing). Lead designers will review specific products
such as plans, reports, specifications, and other documents, at which time these
products are completed. Senior reviews will be performed for an overall task when
and as defined in the QA/QC program. Such reviews will be performed after project
packages are assembled and before they are submitted for the review to the City and
affected agencies. QA/QC efforts and reviews shall include the work performed by
the Consultant and their subconsultants.
Scheduled senior reviews will be documented in a memorandum format to the Project
Manager. The Consultant's Project Manager will be responsible for adjudication of
comments/responses with respect to the project scope, budget, and schedule.
ARTICLE VI
SERVICES AND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY
The City will provide periodic review of the Consultant's work, respond promptly to requests for
information, negotiate any requests for extra work, and provide required approvals in a timely
manner.
The City of Renton will provide copies of project files, the following data, and services:
a. Preliminary Utility Coordination
b. Parcel ownership and parcel number information.
C. All rights of entry, easement and land acquisitions.
d. Title Reports.
e. Traffic information
f. SEPA Draft EIS (September 1995), and Final EIS (October 1995).
g. Preliminary plans EIS process.
h. Traffic modeling results.
i. All surveying work and resulting base mapping in hardcopy and electronic format together
with the certified existing right-of-way map.
j. Organize and administer the Value Engineering Study.
Exhibit "B"
24 Aueust 1, 2003
EXHIBIT C
PAYMENT
(COST PLUS FIXED FEE)
The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed work and services rendered under
this AGREEMENT as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for all work
performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, equipment, and incidentals necessary to
complete the work specified in Section 11, "Scope of Work." The CONSULTANT shall conform with
the applicable portion of 48 CFR 3 1.
A. .Actual Costs
Payment for all consulting services for this project shall be on the basis of the
CONSULTANT's actual cost plus a fixed fee. The actual cost shall include direct salary cost,
overhead, and direct nonsalary cost.
Direct Salary Costs
The direct salary cost is the direct salary paid to principals, professional, technical,
and clerical personnel for the time they are productively engaged in work necessary to
fulfill the terms of this AGREEMENT.
Overhead Costs
Overhead costs are those costs other than direct costs which are included as such on
the books of the CONSULTANT in the normal everyday keeping .of its books.
Progress payments sham be made at the rate shown in the heading of this AG, under
"Overhead Progress Payment Rate." Total over -head payment shall be based on the
method shown in the heading of the AGREEMENT. The three options are explained
as follows:
a. Actual Cost Not To Exceed Maximum Percent: If this method is indicated in
the heading of this AGREEMENT, the AGENCY agrees to reimburse the
CONSULTANT at the actual overhead rate verified by audit up to the
maximum percentage shown in the space provided. Final overhead payment
when accumulated with all other actual costs shall not exceed the total
maximum amount payable shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT.
b. Fixed Rate: If this method is indicated in the heading of the AGREEMENT,
the AGENCY agrees to reimburse the CONSULTANT for overhead at the
percentage rate shown. This rate shall not change during the life of the
AGREEMENT.
A summary of the CONSULTANT's cost estimate and the overhead computation are attached
hereto as Exhibit D and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. When an Actual
Cost method, or the Actual Cost Not To Exceed method is used, the CONSULTANT (prime
and all subconsultants) will submit to the AGENCY within three months after the end of
each firm's fiscal year, an overhead schedule in the format required by the AGENCY (cost
category, dollar expenditures, etc.) for the purpose of adjusting the overhead rate for billing
purposes. It shall be used for the computation of progress payments during the following
FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit C-1 8 April 2003
year and for retroactively adjusting the previous year's overhead cost to reflect the actual
rate.
Failure to supply this information by either the prime consultant or any of the subconsultants
shall cause the agency to withhold payment of the billed overhead costs until such time as the
required information is received and an overhead rate for billing purposes is approved.
The STATE and/or the Federal Government may perform an audit of the CONSULTANT's
books and records at any time during regular business hours to determine the actual
overhead rate, if they so desire.
Direct Nonsalary Costs
Direct nonsalary costs will be reimbursed at the actual cost to the CONSULTANT. These
charges may include, but are not limited to the following items: travel, printing, long distance
telephone, supplies, computer charges, and fees of subconsultants. Air or train travel will
only be reimbursed to economy class levels unless otherwise approved by the AGENCY.
Automobile mileage for travel will be reimbursed at the current rate approved for AGENCY
employees and shall be supported by the date and time of each trip with origin and
destination of such trips. Subsistence and lodging expenses will be reimbursed at the same
rate as for AGENCY employees. The billing for nonsalary cost, directly identifiable with the
Project, shall be an itemized listing of the charges supported by copies of original bills,
invoices, expense accounts, and miscellaneous supporting data retained by the
CONSULTANT. Copies of the original supporting documents shall be provided to the
AGENCY upon request. All of the above charges must be necessary for the services to be
provided under this AGREEMENT.
Fixed Fee
The fixed fee, which represents the CONSULTANT's profit, is shown in the heading of this
AGREEMENT under Fixed Fee. This amount does not include any additional fixed fee which
could be authorized from the Management Reserve Fund. This fee is based on the scope of
work defined in this AGREEMENT and the estimated man -months required to perform the
stated scope of work. In the event a supplemental agreement is entered into for additional
work by the CONSULTANT, the supplemental agreement may include provisions for the
added costs and an appropriate additional fee. The fixed fee will be prorated and paid
monthly in proportion to the percentage of work completed by the CONSULTANT and
reported in the monthly progress reports accompanying the invoices.
Any portion of the fixed fee earned but not previously paid in the progress payments will be
covered in the final payment, subject to the provisions of Section IX, Termination of
Agreement
5. Management Reserve Fund
The AGENCY may desire to establish a Management Reserve Fund to provide the Agreement
Administrator the flexibility of authorizing additional funds to the AGREEMENT for
allowable unforeseen costs, or reimbursing the CONSULTANT for additional work beyond
that already defined in this AGREEMENT. Such authorization(s) shall be in writing and
shall not exceed the lesser of $50,000 or 10% of the Total Amount Authorized as shown in the
heading of this AGREEMENT. The amount included for the Management Reserve Fund is
shown in the heading of this agreement. This fund may be replenished in a subsequent
supplemental agreement. Any changes requiring additional costs in excess of the
"Management Reserve Fund" shall be made in accordance with Section XIV, "Extra Work."
FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit C-2 8 April 2003
6. Maximum Total Amount Payable
The maximum. total amount payable, by the AGENCY to the CONSULTANT under this
AGREEMENT, shall not exceed the amount shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT.
The Maximum Total Amount Payable is comprised of the Total Amount Authorized, which
includes the Fixed Fee and the Management Reserve Fund. The Maximum Total Amount
Payable does not include payment for extra work as stipulated in Section XIV,. "Extra Work."
B. Monthly Progress Payments
The CONSULTANT may submit invoices to the AGENCY for reimbursement of actual costs
plus the calculated overhead and fee not more often than once per month during the progress
of the work. Such invoices shall be in a format approved by the AGENCY and accompanied
by the monthly progress reports required under Section III, including direct salary, direct
nonsalary, and allowable overhead costs to which win be added the prorated Fixed Fee. To
provide a means of verifying the invoiced salary costs for CONSULTANT employees, the
AGENCY may conduct employee interviews. These interviews may consist of recording the
names, titles, and present duties of those employees performing work on the PROJECT at the
time of the interview.
C. Final Payment
Final payment of any balance due the CONSULTANT of the gross amount earned will be
made promptly upon its verification by the AGENCY after the completion of the work under
this AGREEMENT, contingent upon receipt of all PS&E, plans, maps, notes, reports, and
other related documents which are required to be furnished under this AGREEMENT.
Acceptance of such final payment by the CONSULTANT shall constitute a release of all
claims for payment which the CONSULTANT may have against the AGENCY unless such
claims are specifically _,reserved in writing and submitted to the AGENCY by the
CONSULTANT prior to its acceptance. Said final payment shall not, however, be a bar to
any claims that the AGENCY may have against the CONSULTANT or to any remedies the
AGENCY may pursue with respect to such claims. The payment of any billing will not
constitute agreement as to the appropriateness of any item and that at the time of final audit,
all required adjustments win be made and reflected in a final payment. In the event that
such final audit reveals an overpayment to the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT will
refund such overpayment to the AGENCY within ninety (90) days of notice of the
overpayment Such refund shall not constitute a waiver by the CONSULTANT for any claims
relating to the validity of a finding by the AGENCY of overpayment.
D. Inspection of Cost Records
The CONSULTANT and the subconsultants shall keep available for inspection by
representatives of the AGENCY and the United States, for a period of three years after final
payment, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this AGREEMENT and are items
related to or bearing upon these records with the following exception: if any litigation, claim,
or audit arising out of, in connection with, or related to this contract is initiated before the
expiration of the three-year period, the cost records and accounts shall be retained until such
litigation, claim, or audit involving the records is completed.
FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit C-3 8 April 2003
Direct Salary Cost (DSC
PERSONNEL
Project Executive
Project Manager
Project Engineer
Senior Engineer
Planner
Engineer/Technician
Graphics/CADD
Project Coordinator
Clerical
Direct Salary Cost Total
Salary Escalation @ 5%
Overhead Cost
Net Fee
Reimbursables
KING COUNTY EXHIBIT D-1
Analysis of Costs - BERGER/ABAM Inc.
Travel/Parking
Computer/CADD
Reproduction/Postage
Project Notebook
Public Meeting Graphics
ROW Services
BERGER/ABAM SUBTOTAL
Subconsultants: (See Exhibit G)
Hours
Pay Rate
Cost
24 $
62.50
$
1,500
393
47.90
18,825
640
36.50
23,360
457
30.30
13,847
154
35.50
6,887
474
20.80
9,859
590
25.20
14,868
45
20.30
914
116
20.60
2,390
2933
$ .
92,449
$
3,467
158.00%
of DSC
$
151,547
32.00%
of DSC
$
30,693
SUBTOTAL
$
278,156
$
342
5,310
2,500
1,000
2,500
18,300
SUBTOTAL
29,952
$ 308,108
GeoEngineers
8.3%
Participation
$ 40,536
Widener & Associates
21.9%
Participation
106,751
Marai Associates
1.9%
Participation
9,040
JGM Landscape Architects
4.8%
Participation
23,460
CTS Engineers
0.0%
Participation
-
SUBCONSULTANTS SUBTOTAL
$ 179,787
GRAND TOTAL
$ 487,895
SAY
$ 487,000
Prepa By
Date ,
Exhibit D-4
Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.)
