The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOW 2010-04-26 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET w Tukwila City Council Agenda c o COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE J v' 2 Ji Haggerton, Mayor Councilmembers: Joe Duffie Joan Hernandez Steve Lancaster, Ci Adm Allan Ekberg Verna Seal 190' Dennis Robertson, Council President Kathy Hougardy De'Sean Quinn Monday, April 26, 2010, 7:00 PM Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Animal Control Update; Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director and Pg.1 Carrie Cihak, Director of Strategic Initiatives, from the County Executive's Office 3. CITIZEN At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included on this agenda (please COMMENT limit your comments to five minutes per citizen). To comment on an item listed on this agenda, please save your comments until the issue is presented for discussion. 4. PUBLIC a. An ordinance vacating a certain right -of -way within the City of Tukwila dedicated Pg.109 HEARINGS for street purposes, generally described as approximately 60 feet by 85 feet along 14403 51st Avenue South and within a portion of Old Macadam Road. b. An ordinance updating regulations regarding noise, as codified at Tukwila Pg.123 Municipal Code Chapter 8.22, to clarify definitions, requirements and enforcement; and repealing Ordinance No. 2002. 5. SPECIAL a. Budget Revenue Options: Pg.151 ISSUES Surplus City property Utility tax on City -owned utilities Property tax levy lid lift Increase business license fees EMS levy Revenue generating regulatory license Planning fees TBD sales tax b. A resolution formally adopting the Council Committee Meeting schedule. Pg.173 c. The Minor Home Repair Program for 2011. Pg.189 d. An ordinance vacating a certain right -of -way within the City of Tukwila dedicated Pg.109 for street purposes, generally described as approximately 60 feet by 85 feet along 14403 51st Avenue South and within a portion of Old Macadam Road. e. Noise Regulations: Pg.123 1. An ordinance updating regulations regarding noise, as codified at Tukwila Pg.135 Municipal Code Chapter 8.22, to clarify definitions, requirements and enforcement; and repealing Ordinance No. 2002. 2. An ordinance amending the Zoning Code to reflect changes based on new Pg.143 noise regulations. 3. A resolution to include a Noise Fee Schedule. Pg.147 f. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign an interlocal agreement with King Pg.199 County regarding the processing of building permits and land use applications for the Tukwila South annexation area. g. Draft agenda for a joint meeting with the Tukwila School District. Pg.217 6. REPORTS a. Mayor c. Staff e. Intergovernmental b. City Council d. City Attorney 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION 9. ADJOURNMENT Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible. Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice to the City Clerk's Office 206 433- 1800/TDD 206 248 -2933. This notice is available at www.ci.tukwila.wa.us. and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities. Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped. HOW TO TESTIFY If you would like to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and address clearly for the record. Please observe the basic rules of courtesy when speaking and limit your comments to five minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens, but may not be able to take immediate action on comments received until they are referred to a Committee or discussed under New Business. COUNCIL MEETINGS No Council meetings are scheduled on the fifth Monday of the month unless prior public notification is given. Regular Meetings: The Mayor, elected by the people to a four -year term, presides at all Regular Council meetings held on the first and third Mondays of each month at 7 PM. Official Council action in the form of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing of ordinances can only be taken at Regular Council meetings. Committee of the Whole Meetings: Council members are elected for a four -year term. The Council president is elected by the Council members to preside at all Committee of the Whole meetings for a one- year term. Committee of the Whole meetings are held the second and fourth Mondays at 7 PM. Issues discussed are forwarded to the Regular Council meeting for official action. GENERAL INFORMATION At each Council meeting citizens are given the opportunity to address the Council on items that are not included on the agenda during Citizen Comment. Please limit your comments to five minutes. Special Meetings may be called at any time with proper public notice. Procedures followed are the same as those used in Regular Council meetings. Executive Sessions may be called to inform the Council of pending legal action, financial or personnel matters. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action of matters affecting the public interest such as land -use laws, annexations, rezone requests, public safety issues, etc. Section 2.04.150 of the Tukwila Municipal Code states the following guidelines for Public Hearings: 1. The proponent shall speak first and is allowed 15 minutes for a presentation. 2. The opponent is then allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation. 3. Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal. 4. Citizens who wish to address the Council may speak for 5 minutes each. No one may speak a second time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken. 5. After each speaker has spoken, the Council may question the speaker. Each speaker can respond to the question, but may not engage in further debate at this time. 6. After the Public Hearing is closed, the Council may discuss the issue among themselves without further public testimony. Council action may be taken at this time or postponed to another date. 1 CAS NUMBER: 10-027 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Animal Services Update Fund Source: Comments. MTG. DATE 3/22/10 I Discussion Only MTG. DATE 03/22/10 04/26/10 $42,141.00 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review Council review 3/22/10 SH 4/26/10 SH r j (C ITEM INFORMATION CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Aft Date 4/26/ 10 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 3/22/10 SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PWl /IT SPONSOR'S Beginning July 1, 2010, King County will significantly alter the way in which animal control SUMMARY services are provided to cities that contract with them. City Administration has participated in several regional strategy meetings to develop options for providing animal control services to the residents of Tukwila. The Informational Memorandum gives updated information on these options. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte n Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. DA 1'E: 3/16/10, 4/20/10 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. City Administration COMMITTEE Forward to Committee of the Whole :COST IMPACT SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED $38,000.00 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINAL AGENDA DA I B: MARCH 22, 2010 ATTACHMENTS Informational memorandum dated March 10, 2010. Executive Summanry dated April 23, 2010 Informational memorandum dated April 15, 2010, with attachments Copy of South County Options for Animal Care and Control Copy of Animal Services Update Powerpoint presentation Minutes from the Finance and Safety Committee Meeting of 4/20/10 ITEM No. Transportation Cmte E Planning Comm. APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $4,141.00 2 TO: ISSUE OPTIONS City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Committee of the Whole FROM: Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director DATE: April 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Executive Summary Animal Services Options Jim Haggerton, Mayor The City has until April 30 to let the County know if we are interested in continuing to participate in negotiations for an interlocal agreement with the County for animal services. If we do not want to continue with the County, and either provide the service ourselves or in conjunction with surrounding jurisdictions, we can either begin providing that service on July 1, 2010, or sign an extension with the County that would go until the end of this year. In reviewing how animal services could be provided within the region and in Tukwila specifically, six potential alternatives were developed to be potentially feasible for how the City could provide this service to our residents: Procure the service through a regional King County model for the County's proposed 2.5 year term Procure the service through a regional King County model for six months, then provide the service either individually or through a sub regional model with Kent, SeaTac and /or Burien Provide the service in -house Provide the service through an interlocal agreement with SeaTac to share the cost of all three services (animal control, sheltering and licensing) Provide the service through a sub regional consortium model with SeaTac and Burien Provide the service through a sub regional consortium model with SeaTac, Burien and Kent Cost and Revenue of New Regional Animal Service Model The County has provided overall cost information to the cities for field services, sheltering and licensing under the new regional model recently developed. The total estimated cost for animal services is $5,601,900, broken down into $1,698,600 for field services, $3,004,900 for sheltering and $898,400 for licensing. The costs allocated to Tukwila specifically are $38,031 for animal control, $78,208 for sheltering and $12,000 3 4 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 for licensing, for total costs of $128,239. These costs are offset by projected revenue of $30,348, for a net cost of $97,891. The County is offering transitional support of $23,609, bringing the net cost down to $74,282. The current budget for animal care services is $38,000, which means the City would need to increase the budget by $36,282 to fully cover the $74,282 total cost. Below is a listing of each option and the net impact on the General Fund. Option RECOMMENDATION W:1FIN Projects \Council Agenda Items \ExecSummary_Animal Controi.docx 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total County regional model 2.5 year contract 42,141 74,282 92,927 103,691 114,823 427,864 Tukwila only model 48,946 139,652 145,967 154,663 163,861 653,088 Tukwila /SeaTac model 48,945 153,618 116,381 120,986 125,760 565,688 Tukwila /Burien /SeaTac model 48,945 87,876 67,265 70,419 73,694 348,199 Tukwila /Burien /Kent /SeaTac model 48,945 46,048 36,933 39,355 41,930 213,211 Assumes a six month contract with King County, then focal or sub- regional model beginning 1/1/2011. The above costs do not include continuation of enhanced services in Tukwila. The County has estimated the cost of enhanced services to be $120,000 per year, per FTE. The cost would need to be shared by neighboring jurisdictions if a particular city was interested in enhanced services. For instance, if Tukwila and SeaTac continued to share the cost of an animal control officer for enhanced services, the increased cost would be $60,000 for each city. It does not appear likely at this time that we would have a third city, such as Kent or Burien, to share this cost with. The County has a deadline of April 30 for cities to indicate whether they are interested in continuing to work on and negotiate an interlocal agreement for animal care services. The purpose of the April 30 deadline is for the County to finalize the regional model, and if necessary due to major cities pulling out, rework the cost allocations and service district boundaries. The administration recommends signing the two and a half year contract with the County. Although this is not the lowest cost option, this would give the City some time to evaluate the service that the County provides, and if necessary put our own model together to meet the needs of the residents. Continuing to work with the County for the time being will give us the ability to further evaluate the costs and impacts of a City only or sub regional model, and how these options might compare to the County's regional model for service delivery. The administration is also recommending not pursuing enhanced services at this time. This option can be added later if the City determines a need for it based on call response times under the County's new regional model. A general consensus by Council is needed at this time for continuing negotiations with the County on a regional model. This is a non binding action. The interlocal agreement, if Council chooses that option, will come to a Regular Meeting in May for action. TO: ISSUE BACKGROUND City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Finance and Safety Committee Committee of the Whole FROM: Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director DATE: April 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Animal Services Options Jim Haggerton, Mayor For several years the City of Tukwila has received animal control services through an interlocal agreement with King County. The City also shares the cost of an animal control officer with the City of SeaTac for enhanced services. Due to budgetary constraints and a desire on the part of the King County Council to pursue a full -cost recovery model, King County will fundamentally alter how they provide animal control services to cities that continue to contract with them. Specifically, the County will close their animal shelter to cities by June 30, 2010 unless a regional strategy to provide animal control services can be created, negotiated and implemented. The County has finalized what they consider to be their best, lowest cost, option for cities to participate in a regional animal services model. This option, among others, is presented below for Council direction on whether to continue in a regional model with the County. The City has until April 30 to let the County know if we are interested in continuing to contract with the County for animal services. If we do not want to continue with the County, and either provide the service ourselves or in conjunction with surrounding jurisdictions, we can either begin providing that service on July 1, 2010, or sign an extension with the County that would go until the end of this year. The extension would give the City time to put together options for providing the service to our residents beginning January 1, 2011. For several years the City of Tukwila has received animal control services through an interlocal agreement with King County. This agreement provides the City with field officer services, sheltering at the County's facility in Kent, and animal licensing services. To pay for these services, King County collects all revenue from animal licensing fees generated by Tukwila residents. Tukwila is not charged any additional cost, however, if these licensing fees do not cover the cost of the service provided. The only additional cost to the City is for the animal control officer we share with the City of SeaTac, per our agreement with King County. The City currently budgets $38,000 per year for the cost of this "enhanced" service. 5 6 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 Due to budgetary constraints at the County and past concerns with operational issues at the King County animal shelter, King County has decided to no longer provide this service to cities under their existing interlocal agreement. The County has been subsidizing animal control service to all cities in King County that contract with them by approximately $2.0 million annually from their general fund, which is not sustainable for the County's operating budget. The City recently received notification of contract termination, effective June 30, 2010, for our existing interlocal agreement. The King County Council and Executive have placed the following stipulations on cities that want to continue to contract with King County for animal control services: By June 30, 2010, a regional strategy to provide animal control service that includes both the County and a feasible number of cities must be negotiated and implemented. To utilize the current King County animal shelter, which will continue to be operated by the County, cities must be a part of the regional strategy. In addition to the County's existing animal shelter, additional non profit community shelter capacity, where available, is desired to be a part of the regional strategy. By June 30, 2010, as part of the regional strategy, animal control field services, licensing and shelter services must be paid for on a "full cost recovery" basis. In order for the regional model to be economically and operationally feasible for the County, there must be enough cities that choose to participate for the model to work for the County. insufficient participation by cities will result in the County providing these services for unincorporated areas only. DISCUSSION Given these upcoming changes in how animal control services may be provided, the administration is presenting various options for providing this service to the residents of Tukwila, including the County- focused regional strategy, and what the related costs would be for these service delivery options. A brief overview of the services currently being provided by the County follows. These services fall under three broad categories; animal control field services, sheltering and licensing. Animal Control Field Services Animal Control officers provide service in King County from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. seven days a week, with emergency services provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week by on- call officers. To accomplish this, King County has 15 staff members working in field services; 12 Animal Control officers and three (3) staff members in the County's call center receiving calls for service. The City also shares the cost of an animal control officer with SeaTac and the County for enhanced animal control services. That officer is dedicated 50% to SeaTac, 30% to Tukwila and 20% to unincorporated King County in the surrounding area. Animal Control officers respond to the following types of requests: Animal cruelty investigations W:1FIN Projects\Council Agenda Itemsl InfoMemo _AnimalServicesBriefingForCOW .docx INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 Response to barking dog Injured animal rescues, complaints and petitions Response to bite reports Assist Police Officers with vicious animal complaints, as requested Pick -up for stray animals "Dead -on- arrival" loose livestock, cats and dogs Leash law violations Animal Shelter Services The King County animal shelter is located in the City of Kent, with a smaller satellite shelter in the City of Bellevue. The animal