Project Name: Duvall Avenue NE - King County
Project No: FA PWT 03 156
Prepared By: GLP PROJECT DESIGN. PRELIMINARY & FINAL DESIGN RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
Date: 5-Jun-03
TOTAL FIELD SURVEYS HOURS
_
0
6
91
15
5
7
16
0
58
ABAM Hourl Rates
f
188.05
f 144.12
f
109.82
f 91.17
f
106.81
f 62.58
f
75 82
f
61.08
f
61.98
ABAM Task 1 Cost Subtotals
$
$ 865
$
988
$ 1,367
$
534
$ 438
$
1,213
$
-
$
-
$
5,406
Task 1 Total=
$
5,400
TASK 2: GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AND ANALYSIS
2.1. Review of:Existm Information'
4
5
�
:1
0
11.5
:GEO.
2.2. DevelopWork'lan
4
4
:
0::5
:. 0
9
GEO
2.3. Coordinate Field >Work'and Field. Labor .
1
'
12
3B
`
3
56
GEO
2.4. En ineerin :Ana ses/Develo Recommendations
1t1
22
12
2
48
< GEO.
2.5. Meetings.
8
16
GEO,
2.6. Project Management
2
6
,:
2.7. Draft Report
2
11
5
4
<2
1
2 '.
5
GEO
Report (8
2.8.. Final Report
2
4
2
.
t1:5
0.
9
GEO
Re ort 181
2.9. Coordinate Geotechnical Work
2
2
4
2.10. Review and Comment on Reports
2
2
2
6
TOTAL ABAM GEOTECH TESTING & ANALYSIS HOURS
0
4
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
10
ABAM Hourly Rates
f 188.05
f 144.12
f 109.82
f 91.17
f 106.81
f 62.58
f 75.82
f 61.08
f 61.98
.
ABAM Task 2 Cost Subtotals
_.:
$
$ 576
$ 439
$
$ 214
$
$
$ -
$ -
$ 1,229
TOTAL GEO GEOTECH TESTING AND ANALYSIS tiOtJR
33
0
.`: 0
72
. 53
0
7
? ] 1
9.
185.5
GEO
GEO Hourl Rates,
f 14. f 36
.
f _. J30 98
114:61
f : ;:1087332;
f 62 22
f .' 81.8T
:: f $894
f 55 67:GEO
GEO Task 2. Cost Subtotals=
$4: 863.
:$.:
S
$ >::7,780
..a 3 992:.
S
$ - : 573
t 64$.$
..1.8,385
.: GEO.
Task 2 Total=
11
$ 19,600
Exhibit D-5
Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.)
Exhibit 0-6
Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.)
Exhibit D-7
Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.)
PROJECT PROJECT I PROJECT SENIOR I I ENGR/ IGRAPHICIC PROJECT
DESCRIPTION EXEC MGR ENGR ENGR PLANNER TECH I ADD COORD CLERICAL TOTAL SUB DELIVERABLE
TASK 8: SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
8.7. Coordinate Socioeconomic Assessment 4. 4 g
--1.6...................
._...._..::.-
8.8. Review and Comment 4 4 8 16
.TOTAL ABAM SENSITIVE AREA STUDIES AND PLAN HOURS 0 8 8 0 16 0 0 0 32
ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.81 $ 62.58 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98
ABAM Task 8 Cost Subtotals S $ 1,153 $ 879 $ 1 $ 1,709 $ $ $ - $ - $ 3,740
Task 8 Total= S 24,400
TASK 9: AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
.:::.. .......
•::::o;: ..;::.::..:::.. ::.::.::;.. ..
>9.1 ;Review.Trat6c:Ana 'ss: ...........;<»:<•»E::>::>:;::::::#;:.::::.::;:.. ;� :;;:»::.,. •.....:: • . :;;:.::.:;..:::..:::::.:,:..
1 40
.;:::... ....... ... .:........... ..... 1 MA
....... ......
9.5. Coordinate Air Quality Analysis
2
21
2
6
9.6. Review and Comment
2
2
2
6
TOTAL ABAM AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS HOURS
0
4
4
0
4
0
0
0
12
ABAM Hourly Rates
$
188.05
$ 144.12
$
109.82
$
91.17
$ 106.81
$ 62.58
$ 75.82
$ 61.08
$ 61.98
..... ABAM Task 9 Cost Subtotals=
$
-
$ 576
$
439
$
$ 427
$
1
$
$
FS 1.443
TOTAL MA AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS HOUR 0 0 TO:: 0I 0 X 19 MA
MA Hourly Rates. $ - $ .. 141.41 :$ 32.19341' .:106 34 1 . 60.48' : $ - $ ji $ MA
MA Task 9 Cost Subtotals= S. $. 1:41. S 1;063 S - S' 605' $ $ S $ $ 1,810 MA
Task 9 Total=1 $ 11,600
Exhibit D-8
Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.)
Exhibit D-9
Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.)
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT
EXEC
PROJECT
MGR
PROJECT
ENGR
SENIOR
ENGR
PLANNER
ENGR/
TECH
GRAPHIGC
ADD
PROJECT
COORD
CLERICAL
TOTAL
SUB
DELIVERABLE
TASK 13: PRELIMINARY PROJECT PLANS
13.1. Review Alignment
13.2. Coordinate SR 900/Duvall Avenue Intersection
13.3. Plans/RoadwaySections
2
6
5
31
6
3
5
8
16
10':
MA:,
8 Sheets
3 Sheets
Preliminary Plans and Profiles - Duvall Avenue
Preliminary Plans and Profiles - Intersecting Roadways
Basic Roadway Sections
Clear Zone Safety Analysis
2
2
1
13
2
2
2
40
13
6
61
40
13
6
80
32
13
175
62
28
8
8 Sheets
5 Sheets
2 Sheets
Slope Treatment for Cuts/Fills
2
61
3
11
Cover Sheet and Vicinity Map
1
3
31
7
1 Sheet
13.4. Profile Grade
Stopping Sight Distance
3
3
3
9
Roadway/DrivewayRoadway/Driveway Intersections
3
5
6
14
Entering Sight Distance
3
3
3
9
Drainage S stern/Patterns
3
31
3
9
Pipe Cover Analysis
31
3
Retaining Wall Analysis/Locations
3
61
6
15
Slopes/Guardrails
3
3
6
12
Mill Creek Replacement Structure
3
2
2
7
13.5. Roadway Cross Sections
1
3
6
13
31
P6
13.6. Storm Drainage Analysis/Plan Incl. on Plan/Profile
Contributing Drainage Area Map
3
6
5
41
181
2 Sheets
Drainage System Design
3
131
10
241
50
Pipe/Ditch/Channel Sizing
2
8
13
23
Water Quality/Quanlity Facilities
3
13
10
20
46
Downstream Impacts
3
8
6
17
Drainage Report TIR
2
3
8
6
13
8
40
Report 8
13.7. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
2
13
13
8
44
10 Sheets
13,8..Update Traffic Analysis
3
13
4
.: 24.
44.::.MA
13.9. Signal Warrant Analysis Ke 1ntefsections'
.2
8
4
12
MA
13.10. Construction Sta in lrraffic Control
6
13
16
35
4 Sheets
13.11. Pavement Design
2
3
5
13.12. Retaining Structures
2
5
11
13
19
50
2 Sheets
13.13. Preliminary Engineer's Opinion of Costs
2
5
8
16
31
13.14. Value Engineering
2
6
31
3
81
22
TOTAL PRELIMINARY PROJECT PLANS HOURE
0
16
100
218
0
202
248
0
16
800
ABAM Hourly Rates
$ 188.05
$ 144.12
$ 109.82
$ 91.17
$ 106.81
$ 62.58
$ 75.82
$ 61.08
$ 61.98
ABAM Task 13 Cost Subtotats
S -
$ 2,306
$ 10,982
$ 19,874
S -
$ 12,642
S 18,803
S
$ 992
$ 65,599
TOTAL PRELIMINARY PROJECT PLANS HOUR
0
4';'i
18
10
;.: 34'.
:0
0
::o
6 6
MA.
MA Hourl Rates.
$ =
$ 441.41
;S 132 93
$ . i:i06 34
�C;: 80,48
$ -
$
S :
$
.: MA
"MAlaslk13Cost,Subtotals=
$ ::
$ : 58B
: $ 2393
S:. 1063
.
.S> 2,OS6.
i S
S :`
S
$
S. 6,078
: MA
Task 13 Total=
$ 65,600
Exhibit D-10
Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.)
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT
EXEC
PROJECT
MGR
PROJECT
ENGR
SENIOR
ENGR
PLANNER
ENGR/
TECH
GRAPHIC11
ADD
PROJECT
COORD
CLERICAL
TOTAL
SUB
DELIVERABLE
TASK 14: FINAL DESIGN REPORT
14.1 Executive Summary
1
3
1
1
1
7
14.2 Introduction (Purpose and Need
1
1
1
1
4
14.3 Existing Conditions
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
14.4 Design Criteria and Constraints
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
14.5 Proposed Im rovements& Requested Variances/Deviations
Roadway
1
3
3
3
1
11
Intersections
1
6
6
2
1
16
1
Z
.3
::MA:.
Driveways and Access
1
3
6,
3
1
14
2 Sheets
Drainage incl. SW PPP
0.5
3
61
2
1
12.5
Structures
0.5
2
2
2
1
7.5
14.6 Right -of -Way
0.5
3
6
2
1
12.5
14.7 Environmental Considerations and Permits
0.5
3
3
2
1
9.5
14.8 Utilities
14.10 Schedule, Construction Staging, and Traffic Control
0.6
1
4
4
4
41
2
2
4
1
Mimi
11.6
=SEEM
1
16
14.11 Public Involvement
1
2
2
1
1
6
14.12 Project Costs
0.5
2
2
2
11
1
8.6
14.13 Draft Final Design Report
2
4
4
4
301
11
451
Report 8
14.14 Final Design Report
1
2
2
2
101
1
lei
Report 8
TOTAL FINAL DESIGN REPORT HOUR
0
15
47
541
10
23
45
0
17
211
ABAM Hourly Rates
$ 188.05
$ 144.12
$ 109.82
$ 91.17
$ 106.81
$ 62.58
$ 75.82
$ 61.08
$61.98
ABAM Task 14 Cost Subtotal
$ -
$ 2,162
$ 5,162
$ 4,923
$ 1,068
$ 1,439
$ 3,412
$
$ 1,054
$ 1921
tOTALFINALDESIaf.ntEPORT#IOl7R
MA lioWl Rates
$
MA
-. .