shelter houses roughly 11,000. animals per year, with the majority being dogs and cats, although other species of animals are also sheltered there. In 2009 the King County sheltered 295 animals that were attributable to the City of Tukwila. These animals were either stray animals picked up and dropped off by King County Animal Control officers or Tukwila residents, or were "owner surrender" animals that were dropped off by their owners for various reasons, including moving out of state, dogs not allowed in a new apartment building, pet no longer wanted, etc. Animal Licensing Services The King County Records and Licensing Services (RALS) Division (of which Animal Care and Control is a sub division) provides licensing services to residents in King County. RALS licensing staff sells both dog and cat licenses, as well as other types of pet and animal licenses, such as kennel licenses, guard dog and guard dog training facility licenses, and exotic animal licenses. In 2008 and 2009, the number of dog and cat licenses issued for Tukwila residents was 1,306 and 1,122, respectively. Of the 2009 amount, 84 licenses were sold at Tukwila City Hall, with the vast majority of licenses sold online or through the mail. According to King County estimates, the number of total licenses sold accounts for roughly 20% to 25% of the estimated dog and cat population that exists county -wide. The table below outlines the number of issued licenses in 2008 and the estimates of the percent of animals licensed: Est. Est. Tukwila Tukwila Est. Dog Cat of Pets Total Pet of Population Population (Cats Est. of Licenses Est. City County Est. (0.63 per (0.71 per and Pets Issued Population Population Households household household) Dogs) Licensed 1,306 18,080 1.54% 7,232 4,571 5,156 9,727 13% Cost and Revenue of New Regional Animal Service Model The County has provided overall cost information to the cities for field services, sheltering and licensing under the new regional model recently developed. The total W:\FIN Projects\Council Agenda ItemsU nfoMemo_ AnimalServicesBriefingForCOW .docx 7 8 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 4 estimated cost for animal services is $5,601,900, broken down into $1,698,600 for field services, $3,004,900 for sheltering and $898,400 for licensing. The County's estimated cost for Tukwila for field services ($38,031) assumes one animal control officer for forty hours per week to cover the "240" district, which includes Burien, Kent, Tukwila, SeaTac and Vashon Island. The County estimates that services to Vashon Island are minimal, essentially making the service delivery to just the four cities. Animal control for the entire County would include one animal control officer in each of the four districts, plus two other officers for backup coverage during sick leave, vacations, training, etc. Some additional resources would be shared county -wide, such as a field sergeant, an animal cruelty sergeant and three FTE positions in dispatch. Off duty hours would be covered by either on -call animal control officers who are called back to duty, or King County Sheriff's Office deputies. Total estimated costs for Tukwila for field services are based on a three -year average of 373 calls for service from 2007- 2009. Policy discussions with the County and other cities could change the definition of what type of call warrants a response. For instance, some calls for barking dogs could be handled by dispatch personnel rather than requiring an animal control officer to visit the complainant. Another factor to consider with field services is defining what are "high priority" calls and what length of response time is acceptable for these types of calls. The County has indicated willingness to engage in this sort of discussion with cities once a regional model is in place. Estimated sheltering costs for Tukwila ($78,208) are based on a 50/50 allocation of usage at the Kent shelter and City population. The combination of usage and population effectively spreads the cost of the Kent shelter over a larger number of King County cities. Had the costs been allocated strictly based on shelter usage, the amounts allocated to south King County cities would have been considerably higher. Despite the fact that several north King County cities will be contracting with PAWS for sheltering services, they would still contribute to system -wide sheltering costs. The County's cost estimate for Tukwila is based on an average intake for the last two years of 268 animals at the Kent shelter. One of the ways the City of Tukwila can affect the cost of sheltering, the largest component of overall system costs, is to engage in a discussion with the County, and other cities regarding intake policies. For instance, some non profit sheltering agencies require a significant payment from a pet owner for owner surrenders. Such a policy could lessen the financial burden to the cities. Consideration would need to be given, though, to the impact such a policy might have on the number of "stray" animals turned in to the shelter from good Samaritans that are actually owner surrenders. Estimated licensing costs for Tukwila ($12,000) are allocated based on total system costs divided by a three -year average for licenses issued (1,207 for Tukwila). The cost of licensing system -wide include issuance of the licenses, maintenance of owner information to assist with tracking and placement of lost pets, preparation and distribution of marketing materials for licensing purposes, pet owner education programs, and public outreach in an attempt to increase licensing rates within each city. Potential Animal Service Provision Models W:1FIN Projects\Council Agenda ItemslInfoMemo AnimalServicesBriefingforCOW .docx INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 5 In reviewing how animal services could be provided within the region and in Tukwila specifically, six potential alternatives were developed to be potentially feasible for how the City could provide this service to our residents: Procure the service through a regional King County model for the County's proposed 2.5 year term Procure the service through a regional King County model for six months, then provide the service either individually or through a sub regional model with Kent, SeaTac and /or Burien Provide the service in -house Provide the service through an interlocal agreement with SeaTac to share the cost of all three services (animal control, sheltering and licensing) Provide the service through a sub regional consortium model with SeaTac and Burien Provide the service through a sub- regional consortium model with SeaTac, Burien and Kent Other options were also considered. After further discussions with the cities of Renton and Des Moines, it was determined that contracting with these jurisdictions would not be feasible. Although the City of Renton and the City of Des Moines were both very willing to share information and provide insight into how their animal control systems operate, working through the necessary authorizing environments to move a contract forward given the tight time frame cities are working under did not seem feasible. Also, Des Moines would more than likely not have the capacity to take on a jurisdiction such as Tukwila which would nearly double their service area. Following is a high -level overview of the types of services that could be provided under different types of animal service models: Provide Service through Regional King County Model: Contract with King County for a full cost recovery field services contract, which would most likely provide one dedicated King County Animal Control officer in a south county service area including the City of Tukwila Contract with King County for animal licensing Contract with King County Animal Shelter for animal sheltering services at the Kent facility Provide Service In- House: Hire Tukwila Animal Control officer for field services work; administratively housed and supported by the Tukwila Police Department; provides forty hours per week of animal control coverage Utilize private sector pet licensing vendor or existing internal capacity for issuing pet licenses Contract with veterinarians and kennels in Tukwila to utilize their facilities for sheltering Provide Service through South King County Sub regional Model: W:\FIN Projects\Council Agenda Items■InfoMemo _AnimalServicesBriefingForCOW .docx 9 1 0 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 6 Hire Animal Control officers to provide service to south King County cities; determine governance and administrative needs of this consortium model Utilize private sector pet licensing vendor for pet licensing Develop contracts with veterinarians and kennels in Tukwila and other south County cities to utilize their facilities Following are high -level cost and revenue projections for several options the City has: Option 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total County regional model 2.5 year contract Estimated licensing revenue 15,174 30,348 33,383 34,551 35,760 149,216 Estimated total costs 64,120 128,239 135,292 142,733 150,584 620,967 Program surplus (deficit) (48,946) (97,891) (101,909) (108,182) (114,823) (471,751) County transitional support 6,805 23,609 8,982 4,491 43,886 Net General Fund subsidy (42,141) (74,282) (92,927) (103,691) (114,823) (427,864) Tukwila only model (County 1/2 year contract) Estimated licensing revenue 15,174 30,348 33,383 34,551 35,760 149,216 Estimated start-up costs 115,000 115,000 Estimated total costs 64,120 170,000 179,350 189,214 199,621 802,305 Program surplus /(deficit) (48,946) (139,652) (145,967) (154,663) (163,861) (653,088) County transitional support Net General Fund subsidy (48,946) (139,652) (145,967) (154,663) (163,861) (653,088) Tukwila /SeaTac model (County 1/2 year contract) Estimated licensing revenue 15,174 81,480 82,295 83,117 83,949 346,015 Estimated start-up costs 115,000 115,000 Estimated other costs 64,120 321,255 351,073 362,530 374,387 1,473,365 Program surplus (deficit) (48,946) (354,775) (268,778) (279,413) (290,438) (1,127,350) Attributable to Tukwila 100.00% 43.30% 43.30% 43.30% 43.30% Net General Fund subsidy (48,945) (153,618) (116,381) (120,986) (125,760) (565,688) Tukwila /8urien /SeaTacmodel (County 1 /2yearcontract) Estimated licensing revenue 15,174 161,817 163,435 165,070 166,720 672,216 Estimated start-up costs 115,000 115,000 Estimated other costs 64 ,120 404,474 437,205 451,676 466,654 1,824,129 Program surplus (deficit) (48,946) (357,657) (273,770) (286,606) (299,934) (1,151,913) Attributable to Tukwila 100.00% 24,57% 24.57% 24.57% 24.57% Net General Fund subsidy (48,945) (87,876) (67,265) (70,419) (73,694) (348,199) Tukwila/Surien/Kent/SeaTac model (County 1/2 year contract) Estimated licensing revenue 15,174 365,433 378,223 391,461 405,162 1,555,453 Estimated start-up costs 190,000 190,000 Estimated other costs 64,120 791,869 872,647 918,305 966,474 3,613,415 Program surplus/ (deficit) (48,946) (616,436) (494,424) (526,844) (561,312) (2,057,962) Attributable to Tukwila 100.00% 7.47% 7.47% 7.47% 7.47% Net General Fund subsidy (48,945) (46,048) (36,933) (39,355) (41,930) (213,211) The amounts above do not include the $38,000 per year the City of Tukwila currently budgets for enhanced animal services with King County. The above cost projections are based on several different assumptions, including the following: W: \FIN Projects \Council Agenda ItemsltnfoMemo_ AnimalServicesBriefingForCOW .docx INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 7 Each sub regional model, those options not involving County participation, assumes two animal control officers serving the entire sub regional area. The officers would work four ten -hour days each, with one day of overlap during the week. Response to off- hours, non emergency calls would wait until the following day when an animal control officer was available. Off -hours emergency calls would be responded to by City police officers. Those animal service models not involving the County would result in each City being individually responsible for making policy -level decisions regarding humane treatment of animals, intake policies for sheltering, euthanasia policies, etc. Officials at each City would also be accountable to the residents and general public regarding the impacts of these policies. For each of the sub regional models, police officers or other PD staff would investigate animal cruelty cases and would handle animals taken into custody as evidence. Each City would assume the cost of risk management, insurance, legal costs, personnel and payroll costs, etc, as part of a regional or City -only animal services model. These overhead type costs have not been quantified above. Licensing revenue amounts assume revenue would increase by 10% in 2011 under the County run model due to efforts on the part of the County and the City to increase the rate of licensing, and then 3.5% thereafter. Cost increases under the County model are specifically capped at 5.5% per year. Including labor contract costs, health care costs and others, the projections assume a cost growth rate at the 5.5% cap. The County has a deadline of April 30 for cities to indicate whether they are interested in participating in a regional model with them. If enough cities opt out of the model, or a city or two of large size does, the implication could be that a regional model would not be operationally or financially feasible for the County to offer. RECOMMENDATION The administration recommends signing the two and a half year contract with the County. Although this is not the lowest cost option, this would give the City some time to evaluate the service that the County provides, and if necessary put our own model together to meet the needs of the residents. Throughout the time that the Joint Cities County Work Group has met, County staff has worked hard to lower the overall cost of service delivery by over $800,000 in total. Also, the County is offering transitional assistance to some cities, which for Tukwila would amount to almost $44,000 over the next four years. Continuing to work with the County for the time being will also give us the ability to evaluate the impacts of a City only or sub regional model on the Police Department and other City operations. The City will work with the County and other cities over the next two and a half years in an effort to improve service delivery, including call response times, lower overall cost of the system, and make improvements to the operation of the Kent shelter. If these efforts are not successful over the contract period, the City will have the option of developing a City only or sub regional model to implement at the end of the County contract period. W:1FIN Projects\Council Agenda Items\ lnfoMemo _AnimaiServicesBriefingForCOW .docx 11 12 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 8 A briefing regarding this item is scheduled for the April 20, 2010 Finance and Safety Committee meeting, and the April 26, 2010 Committee of the Whole meeting. ATTACHMENTS (County documents) Background /Introduction on Agreement in Principle to Provide a Regional System Outline of Terms for Agreement in Principle Estimated Annualized 2010 Regional Program Cost Allocation Control Districts for Agreement in Principle (Map) Benefits of a Regional Animal Services System Frequently Asked Questions Proposed Timeline for Confirming and Adopting New Interlocal Agreements Cost Considerations for Animal Care, Control and Licensing Operations in a Sub Regional Model W:1FIN Projects\Council Agenda Itemst InfoMemo_ AnimalServicesBriefingForCOW.docx Joint Cities County Work Group on Regional Animal Services Background /Introduction on Agreement in Principle to Provide a Regional System Animal control, sheltering and licensing are discretionary local services that historically were provided by individual jurisdictions and King County. While discretionary, the services address public health, safety, and animal welfare outcomes that are important to our residents. After being approached by leadership of the Suburban Cities Association in the mid 1980s, King County agreed to provide animal control, sheltering and licensing functions on behalf of cities on a regional basis, in exchange for keeping all pet licensing revenue. Current Service Arrangements Thirty-five cities have an animal services contract with the County (Seattle, Renton, Skykomish and Milton do not have contracts). Most cities contract for all three service components: control, shelter, and licensing. Two cities contract for shelter only (Des Moines, Normandy Park); one city contracts for shelter and field only (Newcastle). Five cities currently purchase a higher level of animal control services (Auburn, Shoreline, Kirkland, Tukwila, SeaTac). The service arrangement has not been revisited since its inception and, over time, the gap between system revenue and system cost has grown to a level that is not sustainable for the County. In recent years, the County has contributed in excess of $2 million annually from the County general fund to support the services. Based on direction from the County Council to enter into new cost recovery arrangements with the cities, the County recently issued termination letters to cities for the existing animal services contracts, effective July 1. Joint Cities County Work Group In anticipation of the termination of contracts, a Joint Cities County Work Group has been meeting since January to develop a proposed "Agreement in Principle" for a new regional animal control system. This "Agreement in Principle" is intended to define a new basis for animal services contracts that could, if adopted by a sufficient number of cities, preserve the benefits of a regional animal services system (see Attachment 1). The alternative to a regional model is that cities will have to either operate their own individual systems or create subregional arrangements for service delivery. Under any delivery option local, subregional or regional cities will have to begin paying something for animal services to continue. As the Work Group reviewed data about the present system, it became clear that cities face very different circumstances with respect to animal services: some are very heavy users of the shelter and control operations; others use it much less. The reasons could relate to demographics, behavior, the geographic proximity of the County shelter or nonprofit shelters, or some combination of factors. The licensing revenue generated by the system Document dated April 7, 2010 1 Prepared by King County 13 14 also varies dramatically among jurisdictions on a per capita basis, in part based on where the County has in the past focused marketing efforts. Economies of scale exist in providing animal services: the more cities that participate in a regional system, the lower the costs are for everyone. Conversely, if the geographic distribution of cities participating in the regional system starts to look like a patchwork, the service delivery becomes more challenging and inefficient; at some point, the County will not be willing or able to effectively provide service. Summary of the Agreement in Principle The "Agreement in Principle" represents a departure from "business as usual" in the delivery of animal services by the County (see Attachment 2). The primary difference in control services will be having animal control officers dedicated to each of four districts 5- days per week (see Attachment 3), while allowing cities individually or collectively within each district to contract for higher levels of service. Operations at the Kent shelter will be improved with limited resources through closing the Crossroads shelter and concentrating staff resources in Kent, expanding the foster and volunteer network, and instituting practices to reduce the number of animals and their length of stay (such as fees for owner surrenders, utilizing capacity at PAWS, and seeking collaboration with other private animal welfare partners). Licensing functions will continue to include Iicensing administration as well as marketing and education, with more incentive for cities to participate in increasing licensing revenues. The proposed system costs to be allocated are $5.6 million (annualized for 2010 see Attachment 4). This reflects a reduction of about $800,000 from estimates provided to cities in early 2010, achieved through cost reductions and the County absorbing some costs. The "Agreement in Principle" seeks to balance the different situations of cities by proposing a cost allocation methodology based on both population and usage factors (a 50- 50 split). Licensing revenues ($3.2 million) are credited to jurisdictions based on the residence of the person buying a pet license. A variety of allocations were considered before arriving at this methodology. The County is proposing to provide transitional funding to those participating cities that have the highest per capita costs. The County is also proposing to provide enhanced licensing marketing support for cities with the lowest licensing revenue per capita. The Agreement in Principle proposes a 2.5 year agreement, during which time the parties, through a Joint Cities- County Committee, will focus on increasing system revenue and reducing system costs. The Agreement in Principle identifies several of these collaborative initiatives, including an exploration of alternative licensing systems and ways to further reduce shelter operation needs. Parties would be allowed to terminate for convenience upon six months notice. Contracts could be extended by mutual agreement for an additional 2 years. The Work Group concluded that to maximize system efficiency, a "menu" approach to the purchase of services is not practicable. For example, it is not efficient for a limited number of field officers to drop animals at multiple shelters. Similarly, the more licensing systems Document dated April 7, 2010 2 Prepared by King County or different field systems the County shelter must interface with, the greater the administrative complexities, inefficiencies, and costs. The Agreement in Principle is described in the attached tables and map, together with a timeline and steps for adoption, and related information. Document dated April 7, 2010 3 Prepared by King County 15 16 Parties Assumes the following cities do not varticipate: Federal Way, Seattle, Renton, Des Moines, Normandy Park, Medina, Newcastle, Skykomish, Milton Services Cost Allocation Revenue Allocation TBD Document dated April 7, 2010 Prepared by King County CONTROL JOINT CITIES COUNTY WORK GROUP FOR REGIONAL ANIMAL SERVICES OUTLINE OF TERMS FOR AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE SHELTER 4 districts, each staffed with 1 Animal Control Officer, 5- day /week, 8- hour /day (TBD: M -F or T -S). 6 total officers to cover sick leave, vacation leave, other. Cities may coordinate sub regionally to purchase higher level of service (specific service options TBD). Regionally shared resources: 1 field sergeant; 1 animal cruelty sergeant; 3 FTE call center open 5- day /8 -hour, after hours dispatch through Sheriff s Office. Allocate one quarter of total costs to each district. Within each district, allocate costs to jurisdictions by combination of usage (calls for service) and population (50% usage/ 50% population). Control revenues (e.g., fines for control violations) netted from total control costs before allocating costs. TBD Bothell, Woodinville, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline, Kenmore "Northern Cities will contract for primary shelter services with PAWS (a nonprofit shelter located in Lynnwood). The County will also seek to contract with PAWS for sheltering of animals from part of the north County unincorporated area. Humane standards of care Kent Shelter remains open Crossroads Shelter closes PAWS serves Northern Cities under separate contract Seek future partnerships for adoption, technical assistance with other nonprofit animal welfare organizations Allocate costs by combination of usage (shelter intake) and population (50% usage /50% population). Norther Cities pay half of the population based factor for regional system benefits associated with shelter. Shelter revenues (e.g., adoption fees, microchip fees, impound fees) netted from total shelter costs before allocating costs. LICENSING TBD Administration of licensing system; marketing, education and outreach to maintain and increase licensing sales. County will absorb costs of using mainframe IT system. Allocate by usage and population (50% usage /50% population). Licensing penalty revenue netted from total licensing costs before allocating costs. Regular licensing fees allocated to jurisdiction of resident buying license. Page 1 of 4 OUP FOR REGIONAL ANIMAL SERVICES TERMS FOR AGREEMENT IN PRINC ber 2010 JOINT CITIES-COUNTY WORK GROUP OUTLINE OF TER July-Decem s due January 2011. Estimated ost allocation. l- regional program Payment for July December mat service estimated based on prior pay Aril 1 and October t Method( based on 2011 of estimated annualize p2010 eats due Ap Payment service semi -annual payments d actual Timing and 2012, year budget. For services in revenue, u lied to current y s actual usage, allocable acmae costs R Ce onciliation for year usage and calculated app prior year g allocable actual am cost lied as credit or charge Tonal program Reconciliation calculate�ou'�ew 11 be app o f estimated annualized 2010 reg revenues. Reconciliation alcula ed e 2 011) based on half calculated in Sun (excluding any costs 2010 fees Dece mber revenues and usage. and actual July- allocable to the cities o per ear. allocation collectively more than 5.5 p y s of additional services) will not increase by he total cost for control, shelter lend licensing T purchases by 2012 Cost Inflator Cap associated with p December 31, Z ears: July 1, 2010 through used on day one or at back end of contract). only Contract Term 2 Y (can m be per capita; Contract term and for cities with highest cost or lowest revenue p month termination for convenience notice termination provisions 6 m provided by County along Transitional cities p for fu112. year term• cities withdraw m lack of contiguous service area, available e o cities contracting impracticabl ces if o (e g t challenges} Coun reserves right to terminate services for arasslservices if too many en to remaining are records m anagement continuation of service on mural agreement. a es between field and sheltering, impracticability in ears up x the contract. Limited exception will be made to extend service contract for 2 additional y C Option the County and Cities must purchase all three services from o nent Charge but will a orated into a no shelter usage'comp e incoxp Services Purchased as follows: will p y charg with PAWS o ulation -based sheltering Northern Cities contracting 1 to one -half the population-based P regional sheltering charge equal current cost estimates). Document dated April 7, 201 Prepared by King County Page 2 of 4 L SERVICES 1. AN GROUP FOR REG1 NA ANIMAL P�-E dents to l K G ME f o r esr LINTY e WORK R PG REE r S F and incentives JOINT c1T1ES�E OF -��RM G evenues QUTL� ears to in crease r imize C Ongoing I Joint Citv_Cp°nty Com mittee re bons to max tm era Update board. li of animal Promote eme1t. staffrngbenc s for increasing •rlrepl lter eltexs. operated sh asked With other publicly Explore optio helter repay for she s for Kent S tion study and 6 city re presenta tives tion classification County) an d m ake Study op compensation and ointedby C° se�'rce issues not be elected s of the Complete ear to review Members Y le d finding resenta e each Y ices. Conduct an of which c ounty r twice to sere the each composed of 3 meet ici n Ss than impoveinents dati tv regarding be formed le to d A. comm ittee shall rn C ies an e comm en initiatives may _County Committee. orny b cities efficiencies d make r i Dint a-y (appointed da ions regard15haU review an to focus on rn bexs of th sh S both. co an d city mem: e non binding recoruenTbe committee both coun 1 ittee officials five ini County Coma c ollabo ra embership from City_ chide rn the loin shall includ of ReCOm pocum t dated N101,20'10 Pr�I Z 2010 Org County Page 3 of 4 County Transition Funding L pNIMpL SERVICES OUTLIN e with estimated t initial an11 to those cities wi hest estimated ne ounty shall establish an initial ita} cities with the hag allocated by ?ovulation �3 p rap cost to the five 000 shall be 00,00 po pulati on eta} 250> costs above the Median net Ga ted by p ex cap shall rece,ve: allocat $5 •�O pet m rO 000 be net cost 'transition peel al 4 p g shall costs (net fox txan A pet contract extension a greeme nt. ne half of the initial in2p11- to a2 ual, 2012 and County enter The initial ann l i if the city 2013, 66% of the initial annualized ed level i n five cities an nualiz ed ort to the initial ane� marketing siipp �keting s upport 33 f° °f the ing mark sing xn gg re 014. °f ;n2 addition, the County pax to ga is o raven estimated raca ive 2 units supl� t 2009 licensing se rvices e ach ro 20 O pp ,n elation shall city} cad licensing villa es ove 104 population x evenu a in each abate one unit of enhanced Two cities ,n shall sh (estimated $60,000 p0 in population in each c ity) (estim der 30 revenu Three cities un in licensing (estimated $10'p00 GROUP FoRR� IC EN IN pRING1P�E T TLINE VNTY E M S FOR AGREEM funding O- f o vT�INE OF TE R dl level of tran sition ated as follows: JOINT The Cities cities 2010 reg T net per capita C An, a dditiona l regional model terra an sewn ex capita 2 fall 2.5 year d half of 201 ttac for the annualized level fox th es O dated ApnA 7 2010 Document A VIV Kkn9 C ounty ties with the the County venu 0 enhanced 1icens cad license in license sup port an X 000 0 shall p p F unit °x nsi gr ad licensing marketing xovid ox each license C my caps etat f e nhanc ed In addi loaves will p Page 4 of 4 Total Regional Program Costs To Be Allocated: Proposed Animal Control District Number Bothell I Carnation I Duvall Unincorporated King County e Kenmore I o Kirkland I N Lake Forest Park I Redmond I Sammamish I .Shoreline I Woodinville «?�y, l. <,s SUB TOTAL FOR: CITIE$ 7N 200:( eiidludes :unincorp orated'aiea) :F. ;q," 'i� ".!�•l•: Beaux Ms Bellevue Clyde Hill Unincorporated King County N Hunts Point rt Issaquah 'Mercer Island !North Bend `Snoqualmle 1 Yanow Pt SUBTOTAL FOl. CITIES IN 220.(exdlu irnlriooipofated.'a'rea) a,i Burton (Includes North H19hline Area X Annexation; Unincorporated King County iiirt Kent (Includes Panther Lake Annexation) ca N SeaTaC l Tukwila SUBTOTAL 'FORGIVES lN.'240 (exclude sunlndoroorated:bh i< 'L :A'" F, d N Jurisdiction Algona Aubum Black Diamond Covington tD Enumclaw Unincorporated King County Maple Valley M aclbc SUBTOTAL FOR CITIES'IN 260 °(eielude5'un(ncorpora ttOT 6R CITIES,`, 7'otaf'Kilitl�CiiliNt3''UIy.. 11. .BCar°oYeted:ilCea.A(ltick'tfdh, S orce: KC Oak, of Management and Budge( and Animal Care and Control De0: April7, 0080 Joint Cities County Work Grouo on Renional Animal Services, Estimated Annualized F 2010R alt Transitional r a m Licensing Support Allocation '1) with Trans! Total Allocated 2009 'Licensing: pstlmated Net Costs Control Sheltering Licensing Revenue' Cost 392,431 $1,698,6001. 53,004,9001 5898,4001 55,601,900 53,209,469 $2r Estimated Animal Control Cost Allocation (2) 5126.254' (see total below)! $63.754! 517,1361! 933,165; +l-. 87x2 4298'13961i,,}t p ,Nr _$565 ;966 'u. ${•;j7JJ;'34 1 Y$2;299; u ogE; M'tlF is $499`2 `Y tlFtlf V05,174.1•xril0: $269!086 1 Estimated Sheltering Cost Estimated Pet Allocation Estimated Total Cost (Excludes Costs to Licensing Cost Allocation North Slde Cities for Allocation (4) PAWS Sheltering) (3) $22.973'. 53031,09565 $$2.563! 58,091! ,41 $2.563' 95,3851 586151 512.571' 5116..932` Isee total below! l (see total below' I 525.489' 913.943! 919.140! 550.747' 597,540! 538,979' 513.759' $12 $8.741! ,1 y, 541, $50.336' 538,5651 571,289' $7,215' $9.462' 914,619' ',.968!d4x:�N`• a`.ji$307;71.,81ii& 1H- �^:;e$37.3 ;95 'iWii$238`9591 *%W 1 11 t��.`'4621:4361y 930 7sa: 'J 5900 ,:'.$343;39311 «t•' %?!i 910146' 9135,9681 510,160' 549,061' 530,293' 987.404 5102.05?! 512.218: 55,123' $24.57931 (see total belowl 522.513' 9116 .2 l 558.5711 973,160' 5159 5186,666 ,211' $35,226". $71.967: 5166,575; 9134.311: $97.19 5141.692' $37.036' 546,034' 5154,359 5135,125! $68.59 6' $34.532` 5189.347' E 537.918' Cost Transition $31 357' _Ektir'neted'Net n Funding °.;Allocation 56.495 52,45 (see total belowl 914.589 $27,455 $36.761 554,264 56.587 534.987 56.562 i-- -9326 $4591 $301' $1.226 $2093526 $466` 590,629' 5475.204' 5274.346! 00.6 7 9151,300' $233.279' $10.530. $8.044' $3,86' $4,389 $2,465' $174,816: (see total belowl (see total belowl $230' $1,059 5174,816' 93921 (see total below' I (sae total ba$229' $5 288•, -$56,368 $382' $677' $1.( 64,509! $50.181! $20,013' 1 555,113' $26,385 20876 542.683' $17.142' $81.490 _514.5942 $26,827' 537.530' 4024' 526.935' $14,341! $14.463' $23.667' -$17.015 $10,448' $6,905' $40,683 -$0.63 $20.832! $819' $2,864' $12.950' 53,327' $17021 $7.405: g•..$ 142. 5231('^`' 1• eara<, M:$T63i567M�fd'i'.'11i >%,+:I:,$ 494; 0' L4 It" r -i;n(': ?x %y�%,'- $319¢53 .52498341r?:�•• $119251 +::.iS371216i _::'..'ei�;_ i -5163.400) 5262.652 (see total 25 al belo91' bel I 581.257: (see (oral below)' be ow1W $169 516' iota/ 4 3.90 (see Iofel84low 5897.584. $255.365, $643.902: 804,166' $121,10 $174166 $53 597, 5105.148! $16,847' 578.208' 512,000' 149 $450 958 x 065 1 930 348 8921 $120.239' 2 ,�.r•. $1;402j04�1 %CM $458;02 4 1 80!390 T�J`s 'Y- 81 belowl 415' $17,237 $16.08V 52.418' 528.6511 815 $947,231 $63 545.052' 5499,569' 9158.415' 1 $317.383' 53.483; 531.0261 813671' _5 7.85 963,567' ,567! $15,742' 5128.371' 560,534! -517654 41 $22,464! 569.840 953.472: $0,541' $92.304 $726,254". (see (oral belowl l (see total below $4,682' 554.982. .see !oral belowl l $126 432: 562.293' $14,062' 1 518,920! 536,062 ;Iii :$3,415. v x'$0 1 '412 2 3 $9F473354y-r i 112 >^J i �',t �'$96,9T41'''-,irta';( ,.P :7•:. r.{ r g(�'B.{ >?S:�r.$21�:89 11:5 s. 62913{ $%1;12. 7(77 oti29`3521 901 51.471 50! N01 90: 50! 50! 50'. 50' $0! $0 $0: ,VrtiFg51$ i_ 74311.I c4;:NiT t'$ 0. $0: $0 $0 $60.000: 50' 90 NA! NA 50'. $0: 50 $0 $0' $0 $3,565! $0 50' $0' 417,015' $0 -54631 $0 r.:A „'$255;9 88 ;:$3:4 65 !x: „MS!'il: .r ^;$.65'1000.•. 534,534' 50 4128,767, NA' NA (see foal below) $60,000: -$264,591 $519,872: $10.000 591,629 519,271: 513,8031 510,000 1 574,262 f:$365;Y143' d S r 860 OOU' $559,461.3 $0' 994911 57,746 50 _$170,46 3 3.131: 5170,695! $0 _914,824 53.131: 50 554,70E 512.16 527,674 532.16 NA._ $10,000 Nq NA (see Iola/ below) 50 548,538 $17,400' 50: 516,661 $17,852' ,,,,t'`` :0$ $259'052'�a'`:.'fi;,}l 0;0 ym t` 6d1 6$q�B t444i887r K1nu County Transitional Costs $170,0001 IT Costs Assoclated with Mainframe Systems 1 $170,0001 Potential Lease Costs for 2011 _$650,0001 Transition Fundinc for Cities 000 Transillonel Llcensinc 5400080 for Cities $100 i 5 0 8 Estimated Revenue Estimated Net Final from Transitional Cost Licensing Support $0 r $0 90 $0: $0 $0 50 90 $0 514.6 $5,0 651 $2,457 (see Iotel belowl 914,589 527,45 536,761 $54.264 $6,71 $34 56 5621 1 5 I 1'15 5 .1 1 5140.85 52,4 (see 10101 b $,059` •$56,368 -$25,385 571,0291 1. Estimated alioca io Notes: 2 I' ns are based 50% on population and 50% on use. Populations, usage, and revenues have been ad)usled to Include annexations wllh 2010 effective dates of July 1, 2010 or earlier (I.e., Buden, Panther Lake). Usage esllmaled as follows: lolalcells for control, total Intake or sheltering, and total r licensee f Assumes the caving tees not oe 5 b tot Way, Seattle, Renton, Des Moines, Normandy Park, Medina, Newcastle, Skykomish, and Milton. 1h0 es anticipating using PAWS using for Woodinville, 56,600. sheltering The Include uonly the e 50% p 0% population lation allocation. os n onh Cot County or the north dues Is costs le send endb animals als formerly aorm meet erly sent ent t to o King g baud on 2. One quarter of contntrol ol costs are allocated cated to to each ch district, then en costs are further allocated d 50 0 J by local call volume (averaged from 2007 -2009) and 50% by 2009 population. 3. S costs are estimated at the following assuming a of 50 pee animal. Bothell, 513,050, 5% enmore, $7,575; Lake Forest Park, $3 north dues Shoreline, $22 822, 575; red onl edcosts alt Shelter t to PAWS WS are a 4. Transition licensing iio costs are allocated 5per capita by population and 5or by total number c active licenses (ne cost 2007-2009), cation 5. Transiton funding is allocated per capita in a two tier formula to titles with certain per capita net cost allocations as indicated below. Licensing support is allocated to the five Cllles with the lowest per capita Iicansing raven 5250 000 is allocated to cities with net costs exceeding $3.00 per capita $400,000 Is allocaled to cities with net costs exceeding 55.50 per capita 22 I/' Population: 2500 Populated,Aree1,00 b Total Callt:' 3 500 Priority Calk: 900, King County Urban Growth Boundary 'Forest TIBOthell Kenmore Kirklandl Redmond:I POputation: 385,000" :Populated Area: 330 Total Calls: 2,600" Priority Calls: 800" Giiraan' Sammamish Population: 180,000 Populated Area: 300 sq.mi. Total Calls: 2,200 Priority Calls: 700 Populatiod1: 288.000 PopOated Total Calls: 1.800 Calls: 600 Sykmish Joint Cities County Workgroup on Regional Animal Services Control Districts for Agreement in Principle Call volumes estimated based on 2007 2009 averages 23 24 Document dated April 7, 2010 Prepared by King County "Regional Animal Services of King County" Benefits of a Regional Animal Services System Public Health and Safety Provides the ability to identify and track rabies and other public health issues related to animals on a regional basis. Reduces public health threats through routine vaccination of animals. Provides capacity to handle unusual and multi jurisdictional events involving animals that often require specialized staff such as: horse cruelty, animal hoarding, loose livestock, dog fighting and cock fighting groups, puppy mills, illegal reptile vendor operations, animal necropsies and quarantine, holding of animals as evidence in criminal cases, and retrieval of dead animals. Animal Welfare Reduces pressure on non profit shelters by maintaining capacity at regional public shelters. Non profit animal welfare organizations contribute significantly through their own capacity and by accepting transfer of public sheltered animals for care and adoption, thereby reducing costs at public shelters. Provides for participation of a large corps of volunteers and foster homes. Provides capacity for regional response to animal cruelty cases. Provides regional preparedness planning and coordination during emergencies and disasters. Provides additional regional capacity for seasonal events such as "kitten season Avoids competition across jurisdictions for sheltering space and comparisons across jurisdictions on outcome statistics. Customer Service Provides a single access point for residents searching for a lost pet or seeking help from animal control. Provides one single point of contact for citizen complaints. Maintains a uniform pet licensing program that is simpler for the public to access and understand, with a broad range of services to encourage licensing: marketing, partnering with third parties on points of sale for licenses, canvassing, database management, and the ability to return animals to owners in the field. 