MA Fask:44. 0o000tatals=
.� ...:.;
+..:
am
Task 14
Exhibit D-11
Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.)
Exhibit D-12
Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.)
Exhibit D-13
Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.)
Exhibit D-14
Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.)
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT
EXEC
PROJECT
MGR
PROJECT
ENGR
SENIOR
ENGR
PLANNER
ENGR/
TECH
GRAPHIC/C
ADD
PROJECT
COORD
CLERICAL
TOTAL
SUB
DELIVERABLE
TASK 22: PROJECT MANAGEMENT & QA/QC
22.1. Monthty Progress Reports
20
10
9
39
66
22.2 Monthly Invoices
22.3. Monthly Progress Meetings
20
10
36
22.4. Project ScheduleN dates
40
40
0
22.5. QA/QC Program
22.6. QA/QC Review Memos
22.7. QA/QC Review Response Memo
4
10
10
20
20
20
12
30
16
3o
16
12
30
16
4
2
80
52
140
82
TOTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT & QA/QC HOURIC
ABAM Hourly Rates
24
$ 188.05
140
$ 144.12
118
$ 109.82
46
S 91.171
58
$ 106.81
01
S a2.58 I
01
t 73.82
45
$ 61.08
28
$ 61.98
459
ABAM Task 22 Cost Subtotals
Task 22 Total.
$ 4 513
$ 20,177,
$ 12,959
$ 4194
$ 6195
$
$
$ 2,748
$ 1,735
$ 52,521
S 52,500
Exhibit D-15
Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.)
rM
EXIMIT E
BREAKDOWN OF OVERHEAD COST
In this section, the following document is as follows.
■ WSDOT's Audited Overhead Cost Breakdown
FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit E-1 8 April 2003
BERGER [ABAM ENGINEERS INC.
WSDOT FY 2002 AUDITED HOME OFFICE INDIRECT COST RATE
(2080 Basis)
In 000s
FY 2002
Allocation Base
Total Direct Labor $5,274
Indirect Costs
Indirect Labor (Admin, Proposal, Negot)
$2,756
Vacation, Holiday, Sick, Other Labor
835
Fringe Benefits
1,467
Administration Expense
590
Proposal Expense
191
Facilities
841
Furniture, Equipment, and Supplies
322
Communication and Reproduction
211
Computer Services
421
Miscellaneous Taxes and Insurance
25
E & O Insurance
332
B & O Taxes
354 $ 8,345
$8,345/$5,274
Indirect Cost Rate = 158.23%
EXHIBIT F
PAYMENT UPON TERNIINATION OF AGREEMENT
BY THE AGENCY OTHER THAN FOR FAULT OF THE CONSULTANT
(Refer to Agreement, Section IX)
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts
A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT which when added to any payments previously
made, shall total the actual costs plus the same percentage of the fixed fee as the work completed at
the time of termination is to the total work required for the Project. In addition, the CONSULTANT
shall be paid for any authorized extra work completed.
FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit E-1 8 April 2003
EXHIBIT G
SUBCONTRACTED WORK
The AGENCY permits subcontracts for the following portions of the work of this AGREEMENT.
■ GeoEngineers, Inc.
8410 154"' Avenue NE
Redmond, Wa. 98052
■ Widener Associates
9908 Airport Way
Building 12 Unit 1
Snohomish, WA 98296
■ Marai Associates
19110 Bothell way NE, Suite 202
Bothell, WA 98011
■ JGM Landscape Architects
204- 11 P Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit G-1 8 April 2003
EXHIBIT G-2
Sub -Consultant Analysis of Costs - GeoEngineers
Direct Salary Cost (DSC)
PERSONNEL
Hours
Pay Rate
Cost
Project Executive
40 $
45.00
$
1,800
Associate
0
40.00
-
Senior Environmental Geologist
32
35.00
1,120
Project Engineer/Senior Engineer
72
33.00
2,376
Engineer/Scientist 2
145
23.00
3,335
Engineer/Scientist 1
0
19.00
-
Senior Technican
9
25.00
225
Project Coordinator
25
18.00
450
Clerical
16
17.00
264
Direct Salary Cost Total
339
$
9,570
Overhead Cost
197.46%
of DSC
$
18,896
Net Fee
30.00%
of DSC
2,871
SUBTOTAL
$
31,336
Reimbursables
Travel/Parking (274 miles @ $0.365/mile)
$
100
Database Searches
$200
Aerial Photography Review Fee 2 visits @$130/visit)
$260
City Directories
$480
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
$320
Env. Miscellaneous
$140
Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
$1,000
Drilling
$2,772
Backhoe
$261
Traffic Control
$1,672
Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing
$1,740
Private Utility Locate
$91
Computer/CADD
$120
Reproduction/Postage
$44
SUBTOTAL
$
9,200
TOTAL $ 40,536
Direct Salary Cost (DSC
PERSONNEL
Project Executive
Project Manager
Project Engineer
Senior Engineer
Planner
Engineer/Technician
Graphics/CADD
Project Coordinator
Clerical
Direct Salary Cost Total
Overhead
Net Fee
Reimbursables
EXHIBIT G-3
Sub -Consultant Analysis of Costs - Widener Associates
Travel/Parking (200 miles @0.365/mile)
Reproduction/Postage
Communications
Miscellaneous
Hours Pay Rate Cost
0 $ - -
271 45.00 12,195
1007 25.75 25,930
0 - -
0 - -
0 -
14 -
0 - -
n
1292 $ 38,125
150.00% of DSC $ 57,188
30.00% of DSC $ 11,438
SUBTOTAL $ 106,751
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL $ 106,751
n
EXHIBIT G-4
Sub -Consultant Analysis of Costs - Marai Associates
Direct Salary Cost (DSC
PERSONNEL
Hours
Pay Rate
Cost
Project Executive
0 $
_
$
_
Project Manager
6
56.16
337
Project Engineer
29
52.79
1,531
Senior Engineer
15
42.23
633
Planner
44
24.02
1,057
Engineer/Technician
0
_
_
Graphics/CADD
0
Project Coordinator
0
Clerical
0
Direct Salary Cost Total
94
$
3,558
Overhead
121.80%
of DSC
$
4,334
Net Fee
30.00%
of DSC
$
1.,067
SUBTOTAL
$
8,960
Reimbursables
Travel/Parking
$
80
Computer
_
Reproduction/Postage
Communications
_
SUBTOTAL $ 80
TOTAL $ 9,040
q
EXHIBIT G-5
Sub -Consultant Analysis of Costs - JGM Landscape Architects
Direct Salary Cost (DSC)
PERSONNEL
Hours
Pay Rate
Cost
Project Executive
32 $
42.00 $
1,344.00
Project Manager
59
35.00
2,065
Project Engineer
98
21.00
2,058
Senior Engineer
0
-
-
Planner
0
Engineer/Technician
0
-
-
Landscape Designer/CADD
87
19.00
1,653
Project Coordinator
0
-
-
Clerical
9
17.50
158
Direct Salary Cost Total
Overhead
Net Fee
Reimbursables
Travel/Parking
Computer
Reproduction/Postage
Communications
285
$ 7,278
188.00% of DSC $ 13,682
30.00% of DSC $ 2,183
SUBTOTAL $ 23,142
$ 80
20
188
30
SUBTOTAL $ 318
TOTAL $ 23,460
0
s
CITY OF RENTON
T
Office of the City Attorney
Jesse Tanner, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren
Assistant City Attorneys
Mark Barber
Zanetta L. Fontes
Russell S. Wilson
Ann. S. Nielsen
MEMORANDUMSasba P. Alessi
Post. Office Box 626 - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 255-8678 / FAX (425) 255-5474 R E N T O N
�^.� AHEAD OF THE CURVE
- �fi) This gaper contains 50 % recycled material. 30 %post consumer
07/31/2003 13:00 FAX 425 430 7376
RENTON TRANS. SYS
1'
C. UUL
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
July 31, 2002
TO:
Larry Warren
FROM:
Sandra 4� _-
SUBJECT:
2003 Budget and Projects
We have two new projects that need money in 2003 that were not anticipated. The
Detailed Budget book does not have these projects listed. We will not be going over the
total 2003 budget ordinance allocation.
The first project is the King County portion of DuVall Avenue. While we always had the
DuVall Avenue Project in the 2003-2008 TIP, it indicated project limits only within the
City of Renton. The Transportation Committee is recommending an interlocal agreement
with King County regarding the City's management of the County portion for approval
on Monday. August 41h. The contract will be going through a separate agenda bill
process, which you have already approved as to legal form.
The second project is the Lake Washington Blvd. Landslide Project. The project lies
entirely within the City of Renton and requires 2003 expenditures.
Do we need separate ordinances for these projects in order to spend 2003 funding on
them?
H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\ADMIN\DrR's working files\Larrywarrenduvall.do6cor
CITY OF RENTON
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OR CONCURRENCE
DATE: Jun , 2003
TO: Mike Webby
Vj
FROM: James Wilhoit g
CONTACT PERSON:
SUBJECT: Berger/Abam Engineering, Inc. Contracts
Duvall Avenue NE Widening &
Duvall Avenue NE/SR-900 Intersection
Please review the two (2) attached contracts with insurance to verify it covers what the City of
Renton requests.
Thank you.
REVIEWER 41
CONCURRENCE
0
Name
e
9
Date
7_ 31�
H:TransTorms/Concurrence Request
06/09/2003 10:38 FAX 206431ZZ50
• + Cllontdl• 16757
ABAM Acconting
1001
- - - - nrac%3r�aasa
ACORD. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
ATE(Id D"MI
PRODUCER
'
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
ISI Northwest of Washington
ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
.0415 72ND Avenue South
HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
Suite 300
ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.
INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE
NAIC #
Kent, WA 98032
INSURED Berger/Abam Engineers
INSURER A: Hartford Fire Insurance Company
INSURER B:
33301 9TH Avenue S
INSURER Q
Federal Way, WA 98003 - 6395
INSURER D:
nwrre � i-rc
INSURER E
THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING
ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT DR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR
MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS
OF SUCH
POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
INSH
L
TYPE OF MURANCE
POLICY NuMBER
POLICY EFFECTIVE
05101103
POLICY ERFiRAnOr1
DATE
LIMITS
EACH OCCURRENCE $1 000 Od0
A
GENERAL UARIUTY
52UUNUS2723
05/01/04
X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
DAMAGE TO RENTED
i200OOO
CLAIMS MADE a OCCUR
rranml
NED E)W (Any one pweon)
$1 O 000
PERSONAL AADVINJURY
$1 000 000
GENERAL AGGREGATE
$2 00O 000
GEN'L AGGREGATE UMT APPLIES PER:
PRODUCTS - COMPAOP ADO
$Z 0DO 000
Poucr FX PRo LOC
A
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
52UUNUS2723 05/01/03 OW01/04
X ANY AUTO
COMBINCD SINGLE LIMIT
(Ea amdmQ
$1,000,000
ALL OWNED AUTOS
SCHEDuLEO AUTOS
BODILY INJURY
S
X NON -OWNED AUTOU
D.