25 26 Effective and Efficient Provision of Services Provides a low -cost spay and neuter program that serves the entire region, and is the key to reducing the population of homeless animals and reducing the costs of the system over time. Reduces the demand on individual jurisdictions to respond to communications from the media, advocacy groups and other interested parties. Builds economies of scale to provide a full range of services, making it less expensive to develop operations, training, licensing, and care programs than it would be for cities to duplicate services at the local level. Use of volunteers and partnerships with private animal welfare organizations provide our region with the ability to promote the most humane treatment with limited public resource. Provides a consistent level of service, humane animal care, and regulatory approach countywide. Allows local police agencies to focus on traditional law enforcement. Document dated April 7, 2010 Prepared by King County "Regional Animal Services of King County" Frequently Asked Questions Prepared for City ManagerslAdminisfrafors Meeting April 7, 2010 What animal services does King County currently provide? The goal of animal services is to protect public health and safety and provide humane care for animals. Animal services include three primary components: animal control, animal sheltering, and pet licensing. King County Animal Care and Control (KCACC) has been in operation for over 38 years. KCACC currently operates two shelter locations within King County: a main shelter in Kent and a smaller shelter in the Crossroads area of Bellevue. KCACC has sheltered between 9,000 and 12,000 homeless animals per year in recent years. The program provides shelter for animals who are surrendered by owners, dropped off as strays, impounded for behavioral or other reasons, or deemed evidence in law enforcement investigations. KCACC dispatches animal control officers to respond to calls about dangerous, stray, dead or injured animals. King County sells and markets pet licenses as a means to both increase efficiency of shelter and control operations and generate revenue to support the system. Who receives the service from the County now? Currently, KCACC provides services to all residents in the unincorporated area of the County and contracts with 35 other cities within the County (excluding Seattle, Renton, Skykomish and Milton). KCACC provides limited contract services to Des Moines, Newcastle and Normandy Park. Five cities purchase an enhanced level of control service from the County (Auburn, Shoreline, Kirkland, SeaTac, Tukwila). What is the benefit of a regional system? A regional system provides for better public health, safety, animal welfare and customer service outcomes in a more cost efficient and effective manner. These benefits accrue through significant economies of scale and, in the new regional model, properly aligned financial incentives that support desired programmatic outcomes and help to contain costs over time. For cities, a regional system allows local police agencies to focus on traditional law enforcement matters and shifts the burden of a complex and unique service to the County and specially trained animal services staff. For the public, a regional system is simpler to understand and to use. There is one place to call to renew or acquire a pet license. There is one place to call to find a lost pet. The public health system has a better ability to identify and track issues related to animals, such as rabies. Document dated April 7, 2010 1 Prepared by King County 27 28 For animals, a regional system provides for humane standards of care and the capacity to address a broad array of unusual events involving animals including horse cruelty, animal hoarding, loose livestock, dog fighting and cock fighting rings, illegal reptile vendor operations, animal quarantines, and holding of animals as evidence in criminal cases. A regional system also provides for routine vaccination of animals and low -cost, high volume spay /neuter operations to reduce the population of homeless and unwanted animals. How is the proposed regional service model different from what King County is currently doing? (1) Control operations will be organized by district to improve accountability. a. Animal control officers will be dedicated to one of four specific geographic districts. Coverage will be more consistent and predictable and cities will be able to build a relationship with their district's dedicated officers. b. The base level of field services will be provided 5 -days per week rather than 7 -days per week in order to contain costs. Cities may contract with the County for a higher level of service. (2) New sheltering arrangements will help ensure humane standards of care for animals within current capacity and resource constraints. a Northern cities will contract with PAWS, a private nonprofit shelter in Lynnwood, for shelter capacity. b. At the County's Kent shelter, new policies and practices will be put in place to ensure that animals can be humanely cared for within limited available resources. Expanded use of volunteers and the foster network will support this effort. c. The number of adoptions from the Kent shelter will be maximized by seeking transfer and other arrangements with private animal welfare partners. d. The Crossroads shelter will be closed to save costs and focus resources. (3) Incentives will be aligned across the system to encourage desired behavior and ultimately bring down costs. a. While the current licensing structure will remain in place, cities will be incentivized to increase licensing rates in order to offset their costs. Higher licensing rates have the added benefit of improving the efficiency of control and shelter services. b. Costs will be allocated partially based on use in order to encourage Tess use of the system and collaborative efforts to decrease the number of homeless pets. c. Residents will be provided with resources (such as education to change pet behavior) and incentives (such as fees for owners who surrender pets) to encourage cost effective solutions that do not burden the system. Document dated April 7, 2010 2 Prepared by King County How do the County's costs compare to other shelters? King County's average sheltering cost per animal is comparable to or lower than that of other public and nonprofit shelters. Many factors impact the cost -per- animal sheltered, such as the average length of time an animal stays at the shelter and the severity of animals' medical conditions. Some private nonprofit shelters have as part of their mission the care of animals with more severe medical or behavioral conditions which equates to a higher cost -per- animal. Many private nonprofit shelters seek private donations to help pay for their operations. Another cost comparison is per capita spending on animal services programs (combined cost of both public animal care and control programs and large private shelters). The national average is around $7 per capita. King County is closer to $5 per capita. Well- respected programs, such as Boulder Valley, San Francisco and Multnomah County, spend closer to $18 per capita. Why doesn't a higher euthanasia rate solve the cost problem? In recent years, the County has worked to reduce the euthanasia rate, which now stands at around 20 percent. Many of the gains in lowering the euthanasia rate have been achieved at minimal cost. The County has increased the volunteer program, more effectively utilized the foster program, and partnered with more private animal welfare organizations. This has enabled more animals to leave the shelter alive, with limited public resources. The best way to lower the cost of animal services is to tackle the problem of unwanted pets through a coordinated regional spay /neuter program that decreases the homeless animal population. An effectively -run shelter helps to tackle this problem through spay /neuter of all animals. Why can't King County close its shelter and have other shelters fill the gap? Without King County's shelter there just isn't enough capacity in the system to care for the number of animals in the system. King County takes in two to three times the number of animals sheltered by other shelter organizations in the region. Closing the Kent shelter would put an intolerable strain on the private shelters, impeding their ability to do the good work they are doing, and lead to significant threats to public health and safety. Why is the Work Group proposing a 5 -day per week level of animal control service, rather than the current 7 -day per week level? What does this mean for cities? The reduction in base control services reflects the Work Group's proposal to reduce base -level costs. Cities will have the option of purchasing enhanced field services which could be organized to provide 7 -day per week service. King County will continue to provide for off -hour response to critical or emergency animal control matters that necessitate immediate action for protection of public Document dated April 7, 2010 3 Prepared by King County 29 30 safety or the protection of the life of the animal. Non emergency calls will receive a response on the next working day. How were the service district boundaries determined? The district boundaries take into account a rough balance of the volume of calls in each area, jurisdictional boundaries, and reasonably efficient transportation routes within each district. Boundaries may be adjusted depending on the cities participating in the new regional model. Would privatizing licensing save money? Private licensing vendors exist that would cost less on a per license basis than King County. However, these vendors typically do not provide the local marketing services King County provides that are critical to maintaining and increasing licensing rates that generate revenue to support the system. There may also be complications associated with using a private licensing vendor when it comes to sharing data with on- the ground field officers and responding to resident inquiries. Once marketing and other coordination- related costs are included, it appears that costs between King County and private licensing vendors are roughly comparable. The proposal calls for a collaborative exploration of ways to reduce costs and improve services, including through exploration of alternative licensing systems. Why can't the system be self sufficient from license fees? Pet licensing revenue from fees and related fines currently cover about 60 percent of the proposed regional service model. Research on other jurisdictions' operations shows that it is virtually unheard of for a program to fully cover its costs from licensing or other program specific revenues. For example, the director of the well- respected Multnomah County program estimates that license revenue covers only about 30 percent of program costs. Today about 20 percent of pet owners countywide license their pets, with rates in individual cities estimated to range from a low of roughly 5 percent to a high of 40 percent. The new regional model provides opportunities to maintain and increase licensing revenue through the County and cities working together. Increased licensing will mean significant revenue credited back to cities toward their cost of receiving services. Targeted licensing efforts in some King County cities have recently shown a significant ability to increase licensing. Focused, short -term canvassing and telephone efforts in 2009 were conducted in Kirkland, Shoreline and Lake Forest Park. These contributed to a net increase of 3,501 licenses issued. How much will my city have to pay? A table showing estimated costs by city, assuming all currently contracting cities other than Federal Way participate, is attached. The estimated cost allocations Document dated April 7, 2010 4 Prepared by King County are based on a combination of usage and population, based on historic usage. The terms of the Agreement in Principle also provide for a reconciliation of costs based on actual usage. There are two critical factors that will affect the financial impact on cities: (1) the more cities that participate, the lower the cost will be for everyone, and (2) the higher a city's pet licensing rate and revenue, the lower will be that city's net cost. For those cities with the highest costs per capita or the lowest licensing revenue per capita, the County is proposing to provide transitional funding and enhanced licensing revenue support. A two -step process is proposed to confirm interest in system participation and cost prior to signing new service agreements. Once cities have indicated their interest in participating in a regional model by April 30 King County will revise the cost estimates and report back to cities. Why are costs allocated based on both use and population? The cost allocation formula is intended to (a) provide incentives to minimize use of the system and decrease the homeless pet population (use component) and (b) recognize that the system benefits everyone and that animals don't respect jurisdictional boundaries (population component). Additionally, the cost allocation was designed to balance burdens across jurisdictions in hopes of maximizing participation and preserving a regional system. Why is it proposed that cities be required to purchase all services? The Work Group concluded that to maximize system efficiency, a "menu" approach to purchasing services is not practicable, at least not in the short -term. For example, to be able to effectively track animals and pet owners in the system, a single licensing system is most efficient. Field officers can spend more time responding to calls if they are not required to deliver animals to multiple shelters in one geographic area. Shelters have less paperwork and data challenges if they are dealing with fewer field operations and a single licensing system. What is the benefit of contracting for 2.5 years? First, a longer -term contract provides some stability to a system that will improve outcomes for both residents and animals. Second, a 2.5 year period will give participating parties enough time to work on initiatives that improve outcomes, efficiency, and may ultimately bring down the cost of the program. Initiatives identified by the Work Group for further exploration include: Updating animal codes to increase licensing and other revenues; Taking actions to begin reducing the homeless animal population, such as spay /neuter efforts; Document dated April 7, 2010 5 Prepared by King County 31 32 Working collaboratively to identify ways to improve efficiencies and control policies; Considering other service options, such as working with partners to provide some portion of licensing services; and Reviewing options for repair /replacement of the Kent shelter. Third, cities who qualify for County transition funding and support are only eligible to receive that support if they elect to contract for the full 2.5 years. Document dated April 7, 2010 Prepared by King County 6 Joint Cities County Work Group on Regional Animal Services Proposed Timeline for Confirming and Adopting New Interlocal Agreements Date 1 Item March 31 Agreement in Principle April 7 Review Agreement in Principle with City Managers and City Administrators large city staff work group April 15 Updated agreement in principle circulated (if necessary based on input at April 7 meetings) End of Circulate Araft form of contract based on Agreement in Principle to all April cities (comments due May 7) April 30 Initial statements of interest in contracting from cities, County (including statement of whether city wishes to contract only for the first 6 months). May 3 Adjusted costs circulated to all parties based on April 30 indications of interest. If parties declining to participate result in an estimated 10% or greater increase in total costs to be allocated as compared to the April 7 estimated cost allocation, request second statement of statement of intent from cities and County. May 14 Final draft ;contract: circulated excluding final cost allocations (comments due May 21) May 19 Second statement of intent, with any applicable upward limits each party agrees to bear. 1 May 21 1 Results of 2 statement of intent circulated to all parties 1 May 24 -27 1 Parties confer and determine whether /how to proceed June 3 1 Final fortif of contract circulated for action. 