�� )
$
(Per TY DAMAGE
S
J Lrfv IT I
GARAGE LIAYILJTY
AUTO OKY - FA ACCIDENT
S
OTHERTHAN EAACC
S
ANYAUTO
��' O ..
�a /
S
AUTO ONLY: AGG
EXCESSM108AC A UABLLrn
EACH OCCURRENCE
S
AGGREGATE
$
OCCUR Q CLAIMS WADE
S
DEDUCTIBLE
_
i
RETENTION S
A
wQw-ERscouPENSAnmAnD
52UUNUS2723
05/01M3
05/01/04
wGSYATu. X oTN.
ANY ORA-ARr
ANY PROPRIETORAPARTNERfE�C!lTIVE
(WA STOP GAP)
F-L EACH ACCIDENT
S1.000.000
OFFICER/MEMBEREXCLUDED?
If�as araibe u>a�
E.L. DISEASE -EAEIAPL
S1,000,000
SPECIAL PROVISIONS below
E.L DISEASE -POLICY LIMN
E1 000,000
OTHER
r
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS / VEHICLEs / EXCLUs10NS ADDED BY ENOMEMENTI SPECIAL. PROVISIONS
Re: Duval Ave. No SI Newcastle Road
The City of Renton, its officers and employees are named as additional
insured on the General Liability policy.
FPPWT03156
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
LD ANY OFTHEASOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION
THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL JIyft MAIL AS DAYS WRITTEN
E TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT,
ACORD 25 (2001/08) 1 of 2 #1S88843/MB5733
AUTOO' W�QZED
Arm
6DL a ACORD CORPORATION 1988
06/09/2003 10:38 FAX 2064312250 ABAM Acconting 002
IMPORTANT
If the certificate holder Is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed_ A statement
on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s)_
If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may
require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate
holder in lieu of such endorsement(5).
DISCLAIMER
The Certificate of Insurance on the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between
the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it
affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies fisted thereon_
V
•��..� ,w. L or L >ivaisis43IM95733
I
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
AI k: a .
Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works
Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems Division/Water Utility
Staff Contact...... Tom Malphrus, x-7313
Subject:
Elevated Water Tanks Seismic Repair & Rehabilitation Project:
CAG-02-163, WTR-27-3005
Contractor: T Bailey, Inc.
Exhibits:
Final Pay Estimate
Notice of Completion of Public Works Contract
For Agenda of: 8/ 18/03
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution........... .
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information........ .
X
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Council Concur Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept...... X
Other....... ....
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Expenditure Required $326.40 (final pay estimate only) Transfer/Amendment
Amount Budgeted $1,250,000 (2003 Total Budget) Revenue
Acct.# 421.500.18.5960.34.65.055555 and Generated.........
Acct. #421.500.18.5960.34.65.055260
Total Project Budget $1,393,000 (total 2002 and 2003 Budget) City Share Total
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The project started on December 17, 2002, and was completed on July 29, 2003. The original
contract amount was $972,672.00 and the final contract amount is $1,020,095.20, an increase
of $47,423.20 (5% of the original contract amount). The increase covers field conditions not
anticipated and includes lead paint abatement, repair and replacement of corroded parts,
replacement of bolts, weld repair and installation of additional ladder safety features.
There are sufficient funds in the 2003 project budget to cover the additional costs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Utility Systems Division of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends
that Council accept the project, approve the final pay estimate and approve release of the
retainage bond after 60 days, subject to receipt of all required authorizations.
H:\File Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27 - Water Project Files\WTR-27-3005 - Seismic Upgrade of Rolling Hills & Higlilands
Reservoirs\Correspondence\Clerk-Council\ProjectAcceptanceAgendaBill. doc
TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR
FRACTOR: T. Bailey, Inc.
CONTRACT NO. CAG 02-163
ESTIMATE NO. 9 (Final)
CAG 02-163 Elevated Water Tanks Seismic Repair &
PROJECT: Rehabilitation (WTR 27-3005) Closing Date: 08/04/03
1. CONTRACTOR EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE
2. SALES TAX @ 8.80%
3. TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT THIS ESTIMATE
$300.00
$26.40
4. EARNINGS PREVIOUSLY PAID CONTRACTOR $937,287.50
5.00 EARNINGS DUE CONTRACTOR THIS ESTIMATE $300.00
6. SUBTOTAL - CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS
$326.40
$937,587.50
7. RETAINAGE ON PREVIOUS EARNINGS (not required) $0.00
8.00 RETAINAGE ON EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE (not required) $0.00
9. SUBTOTAL - RETAINAGE $0.00
10. SALES TAX PREVIOUSLY PAID $82,481.30
11. SALES TAX DUE THIS ESTIMATE $26.40
12. SUBTOTAL - SALES TAX $82,507.70
GRAND TOTAL: $1,020,095.20
XNCE DEPARTMENT ACTION:
PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR (Lines 5 and 11):
ACCOUNT # 421.000500.018.5960.0034.65.055555 (55555/5354) $326.40 # 9 (Final)
ACCOUNT # 421.000500.018.5960.0034.65.055260 (55260/5354) $0.00 # 9 ( $326.40
RETAINED AMOUNT (Line 8): '"
*' Not required. Contractor supplied retainage bond #08668987 from Fidelity
& Deposit Co., of Maryland $0.00 # 9 (Final)
$0.00
TOTAL THIS ESTIMATE: $326.40
CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965
CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION
1, THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY, THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE
SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED
HEREIN, AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST, DUE AND UNPAID
OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON, AND THAT I AM
AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM
Signed: 6(U/ 6wu" WL sf YA ;?063
C 0 o `
J'�6 Qv 6 Z503
Printed On: 08/06/2003
H/Filesys/WTR-27-3005/pay-estimate/payest5 City of Renton Public Works Department Page 1
y Printed On: 08/06/2003 City of Renton Public Works Department Page 1
Project: CAG 02-163 Elevated Water Tanks Seismic
Repair & Rehabilitation (WTR 27-3005) Contract Number: GAG 02-163
Contractor: T. Bailey, Inc. Pay Estimate 9 (Final) Closing Date: 08/04/2003
n Description Unit Est. Unit Previous Previous This This Total Total
J. Quantity Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantity Amour
Highlands Tank -
H1
Mobilization/Demobilization
0
1
H2
Trench Shoring Safety Systems
0
1
H3
Erosion Control
0
1
H4
Surveying Staking, Utility Location, As-Builts
0
1
HS
Flex Expansion Joints, Pipe Restraint & Suppo
0
1
H6
Weld Repair
0
1
H7
Steel Splice Plates
0
1
H8
Friction Dampers
Each
24
Rolling Hills Tank -
Rt
Mobilization/Demobilization
0
1
R2
Trench Shoring Safety Systems
0
1
R3
Erosion Control
0
1
R4
Surveying Staking, Utility Location, As-Builts
0
1
i
Flex Expansion Joints, Pipe Restraint & Suppo
0
1
R6
Weld Repair
0
1
R7
Steel Splice Plates
0
1
R8
Friction Dampers
Each
15
R9
Access Ladders & Landings
0
1
R10
Exterior Overcoating
0
1
R11
Interior Recoating
0
1
R12
Epoxy Surfacer/Filler
Square Foot
1500
R13
Cathodic Protection System
0
1
CO#1
Replace roof vent & lead abatement
0
1
CO#2
Replace loose bolts
each
60
CO#3
Davit arnJSaf-T-Notch/FloaVExtra Welding
0
1
CO#4
Concrete thrust block & dead man block
0
1
$10,000.00
1.000
$10,000.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$10,000.00
$500.00
1,000
$500.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$500.00
$2,000.00
1.000
$2,000.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$2,000.00
$5,000.00
1,000
$5,000.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$5.000.00
$20,000.00
1.000
$20,000.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$20,000.00
$30,000.00
1.000
$30,000.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$30,000.00
$110,000.00
1.000
$110,000.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$110.000.00
$7,500.00
24.000
$180,000.00
0.000
$0.00
24.000
$180,000.00
$10,000.00
1,000
$10,000.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$10,000.00
$500.00
1.000
$500.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$500.00
$2,000.00
0.850
$1,700.00
0.150
$300.00
1.000
$2,000.00
$5,000.00
1.000
$5,000.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$5,000.00
$30,000.00
1.000
$30,000.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$30,000.00
$25,000.00
1.000
$25,000.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$25,000.00
$85,000.00
1.000
$85,000.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$85,000.00
$7,500.00
15.000
$112,500.00
0.000
$0.00
15.000
$112,500.00
$79,000.00
1.000
$79,000.00
0.000
$0,00
1.000
$79,000.00
$70,000.00
1.000
$70,000.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$70,000.00
$90,000.00
1.000
$90,000.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$90,000.00
$5.00
0.000
$0.00
0.000
$0.00
0.000
$0.00
$20,000.00
1.000
$20,000.00
0.000
$0.00
1,000
$20,000.00
$23,000.00
1.000
$23,000.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$23,000.00
$50.00
35.000
$1,750.00
0.000
$0.00
35.000
$1,750.00
$22,337.50
1.000
$22,337.50
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$22,337.50
$4,000.00
1.000
$4,000.00
0.000
$0.00
1.000
$4,000.00
Subtotal $937,287.50 $300.00 $937,587.50
wv
8.8 % Sales Tax $82,481.30 $26.40 $82,507.70
Total �pa3 $1,019,768.80 $326.40 $1,020,095.20
sTAT State of Washington Reg.No.:
C, Department of Revenue
6 - x Audit Procedures & Administration Date:
s�yy 1889 �Oy� PO Box 47474
Olympia, Washington 98504-7474
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT
From:
City of Renton
Finance Department
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Assigned To
Date Assigned
Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below.
Description of Contract
CAG 02-163 Elevated Water Tanks Seismic Repair & Rehabilitation
(City of Renton Water Project WTR-27-3005)
Contractor's Name
T Bailey, Inc.
Telephone No. (360) 293-0682
Contractor's Address
12441 Bartholomew Rd., Anacortes, WA 98221
Date Work Commenced
December 17, 2002
Date Work Completed
July 29, 2003
Date Work Accepted
August 18, 2003
Surety or Bonding Co.
Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland
Agent's Address
Mike Murphy, Bush Cotton & Scott LLC, P.O. Box 3018, Bothell, WA
98041-3018, Phone No. 425-489-4500
Contract Amount: $894,000.00 Amount Disbursed
Additions or Reductions: $43,587.50 Amount Retained:
Sales Tax: $82,507.70 Total:
Total $1,020,095.20
By
Phone No:
$1,020,095.20
$0
(Retainage Bond)
$1,020,095.20
(Disbursing Officer)
The Disbursing Officer must complete and mail THREE copies of this notice to the Department of Revenue, Olympia, Washington
98504-7474, immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract. NO PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE FROM
RETAINED FUND until receipt of Department's certificate, and then only in accordance with said certificate.
FORM REV 31 0020 (12-92)
H:\File Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27 - Water Project Files\WTR-27-3005 - Seismic Upgrade of Rolling Hills & Highlands
Reservoirs\PayEstimate\NoticeOf> ompletion.doc
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Al #: 117i
Submitting Data: PBPW Department
For Agenda of: August 18, 2003
Dept/Div/Board. .
Agenda Status
Staff Contact...... Gregg Zimmerman
Consent .............. X
Public Hearing..
Subject:
King County Solid Waste Agreement: Suburban Cities
Correspondence..
Association Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on
Ordinance .............
Solid Waste Issues
Resolution............ X
Old Business........
New Business.......
Exhibits:
Draft Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on Solid
Study Sessions......
Waste Issues
Information.........
Draft Solid Waste Interlocal Work Plan
Resolution
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Approvals:
Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... $10,000 (Solid Waste Fund 403) Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... $10,000 (Council Authorized on Revenue Generated.........
June 23, 2003)
Total Project Budget $10,000 City Share Total Project.. $10,000
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
On June 23, 2003 the City Council authorized the Mayor to spend up to $10,000 to join with
other Suburban Cities in obtaining legal counsel and other assistance to review and evaluate the
proposed rental arrangement for the Cedar Hills Landfill. The attached Suburban Cities
Association (SCA) Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on Solid Waste Issues establishes
responsibilities of the suburban cities in participating in a review of the King County
Executive's recent Solid Waste Utility proposals including the landfill rental proposal. The
Solid Waste ILA Work Plan establishes the policy goals of this review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Administration recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the SCA
Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on Solid Waste Issues, and to participate in the
associated work plan. The Administration recommends approval of the Resolution to this
effect.
Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 8, 2003
TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
J.,
VIA: 4. 5'llesse Tanner, Mayor
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman C F
STAFF CONTACT: Gregg Zimmerman (x-7311)
SUBJECT: King County Solid Waste Agreement: Suburban Cities
Association Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on Solid
Waste Issues
ISSUE:
The King County Executive has made a variety of proposals affecting the solid waste
utility which may have the effect of impacting the rights and responsibilities of the
suburban cities with interlocal agreements with King County for solid waste transfer and
disposal services. These proposals include King County plans to pay from its Solid
Waste Enterprise fund, to its current expense fund, the sum of $7 million per year (with
6% annual inflation), and also to purchase property on Harbor Island in Seattle for a
potential future solid waste intermodal station. Cities making up the Suburban Cities
Association wish to collaborate on a review of these proposals, including the
performance of a legal review of provisions of the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Administration recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the
SCA Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on Solid Waste Issues, to participate in the
associated ILA Work Plan, and to adopt the subject Resolution.
BACKGROUND:
The recent King County Executive's proposal regarding charging rent to the Solid Waste
Enterprise fund and placing these revenues into the King County Current Expense
Account could impact solid waste transport and disposal services currently provided by
King County to the cities and the residents. The proposal to purchase property at Harbor
Island in Seattle for a potential future solid waste intermodal station could likewise
impact these services and also future regional decisions regarding transfer and disposal of
solid waste. The Suburban Cities Association and its member cities have drafted a
CAWINDOWs\TEMMC solid waste collaboration issue paper.doc\cor
Page 2.
Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on Solid Waste Issues to establish the roles and
responsibilities of the cities in reviewing the Executive's proposals and in reviewing and
revising the interlocal agreements with King County. A draft Solid Waste ILA Work
Plan has also been put together to establish policy goals of this review process. These
policy goals include negotiating changes to the solid waste interlocal contract that
delivers better accountability to the ratepayers and host cities; identifying review
processes for the intermodal/new business plan; evaluating issues concerning the rent
proposal for Cedar Hills Landfill and advocating for alternate solutions; and developing
options or alternative for solid waste transfer and disposal in the future.
On June 23, 2003 the City Council authorized the Mayor to send a letter to King County
requesting review and renegotiation of the provisions of the Solid Waste Interlocal
Agreement in order to keep the City's options open while the County Executive's
proposals are being evaluated by Suburban Cities. The Council also authorized the
Mayor to spend up to $10,000 to join with other Suburban Cities in obtaining legal
counsel and other assistance to review and evaluate the proposed rental arrangement for
the Cedar Hills Landfill. The attached Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on Solid
Waste Issues and the Solid Waste ILA Work Plan provide a framework for pursuing
these goals.
The attached documents are in draft form. Minor changes may be made to the content
based upon ongoing review of these documents by the Suburban Cities. Any substantial
changes to the documents will be brought back to the City Council for review.
Deb Eddy of the Suburban Cities Association has given assurances that assessments to
the cities for the costs associated with this review will not go up if certain cities decide
not to participate..
cc: Lys Hornsby
Linda Knight
CAWINDOWSUEMMKC solid waste collaboration issue paper.dockor
RECEIVED
JUN 2 4 2003
CITY OF RENTON
PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
COMMITTEE REPORT
June 23, 2003
APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL
Date
The Administration has informed the Council that King County is planning to pay, from
its Solid Waste Enterprise fund, to its current expense fund, the sum of $7 million per
year for the use of the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill. These payments will start in 2004,
and will be provided for by service p-dd9'iogTai ie raising solid waste rates. The
b�
County is also planning on char g fast r 4ior the pe . of 1992-2003. The City of
Renton and other Suburbant'estre�artic�arits in tl S�bt Waste Interlocal
Agreement with King County thftgntrolss the reratitonshi een the parties. The City
of Renton, pursuant to thkAgreei� nt has the option dkre en g that agreement for
review and rene otiaho� � beforeJul y
g �' .'
The Council hereby a�, o ='", s he a e er to County requesting
review and renegohat>tan oherovisions;'eSolid Wate Ier cal Agreement.prior
to July 1 �`; 2003, in ord to keel th i , opti aspen hile th., unty Executive's
proposals are being eval ate§d4+,Jy�Suburban Cities. '_
�..
The Council further authon�6 - yp> to su est o S Cities that it review and
1,
evaluate the real estate transacttos, eadlntc theCo�ty stauung title to the land for
the Cedar Hills Landfill, obtain a ?64q ooe app a ai�nd the assumptions, underline
that appraisal, and further review the legal a rental being proposed by the County
Executive.
The Council further authorizes the Mayor to spend up to $10,000 to join with other
Suburban Cities in obtaining legal counsel and other assistance to review and renegotiate
the provisions of the Solid Waste Interlocal and to review and evaluate the proposed
rental arrangement for the Cedar Hills Landfill.
Kathy K lker-Wheeler, Council President
cc: Xd5 eGl9 ;MM�t/h�f�G�-hJ
U /
J
Copy
Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on Solid Waste Issues
1. Context and Purpose
The King County Executive has made a variety of proposals affecting the solid waste utility
which may have the effect of impacting the rights and responsibilities of the 38 cities with
existing interlocal contracts for solid waste transfer and disposal services with King County.
In considering the potential impacts of these proposals on cities and on ratepayers, the
cities wish to realize the efficiencies and cost savings in collaboration, in addition to the
benefit of integrated policy decisions for the region.
Some cities have chosen to exercise a review and renegotiation term in the existing
interlocal contracts with a 2003 anniversary date. Many issues arising under the
Executive's proposals may be discussed and resolved within the context of the review and
renegotiation process. Cities without currently effective review and renegotiation terms
wish to take advantage of the opportunity to develop potential contract changes that will be
of equal benefit to them.
Cities may wish to consider other collaborative actions, such as a request to King County or
to the State Department of Ecology for reopening of the comprehensive plan, formal input
to the Metropolitan King County Council directly or through the Regional Policy Committee,
or development of alternatives or options for solid waste transfer and disposal services.
Suburban Cities Association, through its board of directors, has sanctioned this collaboration
as dealing appropriately with both policy and administrative issues raised by the Executive's
proposals and recommends participation by all cities with contracts with King County for
solid waste transfer and disposal services. This memorandum sets out the roles and
responsibilities, processes and goals for the collaboration, hereafter `the project'.
2. Roles and Responsibilities
2.1 Participating Cities -- Any city receiving solid waste transfer and disposal services
from King County may participate in this project by concurrence of their legislative
body and/or mayor. No membership in Suburban Cities Association is required to
participate in this project. Participating cities are expected to
2.1.1 act in good faith in support of this project and its goals for a period of six
months, until December 31, 2003, including contribution to costs;
2.1.2 communicate to the principal work groups described here the city's interests
and issues in the solid waste delivery system, including potential solutions;
2.1.3 refrain from separate negotiations with any county staff or elected officials on
these matters, without prior notice to the other participating cities.;
2.1.4 identify one or more individuals to serve on the Solid Waste Oversight Group
and identify possible participants in the SWPAG and SWNG, described below.
2.2 Solid Waste Oversight Group — Each participating city will identify one or more
staff to serve on the Solid Waste Oversight Group. These individuals are expected to
2.2.1 elicit policy direction, interests and issues from their city's elected officials and
convey it to the SWPAG and SWNG, described below;
2.2.2 review materials associated with this project, attend meetings where needed
and give feedback to the SWPAG and SWNG, where needed;
2.2.3 report to their city's mayors, councils or staff, as may be required, included
presenting policy materials or potential contracts for discussion and action.