1 Mid -late All participating jurisdictions act by approximately mid -June in order for June agreement to become effective July 1. Document dated April 7, 2010 Prepared by King County 33 34 Cost Considerations for Animal Care, Control, and Licensing Operations in a Sub Regional Model Control Operations Ambulance and Hosvital Costs King County often employs ambulance service and emergency hospital services to transport and care for badly injured animals (car accidents, cruelty cases). While variable and difficult to estimate, these costs can be significant. Animal Cab Repair /Refurbishment/Replacement Resources and Tirne The animal cabs used to transport animals represents a significant up front cost. In addition, these cabs are subject to significant wear and tear and require regular refurbishment, repair, or replacement. Because of the type of wear and repair experienced, the repair /refurbishment/replacement schedule may be significantly different than for the vehicles in general. In addition, refurbishment of the cabs can take them out of commission for four to six months. Sick. Vacation. Training. Iniury Coverage If the operation will be a 7 day operation (2 people, 1 vehicle), consideration should be given to coverage when an ACO is sick, on vacation, or in training. Having the other ACO cover could result in significant overtime. In addition, ACOs sometimes experience job injuries, which also present a coverage issue. Animal Cruelty and Other Cases King County pursues various animal cruelty and other animal related cases as they arise, employing the cruelty ACO and other ACOs. The amount of ACO time required in cases varies by case. In addition, such cases also involve PAO resources. Vehicle Backup Availability King County has a fleet of vehicles that can be employed in the field, allowing officers to still do their jobs even when a vehicle is in the shop for minor repairs /maintenance or more major repairs. Contact and Dispatch King County has a single point of contact for animal calls, which then dispatches or routes calls as appropriate. This provides a customer friendly service. In addition, the sheriff provides complimentary dispatch service during off hours, however, this dispatch does represent a body of work and a potential program cost. Control Overtime ACOs sometimes receive priority calls Iate in the day, resulting in overtime work. This body of work can result in significant overtime costs over the course of a year. Specialized Equipment and Vehicle Operating Costs ACOs require a variety of specialty equipment. A typical list of such equipment is provided at the end of this document; total costs for the equipment, including several uniforms, totals approximately $10,000. These must be purchased up front, and must also be replaced from time to time. ACO vehicles also typically cover a significant amount of miles, resulting in significant maintenance /repair /replacement costs and fuel expenditures. Computer System and Records Animal control operations (and any billing associated with a sub regional model) will require the collection, maintenance, and analysis of control data. This typically requires the implementation of a specialized computer program on system servers and field computers, data entry and maintenance, and maintenance and storage of paper files and /or electronic files on servers. The most 1 35 36 Sheltering efficient operation would involve interfacing the control, shelter, and licensing system data; however, this will require initial interfacing work as well as ongoing resources to provide system support and maintenance and to ensure data integrity and security. General Sheltering Services: o Typical Vet Services Shelters typically provide various types of vet services in addition to basic animal sheltering, which result in additional costs. Typical vet/vet tech services include spay /neuter surgeries, vaccinations, surgeries, and other minor medical care. Vets at King County shelters also conduct owner requested end of life euthanasia. If such services are not provided as part of sheltering, contract vet services will be required, which can be very costly. o Cruelty /Neglect Cases Response to potential cruelty/neglect cases represent another area of sheltering costs. In potential cruelty /neglect cases, the animals involved are often very sick and emaciated. Their condition and health often require considerable medical attention, premium food and supplements, and greater day -to- day/hour -to -hour care by trained caregivers. These costs can be significant even for a single animal, and cruelty cases often involve multiple animals. Pursuit of cruelty and other cases also requires the performance of necropsies and analysis of samples by external laboratories. As noted above, if such services are not provided by sheltering arrangements, such contract services can be costly. o Other Shelter Services In addition to providing for sheltering of animals on stray hold and awaiting adoption, a sheltering solution should address the need to hold animals associated with domestic violence and cruelty cases for long periods. o After -Hours Disposition Animals must sometimes be confiscated or picked up by animal control after normal shelter operating hours. For after -hours calls, King County shelters have an outdoor cage that can be used to hold animals until the next day. Stabling In potential cruelty cases involving large animals (horses, goats, llamas, cows, etc.), stabling must be provided to the animals until conclusion of the case. Free /Reduced Price Spay/Neuter Free /reduced price spay /neuter services can help reduce animal control and sheltering costs, but they also require up front resources. Computer System and Records Animal sheltering operations (and any billing associated with a sub regional model) requires the collection, maintenance, and analysis of sheltering data. As noted above, this typically requires the implementation of a specialized computer program on system servers and computers, data entry and maintenance, and maintenance and storage of paper files and /or electronic files on servers. The most efficient operation would involve interfacing the control, shelter, and licensing system data; however, this will require initial interfacing work as well as ongoing resources to provide system support and maintenance and to ensure data integrity and security. Licensing (The following discussion assumes the use of Pet Data for licensing services in accordance with the information provided in the recently secured RFP) 2 Anticipated Revenues A loss of licensing revenue in the first few years of the sub regional licensing program is likely because of potential confusion surrounding the switch to Pet Data license provision and the sub regional model in general. In addition, without a sustained marketing effort (see below), licensing revenue could decline by 10 -20% each year. License Marketing Strategies Pet Data does not conduct extensive sales and marketing for limiting the normal attrition of the licensing base, aggressively pursuing renewals, or increasing sales partnerships as part of their base rate. Significant sales and marketing programs currently employed by King County include the following: o Recruitment of new sales partners o Management and oversight of all sales partners o Neighborhood sales and marketing of licenses o Door to door sales and marketing of licenses o Incentive programs for license sales o Coordinated enforcement strategies License Renewal Strategies Pet Data issues one renewal letter and one late notice, but it does not appear that they have a comprehensive renewal program. King County currently issues renewal letters, three late notices, and escalating fees to encourage renewals. In addition, King County staff conduct follow -up telephone calls to both encourage renewals and to provide information to update the database for people who no longer have the pet. Licensing Education Pet Data offers licensing education to the public about licensing. These efforts consist of a page on Pet Data's website for the contracting cities, a flyer for vet clinics, and inserts that the cities can put in their mailings to citizens. King County's education program includes: o Web site for licensing program o Inserts into countywide mailings like vehicle tab renewals o Inserts into pet license mailings o Flyers distributed to sales partners and door -to -door o Media promotions o In- person door -to -door contacts Due Diligence/Backup Plan As for any contracting service, consideration should be given to the potential contracting agency financial status, potential employment and legal issues, other customer city satisfaction, audit results, and backup planning for if the contractor is unable to continue to provide service at some point or to fulfill all terms of the contract. Comparative Services Pet Data also does not support "Fetch Your Pet" activities for lost animals or Microchip tracking. Overhead Risk Insurance Lawsuits can arise either from control or sheltering handling of animals. Risk insurance to cover such costs are currently absorbed by King County's general fund, but should be budgeted in a sub regional model. Systems Overhead Radio, telephone, and computer systems and support result in overhead costs. 3 37 38 Public Disclosure Request Support King County currently receives public disclosure requests from reporters regarding shelter and control functions and also from individuals who have had animals move through the system or are inquiring on past control actions. This work involves administrative time to collect all applicable records and legal time to ensure that no privileged information is released. Legal Support Legal support is needed for cruelty and other cases as well as for general overhead. Other Overhead A sub regional system would also incur financial costs associated with billing other cities for use and handling revenues from licensing as well as HR, payroll, and facilities overhead costs for personnel issues. Supervision and Management Costs Overhead costs should include resources to provide the following: o General oversight for the three functions and manage control operations o Reporting to the public and responding to data requests from public officials o Oversight to the animal control officers o Representation for the sub regional organization/services to policymakers, the public, etc. o Program accountability to establish performance measures and track performance to such measures 4 List of Typical Equipment/Materials Required for Animal Control Officers Uniform (shirts, pants, shoes, jumpsuit, jacket, hat) 800mhz Hand Held Radio Tool Belt Catch Pole Short Catch Pole Long Snappy Snare Short Snappy Snare Long Cat Tongs Snake Tongs Net Leads (leashes) Microchip Scanner Humane Cat Trap Humane Dog Trap Cat Carriers Squeeze Cage Pepper Spray w/holster Dangerous Dog Taser Taser Holster Taser Cartridges Asp Baton w/holder Ultrasonic Dazer Protective Cat Gloves Work Gloves Latex Gloves Tyvek Suit Masks Machete Multipurpose tool Folding Knife Digital Camera w /video capabilities Cell Phone Protective Vest Muzzles Tranquilizer Gun Tranquilizer Darts Flashlight File Box Animal Stretcher First Aid Kit Miscellaneous (pens, paper, clipboard, etc.) Euthanasia Kit 5 39 40 South County Options for Animai Care and Control An Independent Overview April 20, 2010 41 42 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 3 II. Approach /Scope of Work 3 III. Timing 3 IV. Mandates 3 V. General Options 7 VI. Existing Models /Benchmarks 7 VII. Budgeting 10 VIII. Sheltering Options 12 IX. Pet Licensing Options 16 X. Field Service Options 20 XI. Other Considerations 21 XII. Summary 22 XIII. Appendix 25 -29 Timeline (draft) 25 References /Resources 27 Evaluating Criteria 28 Background of Team 30 Page 2 of 30 South County Options for Animal Care and Control: An independent overview I. Introduction King County's lead role in funding, overseeing and maintaining animal care and control services for 32 cities and unincorporated King County began to unravel last year. In early August (2009) and during the 2010 budget process, former King County Executive Kurt Triplett publicly stated the possibility of having the county close the doors on its 37 year -old animal care and control operations. In April (2010), the County unveiled a new proposed model and pricing structure for "regional animal services" as well as issued letters notifying the cities that on June 30 their current animal care and control contracts or agreements are terminating. This report was commissioned by four cities, Burien, Kent, SeaTac and Tukwila, to study whether or not forming a sub regional animal care and control program would be more cost effective and the most appropriate response to the 4/7/10 plan presented by King County Animal Care and Control (KCACC). II. Approach The consultant team formed quickly with a very ambitious timeline. They reviewed prepared materials provided to the cities, referred to best practices or national standards and collected data from other animal care and control organizations. They also utilized their knowledge of, and experience in, the field of animal welfare and management for reviewing the complexities of this issue. Based on this approach, this report presents a variety of options for providing humane care or housing for the animals that are lost, abandoned, neglected or abused in the four communities. A second component to animal control is providing professional and responsive enforcement of the local and state animal ordinances. Options will be discussed as well as options for the third component, pet licensing programs. III. Timing Considerations and Scope of Work This report will be limited on the amount of analysis or detail provided due to the time available for this project. The desired outcome is to provide enough general information to help frame discussions by the four cities regarding the direction of animal care and control services in a significant portion of south King County. King County's proposed regional model has obligated many cities to take a serious look at the role of animal care and control (ACC) in their communities. Establishing a regional or sub regional ACC program requires participation and support by the political, nonprofit and for profit sectors. Page 3 of 30 43 44 In other communities where a major switch has occurred with ACC programs, it usually has been the non profit organization ending the ACC contract with the municipality rather than a county organization ending all or part of their ACC services. For example, in 1984 the SF SPCA announced during its contract negotiations with the City of San Francisco it would no longer provide the animal care and control programs. In 1989 SFSPCA gave up their contracts making the transition and formation of the SFACC five years. For more information on the history: http: /www.maddiesfund.org/ Resource_ Library/ San_ Francisco_The_Nations_First_Ado ption_Guarantee_City. html In addition, a pact was created between SFACC and SFSPCA in 1994 and still is in effect. For more details, visit http /www.sfgov2.org /index.aspx ?page =1082. When the ASPCA (in New York City) decided to no longer contract for animal control, it took approximately three to five years to transition away from that role and to allow the City time to plan alternatives. The Center for Animal Care and Control, a not for profit organization, was established in 1995 and has been responsible for New York City's municipal shelter system, rescuing, caring for, and finding loving homes for homeless and abandoned animals in New York City. AC &C facilities operate in all five boroughs. Animal Care Control of New York City (AC &C) is the largest pet organization in the North East, with an estimated number of 43,000 animals rescued each year. A general timeline for creating a sub regional ACC Model For general discussion purposes, a timeline has been created outlining the key first steps needed in order to form a sub regional animal service agency. See Section XIII, Appendix A on page 25. IV. What are cities or counties in Washington State mandated to provide? Washington State Mandates 1. Dangerous Dogs RCW 16.08 requires immediate confiscation of any dangerous dog (police officers or humane "agents" also have the authority to do this) 2. Abandoned Animals RCW 16.54 specifies that, in the absence of available humane society, the sheriff must auction or dispose of such abandoned animals Having been placed in such custody (in a vet clinic, boarding kennel or "any person for treatment, board or care of animals') for an unspecified period of time the animal is not removed within fifteen days after notice to remove the animal has been given to the person who placed the animal in such custody or having been so notified the person depositing the animal refuses or fails to pay agreed upon or reasonable charges for the treatment, board, or care of such animal. Any person having in his care, custody, or control any abandoned animal as defined in RCW 16.54.010, may deliver such animal to any humane society having facilities for the care of such animals or to any pound maintained by or under contract or agreement with any city or county within which such animal was abandoned. If no such humane society or pound exists within the Page 4 of 30 county the person with whom the animal was abandoned may notify the sheriff of the county wherein the abandonment occurred. 3. Rabies control WAC 246 -100 -191 requires possible destroying, testing, or quarantining of animals that have bitten or otherwise exposed a person to rabies or if rabies is suspected; may require a community -wide rabies control program. 4. Zoonotic Diseases WAC 246- 101 -405 describes the responsibility of animal bite reporting and mandates cooperation with public health authorities in the implementation of disease control measures including isolation and quarantine when necessary. 5. Animal cruelty RCW 16.52 describes who can or may investigate and enforce (1) Animal care and control agencies may enforce the provisions of this chapter in a county or city only if the county or city legislative authority has entered into a contract with the agency to enforce the provisions of this chapter. (2) Animal control officers enforcing this chapter shall comply with the same constitutional and statutory restrictions concerning the execution of police powers imposed on law enforcement officers who enforce this chapter and other criminal laws of the state of Washington. (3) Animal control officers have the following enforcement powers when enforcing this chapter: (a) The power to issue citations based on probable cause to offenders for misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor violations of this chapter or RCW 9.08.070 through 9.08.078 or *81.56.120; (b) The power to cause a law enforcement officer to arrest and take into custody any person the animal control officer has probable cause to believe has committed or is committing a violation of this chapter or RCW 9.08.070 or *81.56.120. Animal control officers may make an oral complaint to a prosecuting attorney or a law enforcement officer to initiate arrest. The animal control officer causing the arrest shall file with the arresting agency a written complaint within twenty -four hours of the arrest, excluding Sundays and legal holidays, stating the alleged act or acts constituting a violation; (c) The power to carry nonfirearm protective devices for personal protection; (d) The power to prepare affidavits in support of search warrants and to execute search warrants when accompanied by law enforcement officers to investigate violations of this chapter or RCW 9.08.070 or 81.56.120, and to seize evidence of those violations. (4) Upon request of an animal control officer who has probable cause to believe that a person has violated this chapter or RCW 9.08.070 or *81.56.120, a law enforcement agency officer may arrest the alleged offender. As a result of few state mandates, six counties in Washington do not have dedicated animal control officers and have little, if any, locally adopted ordinances regarding domestic animals. In these areas the Sheriff is responsible for enforcing the state laws pertaining to animals. They are: Adams, Asotin (they do have dog licenses), Ferry, Lincoln, Okanogan, and Whitman. Kina County Mandates Ordinance 15801 (5/07) requires KCACC to have an annual euthanasia rate of 15% or less: 11.04.500 Euthanasia rate targets. A. It shall be the policy of King County that a maximum euthanasia rate target is set to measure the progress towards reducing the rates of cats and dogs euthanized by the animal care Page 5 of 30 45 46 and control authority or its designees. The euthanasia rates shall be calculated based on the total number of live cats and dogs take in to King County custody to include stray, homeless, abandoned, unwanted or surrendered animals, and animals euthanized at an owner's request. The euthanasia rates shall exclude animals euthanized at the order of the director of the Seattle King County department of public health and those animals who are not in the custody of King County but are brought to a King County shelter by their owner or guardian for the purposes of licensing, or clinic services, such as spaying, neutering and vaccinations should such services be made available to the public by King County animal care and control. B. The total number of cats and dogs euthanized by King County animal care and control is not to exceed twenty percent in the year ending December 31, 2008. C. The total number of cats and dogs euthanized by King County animal care and control is not to exceed fifteen percent in the years following 2008. (Ord. 15801 31, 2007: Ord. 10423 6, 1992). Other considerations for providing ACC services In addition to federal, state and local laws relating to animals, there are ethical and political reasons to commit to an effective animal care and control program. With nearly two thirds of American households having at least one pet (based on a 2006 American Pet Products Manufacturers Association survey), pets have become important or valued members of the family and pet owners are spending more time and money on their pets. Another indicator of the role pets now play in people's lives is the growth of the pet supply and other pet related businesses (such as groomers, doggie day care, obedience classes and vet clinics). Animal control work is unique both animals and people are the main clients. In helping to protect animals from danger, abuse or neglect and at the same time protecting people from dangerous animals, today's Animal Control agency must face many of the same issues or problems seen in our society. For example violence (there is a link between animal abuse and violence against humans) economics (home foreclosures, lack of pet friendly rental housing, owners not able to afford the general expenses involved with owning an animal) neighbor relations (complaints about a neighbor's barking dog, cat's using the neighbor's garden for its litterbox) illegal activities using animals associated with gang, drug or gambling activities lack of commitment (not providing key training, broken bonds w /another living being) life and death decisions (euthanasia; dangerous or vicious attacks) As stated in the first chapter of the 2009 NACA (National Animal Control Association) Training Guide: "Animal Control is so much more than just picking up stray animals, but relates to all the many facets of animal welfare including, but not limited to, animal abuse, cruelty, animal neglect, investigation of animal bites, education, shelter operations, adoptions and more. Animal Control has a huge responsibility, not only to the communities they serve, but to the animals and their welfare." Page 6 of 30 A sub- regional approach provides an opportunity to establish policies, goals and local ordinances defining how the group of cities values animals and is concerned about their welfare. V. General options for all current KCACC clients Based on the County's 4/7 proposal, the following is the set of possible responses for each city currently served by KCACC: a. Each city establishes its own ACC program b. Cities accept County's proposed model and costs as presented (and if so, must decide if it is for either 6 months or 2 -1/2 years) c. Cities together attempt to re- negotiate proposed terms and /or timelines with the County d. Cities form a sub- regional ACC model or models among several cities in one or more area within King County. VI. Existing models and /or benchmarks To form a sub regional animal services agency, cities have several local examples to draw from and therefore, do not have to "reinvent the wheel." Local. non animal models in existence: Valley Communications Center (Valley Com) In 1976, the mayors of the Cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton and Tukwila entered into an Interlocal Agreement to consolidate their police and fire dispatching services into one organization and Valley Communications Center was born. Valley Com began dispatching on August 1, 1977. Over the years, several public safety agencies entered contractual relationships with Valley Com for emergency communications services. In 2000, the city of Federal Way was invited and joined the relationship as the fifth owner. The most recent addition to the Valley Com family was Valley Regional Fire Authority in February 2008. Since 1977, the staff has increased from 16 authorized positions to 128 in 2009. The administrative staff consists of a Director, Assistant Director, Finance Manager, Payroll and Accounting Specialist, Human Resource Manager, Administrative Services Manager, Public Records Specialist, Administrative Assistant, Training Manager and Operational Systems Coordinator. A Technical Services Manager, 2 Network Administrators and 3 System Administrators support the technology. 10 Team Supervisors oversee 52 Dispatchers and 44 Call Receivers. A Public Development Authority (PDA) was created. In 1977, the first Valley Com facility was a 1050 square foot building that had been converted from a vacated volunteer fire station. In contrast, on June 23, 2002, Valley Com moved into a state -of- the -art 24,000 square foot facility with planned space for 20 years of operations. Page 7of30 47 48 King County Sheriff service delivery model From King County's own website: "We realized that they would need professional law enforcement services at a reasonable cost. The cities welcomed the opportunity to gain local control and identity while also avoiding the enormous start -up costs. Each city may choose which police services they want to receive based on their local priorities. Specialized police services such as SWAT, Drug Enforcement, Air Support, Bomb Disposal, Canine and Marine Unit services may be selected as base level services, or the city can opt to have these services available on a callout basis. Every city within King County has access to these services on a call -out basis. Cities can have a strong voice and participate in selecting their personnel. Cities can also set the direction and tone of police priorities for their community. Additionally, the city determines what their police staffing levels will be. Several cities have elected to provide officers with office space at City Hall to promote a close working relationship with the officers. A Police Oversight Committee, which embodies the partnership between contract cities and King County, provides a forum for communications necessary to maintain a mutually beneficial relationship and ensure that services evolve to meet the contract city's ongoing and unique needs." The South Correctional Entity (SCORE) In 2009, a cooperative effort by the Cities of Auburn, Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Renton, SeaTac and Tukwila established the SCORE Public Development Authority. According to the SCORE 2009 Annual Report it "was established to provide correctional services for the member cities as a result of insufficient jail capacity within King County. The costs at these nine different jail facilities are escalating at an unsustainable rate. Furthermore, the cities were put on notice in 2001 that King County would not be able to provide jail space for misdemeanor offenders beginning 2012." The 2009 rates charged by King County for booking someone at the King County Jail $220.77. Daily housing fees are an additional $115.36. According to King County, these rates do not cover the County's total expenses for operating the jail. A new 668 -bed jail is under construction in Des Moines, and expected to be completed in late 2011. Development and construction is estimated to cost $80.5 million. Two Animal Care and Control models to consider: 1. YOUNG WILLIAMS ANIMAL CENTER (YWAC) in Knoxville, TN. This is a quasi governmental agency. The County serves as their fiscal agent and the employees are under the direction of a board of directors. The Board consists of eleven (11) members. Five (5) members are appointed by the Mayor, with majority approval of the City Council. Four (4) members are appointed by the county Mayor, with majority approval of the County Commission. One (1) member is appointed by the County Page 8 of 30 Commission and the final member (1) is appointed by the Knoxville Academy of Veterinary Medicine. Terms are for three years. Members can serve no more than two consecutive terms. YWAC shelters all animals for the city and county. City AC and (soon to be) County AC officers are under the police and /or sheriff. A new 22,000 square foot facility was built and opened in 2004. 2. SOUTHEAST AREA ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY (SEAACA), in Downey, CA. In October of 1975 and in January of 1976 the cities of Downey, Norwalk and Pico Rivera formed a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) establishing the Southeast Area Animal Control Authority SEAACA). SEAACA was formed as an alternative to the escalating costs of animal control services, and to improve the service level rendered by private and public animal welfare agencies. In 1976, SEAACA responded to requests from individual cities to provide services on a contractual basis, which resulted in admitting additional cities to membership in the Joint Powers Agreement. Since 1984, more jurisdictions were admitted and currently SEAACA serves approximately 675,000 residents in 12 cities. SEAACA is an independent public entity governed by a policy board (Board of Commissioners) comprised of a representative from each of the member cities. The Board of Commissioners is advised by an Administrative Committee comprised of the respective City Managers /City Administrators. SEAACA has an Executive Director as its chief administrative officer who carries out policies and oversees day -to -day operations. Presently, SEAACA has six divisions: Administrative Support, Field Operations, Shelter Operations, Veterinary Services, Licensing Services and a Volunteer Program. SEAACA employs approximately 45 regular full time and part time or seasonal employees. One of the most unique aspects of SEAACA is that it provides a local approach to animal control, with direct input from the communities served. Field services are provided seven days a week, 24 hours as day, for regular and emergency calls. SEAACA has developed a facility which houses the shelter and administrative offices. SEAACA maintains an in -house veterinary clinic, which provides low cost spay and neuter surgeries as a proactive approach to combat the ongoing challenge of pet overpopulation. SEAACA's success can be attributed to its ability to meet a full range of animal related needs with the support of the communities served. SEAACA maintains a cost effective operation while not sacrificing service. Historically the public perception of Animal Control has been limited to that of enforcement of leash and licensing laws. It is the desire of the SEAACA organization to change this perception by providing their communities with the most effective and comprehensive animal directed programs. Through their efforts to respond to the needs of the public, they hope to change long standing public misconceptions and effect positive change in the communities they serve. Page 9 of 30 49 50 Benchmarking to similar -sized communities The combined population of the four cities is 180,170 (see below). We contacted approximately 14 cities across the United States with a comparable population. We gathered information on their animal care and control services to provide guidance on possible staffing and budget levels needed in a sub- regional model. Burien SeaTac Combined totals City Knoxville, TN Newport News, VA Providence, RI Aurora, IL Overland Park, KS Tallahassee, FL Santa Clarita, CA Vancouver, WA City Knoxville, TN Newport News, VA Providence, RI Aurora, IL Overland Park, KS Tallahassee, FL Santa Clarita, CA Vancouver, WA 47,890 25,730 180,170 Population 184,802 180,150 173,618 636 171,782 171,231 171,000 169,500 163,186 Population 184,802 180,150 173,618 171,782 171,231 171,000 169,500 163,186 Pet Licenses unavailable 8,931 regular /168 pit 4,074 18,000 no license req. 9,098 24,423 4,740 2,083 17,245 Page 10 of 30 460 350 3,539 Below is a snapshot of how similar sized communities have structured their ACC services, the number of pet licenses issued and animals handled: of animals 10,854 3,506 1,352 4,801 800 11,500 9,432 unavailable Annual Budget for ACC 450,000 $1,103,313 "doesn't have a budget" 944,705 350,000 559,000 159,166 900,000 ACOs on staff 7 6 and 1 ACO Tech (PT) 5 3 5 6 contract w /LA Co ACC 3 at .9 time and 1 at .75 does not include any supervisor /directors, office, dispatch or kennel staff also involved Vil. Budgeting for a sub regional ACC service Comparing a possible combined annual budget of $460,000 for the start of a sub regional ACC (this figure provided by the four cities as a starting point): 1 KC reports the 2010 population figures (including the two annexations) are 203,320 for all four cities combined. 2 The 2009 Licensing Revenue (as reported by King County on 4/7) for all four cities totals $458,029. *LA County ACC invoiced projection for all services 2009/10; the total was $465, 572.12, however, they credit back the city for redemption fees, licensing and penalty fees collected by LA County ACC, which came to $306, 406. The North sub regional group (members include Bothell, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline and Woodinville) projected a budget of $335,321 was needed to operate animal care and control services on their own for the first six months. If the South sub regional group wants to consider something similar, this is what it could look like in comparison: North Sub Reaional $437,204 overall projected costs (start up, licensing housing for 6 months) 2 ACOs FT 1 clerk 10% from police sergeant and prgm mgr Total population 131,954 Avg ACC calls 1,075 Housing strays at PAWS in Lynnwood KCACC's District #240 $343,393 field costs only (annual) 1 ACO for 5 days a week coverage of field sergeant's time of cruelty sergeant's time of admin staff (licensing, dispatch,etc.) Total population 250,000 (covering 4 cities unincorporated King County) 3 yr. Avg ACC calls 3,509 Page 11 of 30 So KC Sub Reaional $460,000 base budget (annual) 2, 3 or 4 ACOs (FT or combo FT /PT) 1 admin help shared time from dept (rotated) Total population 203,320 3 yr. Avg ACC calls 2,816 Will need to contract for animal housing Will need to add in start up costs Will need to add in licensing costs Federal Way's Plan $300,000 (staff, overhead, start up costs) 1 ACO 1 Animal Mgmnt Coordinator Total population 88,040 of ACC Calls in 2008 1,026 51 52 VIII. Animal Sheltering Options Sub regional There is consensus (after presentations by selected nonprofit animal shelters to the cities and King County last November) that without the current KCACC shelter in Kent, the local shelters and rescue organizations do not have the capacity to house thousands of stray and unwanted animals currently housed at either one of the KCACC animal shelters. Finding a proper facility to safely house a variety of animals coming from a variety of situations is the most challenging aspect to a new regional or sub regional model. Most of the animal shelters and boarding kennels located in Pierce, King and Snohomish Counties are older facilities, designed in the late 1960s to early 70s, including King County Animal Care and Control's Kent shelter and the Seattle Humane Society in Bellevue. Many shelters, however, have added new space or remodeled all or part of their main facilities to keep up with the ongoing wear and tear animals and people can cause and to better reflect changing trends in animal housing, cleaning, medical and adoption procedures. King County officials have indicated they believe the lifespan of the Kent shelter to be three years although this cannot be validated at this time. The UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine report on KCACC Facilities published in 2008 states, "The size, condition and type of housing available at the Kent and Eastside (Crossroads) facilities renders it impossible to provide safe and humane housing for all animals even for the minimum required stray holding period." www.kingcounty.gov /animalsh/ media safety /UCDavisResponse.ashx The only animal organization (in Western Washington) to have recently built and moved into a new facility is the City of Everett's Animal Services shelter which open on April 3, 2009 (located in Langus Riverfront Park). Before that, the Northwest Organization for Animal Help (N.O.A.H.) opened a new facility in May of 2003. NOAH is located in Stanwood, WA and has a different operating model from the typical animal control shelter or humane society. Here is how it is described on their website: "Rather than duplicating the traditional shelter philosophy of accepting every surrendered animal only to become overcrowded and forced to euthanize we are taking a new approach. We assist animals in the most desperate need of help the animals that have run out of time at other shelters and are facing death. By working cooperatively with area animal shelters and only accepting pets directly from their facilities, we give animals on death row another chance at life." http:// www. thenoahcenter .org /about/aboutnoah.htm Whatever option is selected, the need for acquiring or building a new animal housing /resource center within the south end of King County cannot be ignored for much longer. Options for a sub regional animal care and control program a. Contract to house city strays at one private boardina kennel Benefits: Might be able to negotiate a better daily rate fee Page 12 of 30 One partner, one location, for South King County pet owners to look for their lost pets Do not have rush into to building a new animal shelter Due to the poor economy, there may be fewer pet owners boarding their pets, thus giving incentive to kennel owners to contract