C:\WINNT\Profiles\lknight\Desktop\SW Collab Agmt July 2003.doc 1
2.3. Solid Waste Policy Advisory Group - After soliciting input from participating cities,
the officers of SCA will identify six to eight elected officials to serve as the SWPAG and will
identify these officials to all participating cities. These elected officials do not have to be
from SCA member cities. The SWPAG shall include elected officials with the following
interests:
• at least one official serving on the Regional Policy Committee,
• at least one official from a city with a future contract anniversary date,
• at least one official from a city without a transfer station,
• at least two officials from cities with transfer stations.
The SWPAG will
2.3.1 oversee the work of the Solid Waste Negotiating Group for purposes of
ensuring consistency with project goals, including approval of the team lead
and approval of any resource contracts;
2.3.2 communicate with other city elected officials with interests in this issue,
including individual city councils, mayors and the SCA Management Board, as
may be appropriate;
2.3.3 where consistent with the group strategy being executed by the SWNG,
communicate with county elected officials, including the County Executive and
County Councimembers, as may be required.
2.4 Solid Waste Negotiating Group t three participating cities with the highest
population may, at their option, appoint Pstaff member to serve on the SWNG. Then ,the
officers of SCA, after soliciting input from the participating cities and concurrence of
supervisors, will identify a staff team of no more than seven members, including any
appointees from the most populous participating cities, and identification of the team lead.
The Solid Waste Negotiating Group will
2.4.1 create a timeline, identifying cumulative issues, outcomes desired and
strategies for accomplishing those outcomes, representing cities in the review
and rengotiation process;
2.4.2 work with the SWPAG and county staff and elected officials, agree to a
meeting schedule and timeline that ensures that the parties' mutual interests,
at both the executive and legislative level, can be dealt with simultaneously;
2.4.3 reciprocally communicate with the SWOG and with the SWPAG, consistent
with the roles of those groups;
2.4.4 provide support and assistance to the SWPAG, to the extent that elected
officials must communicate with county elected officials on these issues;
2.4.5 provide for the identification, selection and contracting for any support
services deemed necessary to the effort and approved by the SWPAG,
through the fiscal agent.
3. Budget. Coordination and Timeline
3.1 Budget: An assessment of $80,OOC ill be made to support this collaboration, and
apportioned to participating cities ac rding to OFM April 2003 population figures.
This assessment will cover the cost of all anticipated support services for this
collaboration, which will be primarily in the form of legal support or advice. The
Suburban. Cities Association will act as the fiscal agent for the purposes of this
collaboration, consistent with its fiscal powers under RCW 24.03 and its articles of
incorporation. SCA will not use its assessment authority under its Bylaws, Article
VII, unless later determined by the Management Board and approved by a majority
of the membership, as provided therein. Any balance remaining after completion of
the project will be returned to the cities proportionately.
C:\WINNT\Profiles\Iknight\Desktop\SW Collab Agmt July 2003.doc 2 ;
3.2 Coordination: SCA will act as coordinating agent and will keep project documents,
including the following records for the project, available to all participating cities: c
3.2.1. Financial records, including any contracts for service;
3.2.2. Current communications lists, email group, fax and phone information for all
participants in the collaboration, SWOG, SWPAG, SWNG;
3.2.3. An essential parties' list, including contact information for negotiating
personnel from all parties, contract resources and constituent groups;
3.2.4. A list of all calendared meetings and records of notices to affected parties;
3.2.5. An index of all documents created or distributed through the effort, including
electronic copies of such documents, where available.
3.3 Timeline: The SWNG will develop a timeline, identifying milestones for reports to
SWPAG and SWOG, anticipating resolution of all issues within six months, or by
December 31, 2003. Should that date pass with issues outstanding, then the SWNG
will present to the SWPAG and SWOG the reasons for the delay and a plan for
bringing the project to completion.
4. Goal, Outcomes and Work Products
4.1 Goal: The goal of this project is to ensure that plans and action for future solid
waste transfer and disposal services are in the best interest of the ratepayers and
the region, whether undertaken by King County, the cities or other entities.
4.2 Outcomes and Work Products: Each outcome for this project will be will be
accompanied by a written work product. Initially, expected outcomes are as follows:
4.2.1 Agreement on amendments or revisions to the interlocal contract with King
County which are acceptable to both cities and to the county;
4.2.2 Agreement on amendment or revisions to the comprehensive plan which may
be needed in light of the executive's proposals or agreements concerning the
interlocal contract;
4.2.3 . Development of options or alternatives for solid waste transfer and disposal
which may be available in the future, and the conditions under which cities
should consider exercising those options.
I have read the Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on Solid Waste Issues and agree to
its terms on behalf of my city. I understand that my city is not obligated to accept any
contract terms that may be produced during this project and that the elected officials of my
jurisdiction have sole authority to accept or reject any contract terms. As a participating
city, I commit to fulfilling the responsibilities described in Section 2.1.
Mayor/Manager/Administrator City
Printed Name
Date
C:\WINNT\Profiles\lknight\Desktop\SW Collab Agmt July 2003.doc 3
City
Population
$ 0.034
, , , v-1
Mayor
CWCAO
Bellevue
107,500
$
3,665.750
$
11,825.00
Marshall
Sarkozy
Kent
84,275
$
2,873.78
$
9,270.25
White
Martin
Federal Way
83,850
$
2,859.29
$
9,223.50
Burbidge
Moseley
Renton
53,840
$
1,835.94
$
5,922.40
Tanner
Covington
Shoreline
53,250
$
1,815.83
$
5,857.50
Jepsen
Burkett
Redmond
46,040
$
1,569.96
$
5,064.40
Ives
Kirkland
45,790
$
1,561.44
$
5,036.90
Springer
Ramsay
Auburn
(Part)
43,970
$
1,499.38
$
4,836.70
Lewis
Sammamish
34,660
$
1,181.91
$
3,812.60
Kilroy
Yazici
Burien
31,810
$
1,084.72
$
3,499.10
Woo
Long
Des Moines
29,510
$
1,006.29
$
3,246.10
Steenrod
Piasecki
SeaTac
25,320
$
863.41
$
2,785.20
Brennan
Rayburn
Mercer
Island
21,955
$
748.67
$
2,415.05
Merkle
Conrad
Kenmore
19,180
$
654.04
$
2,109.80
Chase
Anderson
Tukwila
17,270
$
588.91
$
1,899.70
Mullet
Berry
Bothell
(part)
16,330
$
556.85
$
1,796.30
Merrill
Thompson
Maple Valley
15,040
$
512.86
$
1,654.40
Iddings
Starbard
Covington
14,395
$
490.87
$
1,583.45
Sullivan
Dempsey
Issaquah
13,790
$
470.24
$
1,516.90
Frisinger
Kos
LakeForPark
12,860
$
438.53
$
1,414.60
Hutchinson
Haines
Enumclaw
11,195
$
1,231.45
Wise
Bauer
Woodinville
9,215
$
314.23
$
1,013.65
Hageman
Rose
Newcastle
8,205
$
279.79
$
902.55
Dulcich
Takata
Normandy
Park
6,395
$
218.07
$
703.45
Harris
MacReynold
Pacific (part)
5,405
$
184.31
$
594.55
Erickson
Duvall
5,190
$
176.98
$
570:90
Nixon
Wise
North Bend
4,735
$
161.46
$
520.85
Simpson
Martinez
Snoqualmie
4,210
$
143.56
$
463.10
Fletcher
Black
Diamond
4,015
$
136.91
$
441.65
Botts
Paulsen
Medina
3,010
$
102.64
$
331.10
Becker
Schulze
Clyde Hill
2,895
$
98.72
$
318.45
Martin
Wasserman
Algona
2,525
$
86.10
$
277.75
Wilson
Carnation
1,905
$
64.96
$
209.55
Lisk
Yarrow
Point
1,010
$
34.44
$
111.10
Berry
Milton (part)
815
$
27.79
$
89.65
Asay
Hunts Point
455
$
15.52
$
50.05
McConkey
Beaux Arts
295
$
10.06
$
32.45
Lowry
Skykomish
215
$
7.33
$
23.65
Mackner
Total costs
24,675.78
80,830.75
842,325
5
C:\TEMP\SW Collab Agmt July 2003.doc 4
Solid Waste ILA Work Plan
DRAFT 3ULY 31 2003
1. Purpose
The cities wish to assess the potential impacts of the Executive's solid waste proposals on
the utility, on ratepayers and on host cities. Cities with currently effective 'review and
renegotiation' provisions in their contracts wish to take advantage of the efficiencies and
cost savings of joint action. Cities without currently effective R&R terms wish to take
advantage of the opportunity to develop potential contract changes that will be of equal
benefit to them. Cities may wish to take other actions in response to the Executive's
proposal, including a request for reopening of the solid waste comp plan, advocacy with the
public and with the MKCC.
2. Policy goals
The project has the following policy goals (should be reviewed and approved by city
councils or mayors):
A To negotiate changes. to the solid waste interlocal contract that
delivers better accountability to ratepayers and to host cities;
B To identify and advocate for appropriate review processes for the
intermodal/new business plan;
C To identify issues concerning the rent proposal for Cedar Hills and
advocate for alternate solutions to a diversion of utility funds to
general government purposes;
D To develop options or alternatives for SW transfer and disposal in
the future, and the conditions under which cities should consider
exercising those options.
3. Summary staff responsibilities
Solid Waste Negotiating Group: The negotiating team is responsible for interface with
county executive and county council staff, in furtherance of the agreed goals, and will
provide for frequent consultation with staff from all participating cities.
Solid Waste Oversight Group: Individual city staff are responsible for reporting back
to their individual cities' chief executive officers and city councils. (List available.)
SCA provides reporting on this issue to the governing and policy boards of the Association,
which may include elected officials from many participating cities. Policy issues raised
during this project may be discussed at both the governing and policy boards' meetings.
Solid Waste Policy Advisory Group: In the event that current political direction or
advise is needed, the staff group will consult with identified elected officials for input. This
does not replace the need for individual city staff to consult with their individual CEOs or.city
councils. (List available.)
K:\Solid Waste\SW Work Plan 2003.doc Printed on 7/29/2003 1
4. Outcomes and Strategies Time Frames
Time Frame: The contract assumes an initial six month negotiation period. Staff
negotiations should be concluded by December 31' , 2003, or either party can request
review of the issues by the SWIF (RPC) and an advisory recommendation w/in 90 days.
Desired Outcome: Contract language that accomplishes:
1. process that ensures shared financial policies (e.g., wastewater, transit);
2. new dispute resolution process and/or policy group with elected officials
accountable to ratepayers (e.g., no Seattle) to substitute for SWIF/RPC;
3. limited contract term, perhaps, only until CHL closure, unless process for city
agreement on new intermodal, business plan;
4. protections for host cities, e.g., sites of transfer stations, service implications?