for the city business Risks: Limited number that can handle the capacity in South King County (3,539 animals handled by KCACC). There is an issue of keeping private boarding customers separate from strays. Sheltering stray animals differs dramatically from that of "owned animals" because the strays may not be current on their vaccinations, may be ill or have unknown behavior problems. Several factors heavily influence facility design and operating procedures. Most notably are those items that ensure the health of animals that have unknown medical history Training needs of the kennel staff No direct supervision or control over business Would need the kennel to create a system for evaluating the health and behavior of all unclaimed strays and then work diligently and ethically to place as many of those strays up for adoption, or transfer to rescue organizations and save the euthanasia decisions to only the severely aggressive animals or animals with untreatable medical conditions or who are in extreme pain and are suffering. Also see the evaluation list in the Appendix regarding additional evaluation criteria Unresolved question making sure any unaltered animal will be spayed or neutered prior to being adopted. Is this taken care of and included with the adoption fee by the private adoption partner? Is it an extra shared fee between the cities and private adoption partner? One on site evaluation conducted The consultant team was able to tour and meet with the owner of Hil!rose Pet Resort in SeaTac on 4/8/2010. Unfortunately they were not able to visit and review other possible kennels or clinics in Kent, Burien, SeaTac or Tukwila in this phase of the project. The property has been purposed as a boarding facility for companion animals for 75 years and is conveniently located to serve residents in south King County. Page 13 of 30 53 54 The 54,000.00 square foot property features adequate parking and delivery areas; fenced outdoor exercise areas for dogs, a 1500 sq foot two story kennel building and several additional structures. The main kennel building is a two story metal structure built in 2000. It features a lobby area, office space, grooming facilities, laundry room with commercial -grade equipment, four executive pet suites, 72 dog runs and 19 cat enclosures, and a feeding room for preparing meals. Additionally, the main building has a large unfinished room on the second floor with access from the outside. The property also features an older 1400 sq foot kennel building located behind the main structure with 24 indoor /outdoor dog runs. The older facility has heat, but would need upgrades to be suitable for housing stray animals. Additional structures include a 2000 sq ft modular home and 1000 sq foot single family residence. One home is occupied by the proprietor of Hillrose Pet Resort and the other by kennel staff. King County was posed to purchase the business (it is still on the market) in the fall of 2009. The purchase was stopped when the King County Council did not support the plan. Benefits of using this specific facility: 1. Good location for south King County 2. One of few larger kennel facilities available at this time 3. Large number of dog runs, good ventilation, and runs in main building are standard size which gives the dogs plenty of room. Also the divided runs makes the cleaning process efficient and safer for the dogs (compared to the way KCACC's dog runs are designed) 4. Main building is in relatively good shape (disclaimer a building inspection was not conducted) 5. There is potential to use some of the space differently and to create something effective for ACC purposes, especially on the unfinished second floor 6. Owner is willing to discuss a variety of options [If charged a flat boarding fee of $20 per day for dogs, and dogs held for 5 days costs could be $100 per dog. Cats might be $15 per dayX 5 days or $75 per cat. Since we don't know how many of the 3,5939 animals taken in at KCACC in 2009 were dogs vs. cats, if we guesstimate it is one third dogs (1,180) and 2/3 cats (2359), private boarding fees alone doesn't include vaccinations, vet care, or spay /neuter fees could be $294,925/yr for all four cities] Risks: While Hillrose is adequate as a private boarding facility, it Tacks many of the necessary elements of an animal shelter. While some of these aspects could be worked out and the owner is motivated, a few will require significant capital investments to achieve minimal standards. Listed below are a few significant areas of concern. Page 14 of 30 1. No isolation areas for housing stray animals to prevent the spread of disease upon intake. 2. Need a separate area, counter or desk for working with the public that is separate from the private boarding customers, if both sides of the business will be in operation. 3. No intake examination room for screening owner surrendered animals or animals brought to the facility by field officers. 4. Inadequate number of housing for cats or area for small animals (such as rabbits, birds) 5. The dog kennels feature chain link fencing that separates one run from another. However, no solid barriers exist at the bottom of each run to prevent the spread of disease. Preventing feces, urine and bacteria from spreading from one kennel to another during the cleaning process is an absolute necessity to control canine disease. 6. Older section trenches for drainage may not be large enough 7. Current staff has no training in handling shelter animals, shelter cleaning protocol, veterinary medicine, euthanasia training. 8. Hillrose may have boarding kennel software, however, unsure if it can be modified or used for tracking ACC animals. 9. No freezer for cadavers 10.Access to a veterinarian and /or Licensed Vet Tech will need to be added into any negotiations. 11. Hillrose may not want to sell or rent out the newer, main building for animal control functions. b. Contract to house city strays at various private boardina kennels and vet clinics (combo) 1. Same benefits and risks as above but would be complicated and confusing to manage a variety of locations especially for directing the public to find their pet 2. Would have one or more sheltering partners 3. Do not have rush into to building a new animal shelter c. Ask to open uo neaotiations w /KCACC and ask for them to either recalculate the shelterina costs and /or to allow cities to contracts for only housina strays at the KCACC Kent shelter for the remainder of the year or lonaer. Although the current proposal is an all- in -or- nothing offer, the time given by the County is too short for the largest cities (based by number of calls and animals handled by KCACC) to have adequate sheltering alternatives ready by 6/30. If a group of cities can approach the County and offer to draw up sheltering contracts, this could provide more time for alternatives and provide the County will some source of revenues, at least until the end of the calendar year. Page 15 of 30 55 56 King County says their annual sheltering costs (net) are $3,004,900. If they project 7,000 animals over the course of a year, that equals $429.27 per animal and if the animals stay an average of 3 days (typical impound period) $143.09 per day; if an average of 5 days, then the animal costs would be $85.85 per day. However, cats and dogs have different lengths of stay after the legal hold period and some require more medical attention than others. To truly reach a per animal cost in a shelter, the fixed costs would need further analysis. Cats and dogs also have different costs per day due to the housing space they take up within a facility. These costs were unavailable from the County. Risks: King County agrees, but the per animal charge needs further discussion or, King County holds firm to the 4/10 proposal (all or nothing) and timeline. d. Build or buv a facility to house the animals and ACC services for the sub region. Benefits: Provides additional housing capacity; can build or remodel to suit needs and utilize current trends in animal housing; kennel owners may have a desire to sell and the market conditions have created more of "a buyer's market." Risks: Money and commitment between the participating cities. Timing to have something available within six months is unrealistic Selecting a site or finding an adequate building, selecting a designer and obtaining proper permits would all need to be factored into the timeline and budget. Not enough cities would commit to participate For example, The Hilirose Pet Resort may cost anywhere from $2 to $2.5 million dollars to purchase (does not include additional costs to finish the second floor and make other changes). It may not be an option if the owner sells before the cities make a decision on what to do. IX. Pet Licensing Options Sub regional Pet Licensing is the second of three key activities to animal care and control. Pet Licensing can provide needed revenue from pet owners and it can save animals' lives. Nearly two- thirds of all animals in KCACC shelters were not wearing any identification (pet license, personalized tag, rabies tag or microchip), thus making it the number one challenge in reuniting pet owners with their lost pets. Pet Licensing has been a legal requirement for many years. In 2009, King County Animal Control conducted a study on pet license compliance rates and found that although relatively low compared to the total number of estimated pets living in the County, King County's overall compliance is higher than most jurisdictions in the United States. Page 16 of 30 Successful licensing programs require diligence on marketing the license, offering the licenses at affordable rates, and a commitment to progressive and strong enforcement for violators. In 1998, the City of Seattle began a new effort to strengthen Seattle Animal Control's enforcement efforts, especially regarding loose and /or unlicensed animals in city parks. For more information on their strategy, their plan as posted on ICMA's (International City /County Management Association) website: http: /icma.org/ upload /library/ 2005- 07/% 7B3387F123- FC31- 4E92- B4D6- D9B305F639C5 %7D.mht. "Cities and counties can manage animal- related problems in a fiscally responsible way. As other programs such as parks and motor vehicles are funded, animal control can be funded partially through user fees. Pet registration (license) fees for dogs and cats are the most important of these user fees. Dog and cat owners should shoulder much of the burden of animal control costs; furthermore, irresponsible dog and cat owners should be assessed the largest part of that burden" (Animal Control Management: A Guide for Local Governments, p. 17). There are two options for Pet Licensing: a. Outsource to Pet Data, Inc. Benefits: Risks: 1. Pet Data is the only private company providing animal licensing services. They have over 30 clients (municipalities). 2. They set up the database, mail out the tags, process renewals, set up a phone line, validate addresses and provide monthly detail reports to their clients. 3. A flat fee charged per license plus a one -time set up fee (both of which are less with a joint contract). Per license fee is higher if a City sells less than 1,500 licenses per year. 4. Several other cities in King County have contacted Pet Data for information and bids 5. Base contract is for one year with an option to renew for two 6. City would not have to modify or purchase additional software or find staff to manage; less overhead expenses 7. Will be able to continue having other locations (vet clinics, etc.) sell the pet licenses 8. Can have an online license tag lookup for the public 9. "At no point in time does PetData ever own the data." Will need to evaluate the costs for bringing licensing in -house (see b) Cities lose some control and direct involvement when contracting out these services. Dependent on the County releasing the licensing data, in a readable /usable format and timely manner. Page 17 of 30 57 58 Although a formal bid has not been requested from Pet Data, Inc., if we were to apply the quoted fees given to the City of Bellevue and other northern King County cities, the possible estimated costs for outsourcing pet licensing are as follows: With a joint contract Burien 4740 licenses sold X $3.95 $18,723 start up fee yr 1 ($225)= $18,948.00 Kent 9,300 X $3.95 $36,735.00 +$225 $36,960.00 SeaTac 2,083 X $3.95 8,227.85 +$225 8,452.85 Tukwila 1,122 X $3.95 4,431.90 +$225 4,656.90 Without joint contract by individual city Burien 4,740 X $3.95 $18,723 start up fee yr 1 ($1000) $19,723.00 Kent 9,300 X $3.95 $36,735.00 $1000 37,735.00 SeaTac 2,083 X $3.95 8,227.85 $1000 9,227.85 Tukwila 1,122 X $4.10 4,431.90 $1000 5,431.90 b. Bringing pet licensina in -house A survey of 17 different jurisdictions (in and out of Washington State) illustrates how much variety exists in how jurisdictions structure their pet licensing programs. Smaller jurisdictions already set up for utility, permit or other license billing simply applied the software and process to issuing new and renewed pet licenses. Where a larger animal care and control agency is contracting to provide the pet licensing services, they use a robust shelter management program called Chameleon. One source suggests budgeting for 1 FTE for every 10,000 licenses to open the pet license mail and process the tags. And add another FTE per 10,000 licenses for entering the data. In -house expenses include, but are not limited to: Staff time to put pet licensing information on the cities web sites (including the ability to purchase or renew a pet license online using credit cards), Mailings for renewals, sending out new tags, reminder letters, etc. Pet tag inventory and tracking system, Brochures and other marketing items, A dedicated phone number and email address for the public to use for pet licensing questions or other related business, Staff time to work on the program Any other needed supplies or equipment. The chart (below) shows cities and counties of many sizes have managed to run their own pet licensing programs: Agency Software for Staffing of licenses Human population Pet Licenses issued last yr Metro Animal In -house Unavailable Unavailable 79,340 Services, WA software w /shelter database Page 18 of 30 Renton Animal Control, WA Snohomish County, WA Edmonds, WA Seattle Animal Control, WA Overland Park, KS Providence, RI Fort Collins, CO Montgomery Co Animal Resource Ctr., Dayton, OH HS of Carroll Co, Westminster, MD Santa Clarita, CA Tempe, AZ Fremont, CA In -house Chameleon managed by LA Co ACC Chameleon Managed by Maricopa Co ACC Modified software used to send expired bldg permits out 2 FTE Added to their Eden billing software In -house design, ACCESS database and web In -house design ACO by Edmonds IT using ACCESS In -house 2 Tidemark permit In City Clerk's tracking system Office Visibility software Chameleon 4 FTE Managed by Larimer HS in -house and 3 Auditor oversees AC dispatcher 8,801 683,655 2 -3 during renewals, then down to 1 unavailable 9,098 169,500 unavailable (Animal Svcs is 20,000 in 2006 202,867 part of the Police Dept.) It may be beneficial for the four cities to contract out the pet licensing services for the first two or three years and then evaluate the merits of bringing it to a more local level. If cities consider outsourcing individually, the Pet Data costs will be higher and, depending on the number of licenses to manage and the capacity of individual IT departments, individual smaller cities may be able to add this function to their current billing systems. Regardless of who manages the sub- regional Pet Licensing program cities will need to review and possible revise the current pet licensing terms and procedures currently managed by the County. For example: Should the new licensing entity have one year or two year pet licenses? Page 19 of 30 994 new pet licenses 2,100 dog 5 cats 26,000 cats 35,000 dogs 18,000 636 regular 168 Pit licenses 48,622 74,000+ dog licenses 11,956 1,254 unaltered 9,046 altered 1,454 altered/sr 83,000 40,158 598,541 171,231 1 150,000 173,618 516,000 175,300 175,523 59 60 Do all pet licenses expire in December each year with January the month for renewal, or do they expire in the 13 month after purchase, regardless of when the pet license is purchased. Who or how to process address corrections Are there retail outlets and veterinary clinics willing to sell the licenses? If so, who will train their staff on the process and monitor their reports and inventory? Will the entity issue refunds or partial refunds for pets who move or pass away during the year? There is a potential for growth. Burien's estimated of pets is 16,969 and yet 20% of pets were licensed in 2008; Kent's estimated of pets is 46,795, with 17% licensed; SeaTac's estimated of pets is 13,837, 17% licensed and Tukwila's estimated of pets is 9,727, with 9% licensed (based on 2008 figures and KCACC calculations). X. Field Service Options Sub regional a. Cities hire and share their own ACOs As mentioned earlier in Section VII, the four cities may want to hire their own team of animal control officers to cover the four jurisdictions a minimum of five days a week. The ACOs would be responsible for a variety of animal control services including responding to calls for assistance, animal rescue, apprehending strays, investigating and enforcing state and local laws relating to animals, such as animal cruelty /neglect and pet license violations. The mission of this new entity will need to focus on protecting the safety and rights of the public and the welfare of animals in addition to promoting responsible pet ownership and partnering with other animal related organizations within the community. A majority of the projected budget of $460,000 will need to be spent on contracting out animal housing and hiring capable and professional staff. For preliminary discussions, this is the minimum staffing structure recommended for the joint program between the four cities: General oversight from a police, parks or community services director's shared time (rotated every two years between cities). Supervisor /Manager (hours to be determined) 1 FT ACO (36 -40 hours /week) 1 FT ACO (36 -40 hours /week) Animal Services admin. assistance (1 FT or 2 PT) Page 20 of 30 If funds allow, or due to seasonal needs and general staff coverage for vacations, adding 1 PT ACO (20 hours /week) and /or 1 FT ACO would be highly recommended. And volunteers from the community can be utilized with office tasks, pet license promotion, outreach or other needs and special projects. Several cities have already run preliminary cost estimates and the annual ACO salary w /benefits range from $77,766 $96,000 per ACO (averaging around $85,422/yr). Administrative positions seem to be ranging from $54,288 (Federal Way's Animal Management Coordinator) to $65,412 (North end sub regional projections for an Animal Control Liaison /Records Clerk). The budget will need to reflect training or certification needs of the officers (WA Animal