Strategies (the `to do' list):
1. Draft response to Executive's letter concerning R&R, request for identifications of issues
for discussion (consultation with Perkins beforehand?).
2. Identify negotiating interests from city point of view, from county point of view;
prioritize for importance.
3. Identify specific contract changes and draft potential language (could .be in the form of a
terms sheet).
4. Identify negotiating team lead; this person should
Exec's office) to talk about structure of meetings,
to have county council staff involved.
5.
contact Pam Bissonnette (w/cc: to
frequency, ground rules; discuss need
K:\Solid Waste\SW Work Plan 2003.doc Printed on 7/29/2003 2
Time Frame:
Desired Outcome: A shared position on the future plans for export that are accepted by
cities and by the Executive and King County Council.
Strategies (the `to do' list):
1. Jointly request that the Metropolitan King County Council fund an independent review of
the proposal, control of transport/disposal beyond 2012.
2.
3.
4.
5.
K:\Solid Waste\SW Work Plan 2003.doc Printed on 7/29/2003
Time Frame: 2004 BUDGET PERIOD for Metropolitan King County Council. Executive will
submit his budget to the Council in September; active hearings occur through September,
into October, with final adoption in late November, early December.
Desired outcome:
Strategies (the `to do' list):
1. Pursue legality of action: AGO, State Auditor actions: sufficient, or do we
need/want to do more, like public records request on auditor inquiry?
2. Get independent assessment of Cushman Wakefield appraisal establishing FMV, rent.
3. Identify other options to resolve the County's issue w/nature of ownership (e.g.,
utility could 'buy' it for what County paid for it)
4. Identify service implications on the utility, in the offered 'efficiencies'
S. (Refer back to Goal A: ILA — this proposal proves the need for shared financial
policies for this utility; make sure it gets in there!)
6. Obtain review of other SW facilities, see what else is at risk for new costs (and/or
agree by ILA or ordinance as to the nature of the other facilities)
7. Identify other revenue for human services funding, thus avoiding the need to skim
the utility
8. MEDIA/OUTREACH: Prepare messages for inclusion in each city's utility billings
(policy implications here?)
9. MEDIA/OUTREACH: Prepare speaking points on rent proposal and convey to
Executive, MKCC during budget process (need to get elected officials involved in this)
10. Consider utility of a public relations/communications firm assisting with the public
campaign, to get the word out, and recommend back to city leaders (needs money)
K:\Solid Waste\SW Work Plan 2003.doc Printed on 7/29/2003 4
Time Frame:
Desired Outcome:
Strategies (the 'to do` list):
1.
2.
3.
4.
K:\Solid Waste\SW Work Plan 2003.doc Printed on 7/29/2003 5
Machuca
SeaTac
Don Monaghan
206-973-4721
dmonajzhan@ci.seatac.wa.us
SeaTac
Dale Schroeder
206-973-4723
dschroeder ci.seatac.wa.us
Shoreline
Joyce Nichols
'nichols ci.shoreline.wa.us
Shoreline
Paul Haines
Phaines ci.shoreline.wa.us
Sno ualmie
Kirk Holmes
kholmes(@,ci.snoqualmie.wa.us
Tukwila
Frank Iriarte
firiarte@ci.tukwila.wa.us
Tukwila
Jim Morrow
jmorrowaci.tukwila.wa.us
Woodinville
Mick Monken
mickm@ci.woodinville.wa.us
Yarrow Point
Sue Ann Spens
sas ens ci. arrow- oint.wa.us
Algona
Randy Bailey
rand b cit ofal ona.com
Des Moines
Judith Kilgore
ikilgore@cilyofdesmoines.com
Des Moines
Shanta Frantz
sfrantz@cityofdesmoines.com
Duvall
Cecilia Boulais
425-788-4829
recycle@cityofduvall.com
Duvall
Steve Schuller
Steve. schullercit ofduvall.com
Lake Forest Pk
Sarah Phillips
Sarah cit ofl com
Clyde Hill
Mitch Wasserman
mitch cl dehill.or
Newcastle
Jean Garber
J arberI 1 comcast.net
Lake Forest Pk
Carolyn Armanini
can-naiiinini@earthlink.net
Skykomish
Paul Javier
SCA
Deb Eddy
-townofsky@skyeomish.net
sca suburbancities.or
Others from SCA — Which make up the SCA SW Issues List
Bellevue
Diane Carlson
dcarlson ci.bellevue.wa.us
Lake Forest Pk
Karen Haines
khaines@ci.lake-forest-
ark.wa.us
Redmond
Nina Rivkin
nrivkin@ci.redmond.wa.us
Public Works
Director List
Mayors &
Managers List
Names in italic are on the Public Works Directors List
Solid Waste Issue List
City
Name
Phone
I Email
This is the original list provided by Rob Van Orsow, Federal Way
Black Diamond
Jason Paulson
bdcity@aol.com
Renton
Kathy Keolker-
Wheeler
kkwworld@aol.com
kkwworld@aol.com
Arts
Charles Lowry
townofbav aol.com
Auburn
Shelley Coleman
scolernan@ci.auburn.wa.us
Auburn
Sharon Conroy
sconro ci.aubum.wa.us
Bellevue
Damon Diessner
ddiessner(a-)ci.bellevue.wa.us
Bellevue
Katie Lafree
klafree ci.bellevue.wa.us
Bellevue
Lloyd Warren
lwarren ci.bellevue.wa.us
Bothell
Dave Zabell
Dave.zabell ci.bothell.wa.us
Burien
Stephen Clark
stephenc@ci.burien.wa.us
Carnation
Jim Dorsey
jLim@ci.camation.wa.us
Covington
David Delph
dkelph&i.covington.wa.us
Covington
Steve Nolen
snolen ci.covington.wa.us
Enumclaw
Chris Searcy
chrissearcy@ci.enumclaw.wa.us
Federal Way
Cary Roe
C .roe ci offederalwa .com
Federal Way
Krystal Kelsey
Krystal.Kelseygci.federal-
way.wa.us
Federal Way
Rob Van Orsow
Rob.vanorsowAgci.federal-
way.wa.us
Hunts Point
Jack McKenzie
iackm@ci.huiits-point.wa.us
Issaquah
Bob Brock
425-837-3405
bobb ci.issa uah.wa.us
Issaquah
Sheldon Lynne
425-837-3426
sheldonl@ci.issaquah.wa.us
Kenmore
Carter Hawley
carterh ci.kenmore.wa.us
Kent
Robyn Bartelt
rbarbelt@ci.kent.wa.us
Kirkland
Jim Arndt
jamdt@ci.kirkland.wa.us
Maple Valley
Bob White
Bob.white@ci.maple-
valley.wa.us
Medina
Sheldon Jahn
aiahn@ci.medina.wa.us
Mercer Island
Glenn Boettcher
Glenn.boettcher(aaci.mercer-
island.wa.us
Newcastle
Fritz Timm
fritzt@ci.newcastle.wa.us
Newcastle
Jim Walker
iamesw@ci.newcastle.wa.us
Normandy Park
Karl Franta
publicworksgci.normandy-
park.wa.us e
North Bend
Ron Garrow
rong@ci.north-bend.wa.us
Pacific
John Walsh
iwalsh@ci.12acific.wa.us
Redmond
David Rhodes
drhodes@ci.redmond.wa.us
Renton
Linda Knight
lknight@ci.renton.wa.us
Sammamish
Pete Butkus
pbutkus@ci.sammamish.wa.us
SeaTac
Desmond
206-973-4724
dmachuca@ci.seatac.wa.us
Solid Waste ILA - City Participants
op Executive
rcer
urnerAurnonry
ea Mayor ACMIACAOIIGRs
er
bond Waste
UFM rong ay
anger';;; mnis..ra:.;o;
ec e s
versig
Seattle
Nickels
Ceis
Sarka:<>>«<>>>:><>>:<>>
y
MBartell:
Moseley
Covangtota
Burket
none
none
Y2zi:c;;>;<<;;;
......:.:.......:...........
..:..::...
Lang::
R.,ybum:,;::::.:«...::,::.::.::::::::::::::.:::::.
Conrad
Artderspti ' . ''`
Berry
ftitxtnpsonIrr111
Btrbid
Dempsey
FUN
Haines
Cannon
Feliciano
Davidson
Bellevue
687,800
1 70 0
8 ,275 1Nhit;
Marshall Carlson
Bush
Diessner
Warren
Kent
Laurent
Burblog -Za
Bartel
Federal Way
83,850
53,840 Tiartner
53,250
Matheson
Roe
VanOrsow
Renton
KKWheeler
Hansen ..'
Knight
Shoreline
Jepson
Nichols
Nichols
Haines
Redmond
46,0 0
=Spnnger:
Christiansen
Rivkin
Rhodes
Kirkland
5,790�rnsX
various
Burleigh
Arndt
Conroy
Scheerer
Coleman
Auburn part
43,970
f
Sammamish
34,660
Barry
Wbo
Steenrod
Butkus
Butkus
Burien
31,810
Des Moines
SeaTa c
25,320
Brennan
Ward
Spencer
Schroeder
Monaghan
Matchuca
Mercer Island
21,955
Merkle,
Symmonds
Lindell
Pearmart
Boettcher
Kenmore
19., 80
F7.270 �Mtiift
6,330
tease , , Hawley
Ocampo
Iddrngs w F Hemstad
Sullivan
Hawley
Tukwila
Morrow
Zabell
Iriarte
Bothell part
Maple Valley
15,040
White
Covington
14,395
3 790 Fnsmger
Delp h
Issaquah
Lake Forest Park
2,860
Hutchinson
Phillips
Armanini
Phillips
Enumclaw part
11,195
Wise
Rose
TalFat:.,;;:..::..;;:;.;::.
M: cR old . .:......
Bauer
.... ;`Harris
Searcy
Woodinville
683,545
9,2 5
Hageman
Knight
Newcastle
8,205
Dulcich
Garber
Normandy Park
6,395
Pacific part
5705
Erickson
Walsh
Duvall
5,190
Nixon
Wise
Schuller
North Bend
,735
Simpson
Martinez
A
Snoqualmie
0ftatt�r
4,015 Botts
olmes
Black Diamond
Paulsen
Medina
3,0101hv,(z
> > > > > i ;> >> > > >
1assCmn.
Becker
J ahn
Clyde Hill
2,895
Martin
Wasserman
Algona
2,525
Wilson
Carnation
1,905
Lisk
Yarrow Point
1,010
Berry
ilton part
815
Hunts Point
455
McConkey
Beaux Arts Vill.
95
Lowry
y orris
ac ner
K:1S61id `^'gste\Critical Players SW 2003
SUMMARY OF RENT PAYMENTS FOR CEDAR HILLS LANDFILL, 1992 - 2028
Future Rent Payments, 2004-2012
Year
$million
2004
7
2005
7.4
2006
7.9
2007
8.3
2008
8.8
2009
9.4
2010
9.9
2011
10.5
2012
11.2
TOTAL
80.4
Retroactive Rent Payments
Year
$million
2003
6.6
2002
6.2
2001
5.8
2000
5.5
1999
5.2
1998
4.8
1997
4.6
1996
4.3
1995
4.0
1994
3.8
1993
3.6
1992
3.3
TOTAL
57.6
NOTE: Wilkins memo dated 2/9/03 says rent will be $7 million in 2004,
will inflate by 6% per year after that. A 6% deflator was applied to
calculate retroactive payments.
Future Rent Payments, 2013 - 2028
Year
$million
2013
8.4
2014
8.9
2015
9.4
2016
10.0
2017
10.6
2018
11.2
2019
11.9
2020
12.6
2021
13.4
2022
14.2
2023
15.0
2024
15.9
2025
16.9
2026
17.9
2027
19.0
2028
10.1
TOTAL
205.6
NOTE: For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that the assessed value of
land drops after landfill closure such that 2013 rent is 75% of 2012 rent, or
$8.4 million. The 6% inflator is continued. Rent is cut in half in 2028, because
interlocal agreements end June 30, 2028.
TOTAL INFUSION TO CX FUND BY
SUBURBAN CITY RATEPAYERS 1992-2028 $ 343.67 million
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBURBAN CITIES
ASSOCIATION ENTITLED "MEMORANDUM OF INTENT TO
COLLABORATE ON SOLID WASTE ISSUES" AND TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE ASSOCIATED WORK PLAN.
WHEREAS, RCW 70.95.080 requires that each city develop its own comprehensive solid
waste management plan, enter into an agreement to prepare a joint city/county plan, or authorize
the county to prepare the plan for the city's solid waste management; and
WHEREAS, the City of Renton and King County entered into an Interlocal Agreement in
2001 whereby the parties agreed that they shall cooperate in the county's development of a
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the King County Executive has recently made several proposals regarding
the solid waste utility, including 1) the payment of $7 million per year (with 6% annual inflation),
from King County's Solid Waste Enterprise fund, to its current expense fund; and 2) the purchase
of property on Harbor Island in Seattle for a future solid waste intermodal station; and
WHEREAS, these proposals may impact the rights and responsibilities of the suburban
cities that have interlocal agreements with King County for solid waste transfer and disposal
services; and
WHEREAS, the City of Renton and other cities making up the Suburban Cities
Association wish to collaborate on a review of these proposals, including the performance of a
legal review of their provisions; and
1
RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, the "Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on Solid Waste Issues" and the
Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement Work Plan will assist the City in its evaluation of King
County's proposals, and will help establish policy goals to achieve solid waste transfer and
disposal solutions for the region;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects.
SECTION H. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into an
interlocal agreement entitled "Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on Solid Waste Issues."
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2003.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2003.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES.1002:8/12/03
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
2
Councilwoman Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Dear Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler:
527 S. 28th P1.
Renton, WA 98055
August 7, 2003
CITY OF RENTON
AUG 1 2 2m
RECEIVED
�CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
F4c� �'ou�c�/member �'eceJ�e�
Qn i4ertid64/ /ei*r.)
I would like to thank you, the other members of the City Council, and the Mayor for the opportunity
to speak to you regarding the City of Renton fireworks ordinance during the audience -comment
portion of a recent City Council meeting. As you may recall, I asked the City Council to join with
Bellevue and other east -side communities to enact a complete ban on fireworks in time for next
year's July 4 celebration.
As I mentioned in my presentation, I am asking for a complete fireworks ban in the interest of safety.
On each July 4 for the past several years I have returned to my house after watching a local
fireworks show such as that on Lake Union or Lake Meridian to find spent fireworks that had landed
in my yard, in my trees, and on the roof of my house. This year the inevitable happened. Fireworks
that were set off by neighbors ignited two separate fires, one in a neighbor's yard across the street
and a second on the roof of my immediate neighbor's house. The City of Renton Fire Department
responded to each separate occurrence and fortunately, both fires were suppressed before they could
cause major damage.
I would nearly agree that the existing City of Renton ordinance that allows limited fireworks is
reasonable if city residents (and their guests) were to understood and comply with the ordinance.
Unfortunately, in these days of complexity, I would contend that very, very few residents actually
understand the existing ordinance. Citizens can easily understand that:
a. Fireworks are allowed within the City of Renton, or
b. Fireworks are not allowed within the City of Renton
Anything in between, as in "some fireworks are allowed and some are not," a category into which
falls the existing City of Renton fireworks ordinance, is bound to fail. The failure of my neighbors
to understand the existing in-between fireworks ordinance resulted in both fires within my
immediate neighborhood. Those fires were a small step away from disaster.
In the interest of being able to protect our persons, our pets, and our homes on the next July 4, I urge
you to enact a complete fireworks ban within the City of Renton. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Matthew D. Devine
4 g-A /01.
AP�`'t OOVM) BY
Data S- /,?- 03 ;
FINANCE COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
August 18, 2003
Group Health Cooperative Medical Coverage Agreement Annual Renewal
(Referred August 11, 2003)
The Finance Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve
five annual Group Health Cooperative employee medical insurance coverage contracts, as revised,
for the following: Police .and Non -Uniform Police, LEOFF (Law Enforcement Officers and Fire
Fighters) 1 Employees, LEOFF 1 Retirees for Eastem, Washington, LEOFF 1 Retirees for Western
m Washington, and Fire, AFSCME (Aerican Federation of'State, County and Municipal Employees)
and Non -Represented employees. ,Funding: for the contracts .was approved in the 2003. Budget. The
revisions, applicable to all five of the renewal.,contracts, are either mandatory or for the purposes of
clarification of coverage.
The Committee further recommends, that the Mayor find',City Clerk be.> authorized to execute the
contracts.=p- s
z2- . .... .
King Parker, Chair
/�
7 / � n,1
�aid�Corman, Vice Chair
l
Don Perssorl, Member
Cc: Mike Webby
Terri Shuhart
J
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 36 5aZ
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND. CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT ENTITLED "INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT MUTUAL AID
AND MOBILIZATION BETWEEN THE CITIES OF KING COUNTY,
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON POLICE, AND KING COUNTY."
WHEREAS, RCW 39.34.080 authorizes the City of Renton to enter into an interlocal
agreement with other public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the law enforcement agencies of King County, the University of
Washington, and the cities in King County have the power, authority and responsibility to provide
police protection for its citizens within its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, on occasion, the demand for law enforcement services within a jurisdiction
may exceed that department's ability to respond in a timely manner, and the police departments of
other jurisdictions may be capable of providing backup law enforcement services; and
WHEREAS, the law enforcement agencies of the state have identified a need to provide
rapid response by law enforcement officers to major emergencies; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs has
developed a model plan for mobilization of law enforcement officers in the event of a major
emergency; and
WHEREAS, local police resources can be quickly overwhelmed in a severe emergency or
terrorist attack; and
1
RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, the federal government has created a funding mechanism for reimbursement
to local communities that have to respond to a major emergency and that mechanism requires that
there be a mobilization plan; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to document the terms and conditions under which the City
will participate in the mutual aid law enforcement services; and
WHEREAS, a Mutual Aid and Mobilization Plan for the cities of King County, the
University of Washington Police, and King County has been created;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects.
SECTION H. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into an
interlocal agreement entitled "Interlocal Cooperative Agreement to Provide Law Enforcement
Mutual Aid and Mobilization between the Cities in King County, the University of Washington
Police Department, and King County."
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this
day of , 2003.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
day of
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
2003.
2
RESOLUTION NO.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES.1003:8/12/03:ma
8_ / 91- 03
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 36 53
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBURBAN CITIES
ASSOCIATION ENTITLED "MEMORANDUM OF INTENT TO
COLLABORATE ON SOLID WASTE ISSUES" AND TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE ASSOCIATED WORK PLAN.
WHEREAS, RCW 70.95.080 requires that each city develop its own comprehensive solid
waste management plan, enter into an agreement to prepare a joint city/county plan, or authorize
the county to prepare the plan for the city's solid waste management; and
WHEREAS, the City of Renton and King County entered into an Interlocal Agreement in
2001 whereby the parties agreed that they shall cooperate in the county's development of a
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the King County Executive has recently made several proposals regarding
the solid waste utility, including 1) the payment of $7 million per year (with 6% annual inflation),
from King County's Solid Waste Enterprise fund, to its current expense fund; and 2) the purchase
of property on Harbor Island in Seattle for a future solid waste intermodal station; and
WHEREAS, these proposals may impact the rights and responsibilities of the suburban
cities that have interlocal agreements with King County for solid waste transfer and disposal
services; and
WHEREAS, the City of Renton and other cities making up the Suburban Cities
Association wish to collaborate on a review of these proposals, including the performance of a
legal review of their provisions; and
1
r,
• RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, the "Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on Solid Waste Issues" and the
Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement Work Plan will assist the City in its evaluation of King
County's proposals, and will help establish policy goals to achieve solid waste transfer and
disposal solutions for the region;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects.
SECTION H. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into an
interlocal agreement entitled "Memorandum of Intent to Collaborate on Solid Waste Issues."
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES.1002:8/12/03
day of , 2003.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
day of
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
2003.
2
St�za��,� 8 d_aoo3
d,04� f- /P- a3
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. , -0 / i
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING SECTION 4-1-180.0 OF CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATIION
AND ENFORCEMENT, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF
GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON"
BY ADDING A STREET LIGHT SYSTEM FEE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section 4-1-180.C, Public Works Construction Permit Fees, of
Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of
Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is
hereby amended by adding a new section, 4-1-180.C.6, to read as follows:
6. STREET LIGHT SYSTEM FEE: All new installations of street lighting facilities
shall incur a fee of $500.00 per connection to the power system, payable at or prior to the time of
construction permit issuance.
SECTION H. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and
30 days after publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of 92003.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
1
ORDINANCE NO.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2003.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD.1042:8/l/03:ma
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
2