Control Officers Academy is scheduled for August 2010, for example) in addition to needed equipment or supplies for field services (estimate $3,000 $6,000 for the first year if two or three officers on the team). Some supplies will be shared and they may be able to share one vehicle with one day of overlap where one of the officers has more desk work to complete. This excludes the costs for new vehicles and maintenance, computer /phone /radio equipment and maintenance for each officer. b. Cities could assian animal control duties to their current police and /or code enforcement Benefits: Law enforcement already trained to write reports, investigate complaints and respond to tense situations. Police office may need to be more involved with animal calls after hours. Risks: Law enforcement has a busy workload already; would require additional training regarding animal handling, safety around animals, how to avoid using a gun or Taser on animals, etc. They most likely will be very reluctant to take on these assignments. There also could be a negative impact on response times for animal calls as well as other cases. This option is not recommended. c. Contract w /KCACC for basic and share enhanced service contract See Summary, Section XII. XI. Other considerations /challenges In our brief research phase, we found additional information or issues that warrant inclusion in the report and may be helpful in framing the future discussions about animal care and control. Page 21 of 30 61 62 There may be other short term arranaements for animal housina needs. Renton Animal Control and Snohomish City both set up a small number of dog runs on their city property to serve as temporary housing for dogs. Both have contracts to house their animals at nonprofit animal shelters, which they still are able to access, especially for cats. Another idea is to have all or a majority the 11 cities in the Southern region of the County join efforts and approach the County to lease the Kent shelter to the sub regional cities for them to operate, and King County can contract to house the animals from unincorporated King County at Kent. The future success of anv reaional or sub reaional oroaram will require efforts to support public awareness around net ownership responsibilities. For an Animal Care and Control program to be successful, the number of pets wearing identification (including a pet license) needs to increase, more pet owners need to have their pets spayed or neutered and the number of pets coming into a shelter need to decrease. "The problem of unwanted animals has proliferated into problems of behavioral management, humane education, sterilization, veterinary care, animal- friendly housing and others." "The Problem of Unwanted Pets: A Case Study in How Institutions "Think" about Clients' Needs" by Leslie Irvine, from Social Problems, Vol. 50, No 4, ©2003) Another ingredient for success is the ability of ACC to see its main clients as both people and animals. And finding better ways to capture input from both the general public and the veterinary community is aoina to be critical in the months and years ahead. Public involvement can also lead to increased support of ACC through time given as volunteers and /or financial donations to support ongoing needs or special animal- related projects. Finally, animal control agencies adjacent to the four cities might be interested in expanding their service area. Due to the time constraints, other nearby cities that have their own animal control officer or program were not yet approached about this idea. XII. Summary This study attempted to look at the three main components to a basic animal care and control program and the various options in which they can be offered to a community. With start-up costs for a sub regional program being well over the $460,000 suggested budget for the first year, contracting with King County for the remainder of 2010 may provide a stable and predictable level of animal care and control services during the coming months. The disadvantage to this approach is that cities will continue to lose a measure of local control. In addition, renewing contracts with the County will require significant fee increases, some of which remain unknown due to the unpredictable Page 22 of 30 nature of the County's negotiation process with 32 cities. Also, it is not apparent that any additional fees will be diverted into much needed improvements to KCACC facilities and programs. While the assumption is that the County has the advantage of unit cost efficiencies because it is a large agency, serving a population 10 times the size of the proposed sub- regional area, with a much larger tax base, it is not apparent that efficiencies have been realized. It is not clear that they are able to provide, in many program areas, a more robust and mufi- dimensional level of service at a lower rate. This is particularly true with respect to animal adoptions, licensing, lost and found pets, spay /neuter clinic, volunteer program, pet emergency preparedness, and humane education. While in the short term contracting with the County is likely to be less expensive on a unit cost for service basis, a sub regional model might be the best choice in the long run. We recognize that South King County cities at this time can only commit modest resources to an animal control program. However, establishing a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) with cities in the southern part King County could drive down program costs and create a great much needed improvements for participating jurisdictions. The JPA would have all the powers and authority under law that the cities have individually. it could enter into contracts, build facilities, enforce laws, and charge fees. Forming a JPA would require the consent and approval of all the agencies involved. The JPA would be governed by a policy- setting group of representatives from each of the participating cities. Model Strengths: This model offers a middle- ground approach between going it alone, and going with the County. There would be some economies of scale as compared to individual cost structure. The costs for a new facility would be shared by four agencies, as would the costs for all the other program elements, including the strategically important spay /neuter and humane education costs. A municipal services plan acceptable to all cities would need to be developed to ensure that pocket areas, receive cost effective animal care and control services. Model Weaknesses: It is not known whether the likely JPA partner cities have sufficient motivation to effect change in the area of animal control. Additionally, there are challenges faced regarding service delivery in the interim. Model Outcomes: The JPA model, once it was well established, which would take three to five years, could provide an efficient and cost effective approach to animal care and control. Other smaller cities in the southern part of the County may be interesting in joining in as well. It also would have the advantage of operating in the part of the County that it serves. Again, the County's rate for currently contracted cities will go up in coming years; thus, for comparative purposes, participating cities assumed General Fund subsidy should go up accordingly. Page 23 of 30 63 64 Next steps: As stated above, we recognize that these tough times. However, the cities can and should take meaningful steps that reflect a shared commitment to provide quality animal care and control services for the community. There are immediate improvements that should be taken to create a program while efforts are made to craft a permanent long -term solution for the future. Most, but not all, of these improvements have one -time costs. After considering the options, cities will have a clear idea as to which of the models can realistically be implemented in a manner that will best serve the community's needs within available resources. As a result of this collaborative effort, the cities will be able to develop a winning plan. When the economy turns around, the cities will be well positioned to fund a permanent alternative. If it is determined that the establishment of a JPA would provide either an increased level of animal control service or a less costly alternative to the County providing service, the South County cities need to communicate in unison to the County and encourage the County to be a future partner in the plan. There is additional work to be done. The issue of facility needs and requirements should be fully explored. A more in depth analysis should be conducted and alternative Levels of Service (LOS) should be addressed for field services, shelter services, adoption services, community education services, spay /neuter services, and volunteer coordination services. The LOS impacts on staffing levels, operations and management costs, capital outlay, and debt service should be identified in the Cost Analysis. As seen in the suggested preliminary timeline, taking a few months in the beginning to create a simple Strategic Plan (no more than 10 pages with attachments), will establish important goals and measurements to focus on during the critical formation period of the new entity. The cities have experience successfully working together as seen by the results with ValleyCom and SCORE. The issue of providing professional, prompt and humane animal care and control requires similar cooperation. Page 24 of 30 XIII. Appendix A. Suggested Timeline for Implementation Suggestion First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Other Implementation Month Month Month Month Month Month Timeline Commitment made to pursue a new sub regional ACC entity serving So KC, cmte. formed, documents prepared Interlocal Agreement drafted, approved by each city, giving the new entity authority to proceed Prepare a brief strategic plan Reps selected for sub regional oversight cmte. Regular cmte. mtgs- scheduled after launch Draft budget I Public announcements about the changes, transition launch Select vendor for housing animals Work w /vendor on policies, procedures, preparations specific to ACC Hire staff (from job descriptions, recruitment to hiring) Ordering and custom outfitting of animal control truck(s)— depends if going local or ordering from out of state Ordering equipment and supplies, getting them delivered Page 25 of 30 regular communication imp; launch depends on timeline 65 66 Suggestion First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Other Implementation Month Month Month Month Month Month Timeline Make decision on Pet Licensing License contracts signed and /or in- house database configured KC provides current database Select and order pet license inventory Website pages designed, tested and launched Sheltering and other contracts approved, signed and in place Review /revise local ordinances Design, order and print necessary forms for field services Set up Petfinder. com account for new ACC entity Field Svcs Software selections, purchase( testing period Set up charitable auxiliary or funding mechanism to solicit and have access to donations supporting the new ACC entity New entity joins NACA, AHA, WA Animal Control Association and WA Federation of Animal Care and Control Agencies (training materials, conferences, networking) Page 26 of 30 after launch Suggestion First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Other Implementation Month Month Month Month Month Month Timeline Ongoing review Oversight cmte and process and staff to work out method for public input planned Hold regular mtgs after launch w /partners Create role(s) for Roles can grow after volunteer support program launch I Program begins! 1 I 1✓ I I 1 I I I 1 *PRELIMINARY only B. Internet References /Resources http: /www. sheltermedicine. com /portavis_cleaning.shtml #top3 http: /www. sheltermedicine .com portal /is_feline_upper_res.shtml#top3 http /www.animalsheltering.org/ resource_ library/ magazine _articles /jan_feb_1997 /contr oiling_ upper_ respiratory_infections_in html http /www.animalsheltering.org/ resource_ library/ magazine _articles /sep_oct_2004 /the_r ight_stuff.ht http: /www. an imalsheltering.org /resou rce_library/magazine_ articles /ju l_aug_2001 /bu ild_ a_safershelter.html http://www.icma.org/main/topic.asp?hsid=1&tpid=23&stid=139 National Animal Control Association Trainina Guide, ©2009 Maddie's® Infection Control Manual for Animal Shelters, ©2008 Animal Control Manaaement: A Guide for Local Governments Page 27 of 30 67 68 C. Evaluating animal housing Although WA state does not have laws establishing humane standards for animal shelters and animal shelter certification programs are nonexistent, the following is a suaaested list of questions or issues to consider while undergoing a due diligence process before entering into an animal sheltering contract: Facility How old is the facility? What is the overall condition? Does the business or organization own the building and /or property? Location is it convenient for your citizens? Hours for the public to come in and look for lost pets Are applicable licenses on file and current? (Business license, kennel license, etc.) If a veterinary clinic /hospital is it an AAHA accreditated facility? Why or why not? (AAHA offers a voluntary certification program) (The American Boarding Kennel Association also has a voluntary certification program, http:// www. petcareservices .org /index.cfm /Iev1 /922 /Accreditation) What is the cleaning routine? Is there a security or alarm system? Are there adequate numbers of fire extinguishers or other safety equipment available? Are there working fire alarms? Any significant maintenance issues? What is the maximum capacity for sheltering dogs, cats, others? Facility Design check for ventilation, lighting, drains, materials used on surfaces What is the space provided to the animals (dogs 36 -50 need 20 sq feet, for example)? Human Resources Review the organizational structure How many employees (paid) are on staff full -time and part -time? How many would be providing direct animal care? Customer service? Is there a licensed veterinarian on staff? (full time? Contractual? Surgery only or does he or she have additional roles /responsibilities Are there licensed veterinary technicians on staff? Are the employees represented by a union, if so, which one? Review copies of any labor contracts Any pending or threatened charges, complaints or grievances relating to past or present employees filed against the organization in the last five years? Are there any suits, complaints or criminal indictments involving an employee or board trustee? Is there an Affirmative action policy? Do they carry appropriate insurance coverage? Does the staff have certification in animal welfare administration or other current related certifications (euthanasia by- injection, animal control academy training, CAWA do they attend national animal welfare seminars, etc.) Page 28 of 30 Evaluation criteria, continued Financial Manaaement What is the current Annual Budget? What accounting system is used? Billing process /procedures review the expectations, deadlines, format, etc. Does the organization have written financial management policies? is there an External audit? Who conducts the audit and how often? Vendor contracts —any that might be in conflict with City /County? What are their overall liabilities? Assets? Financial reporting requirements —are they in compliance? Review past three years of 990 tax returns If a nonprofit, are they registered with the WA State Division of Charities? The IRS? Business continuity plans what is the status of the plans and overall organizational preparedness Set up for Iost/strav /impounded /auarantined animals from the iurisdiction What type of paperwork and reports will be required between the facility and City /County? Will the stray animals be housed separately from adoption animals? Can the facility safely house dogs or other animals that are potentially dangerous? Can the facility safely house livestock or other animals impounded that are not dogs and cats? Will animal control officers have access to the facility if they are working night duty? How will deceased animals (DOAs) be handled? How does the organization /business make euthanasia decisions what are the criteria, who makes the decision, who performs euthanasia? How does the organization /business handle dead animals? General Contract Questions to discuss What will be the process for handling concerns, complaints between the two parties? How long of notice can each party give to cancel the contract? What would be the terms of the contract? As a contract holder with a public entity, are there additional requirements or exposure for the kennel /clinic or nonprofit? In other words, will the contract specify what if any expectations or requirements will the contracting entity be held accountable to (For example, public disclosure requirements)? Page 29 of 30 69 70 D. Background of the team Nancy B. McKennev. MNPL. CAWA Nancy is approaching her 27th year working in the field of animal welfare. She has worked several positions in a shelter setting including the Public Relations Coordinator, Humane Educator, Volunteer Coordinator, shelter tour guide, fundraiser and event planner. For 19 years she was the Executive Director /CEO for The Humane Society for Seattle /King County and then became the first executive director for the Petfinder.com Foundation. She most recently was the Communications Specialist (2008 -2009) and Interim Manager for King County Animal Care and Control. Nancy serves on the American Humane Association's Animal Protection Advisory Committee, the PIMA Medical Institute's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and the New Pet Parent Guide Advisory Board. She has a BA in History from Brown University and a Masters in Not for Profit Leadership from Seattle University. Kurt Meacham Mr. Meacham's professional experience spans several disciplines within the public sector. He has worked in both the legislative and executive branches of local government, affording him unique perspectives on complex policy issues. He is experienced at animal shelter operational master planning, capital facility planning, community outreach, and public /private partnership development. Kurt currently serves on the PIMA Medical Institute's Veterinary Technician Advisory Committee. He has a background in dog training and holds a BA in Global Studies from the University of Washington. Page 30 of 30 Committee of the Whole Meeting April 26, 2010 Animal Services - Current Situation Current animal services system will sunset on June 20, 2010 New approach for animal services needed by July 1, 2010 Comprehensive Animal Services include field control sheltering and licensing 72 Animal Services Objectives Review background Review Regional option Briefly discuss sub-regional and local options Next Steps 73 Animal Services Background King County provides animal control services to 35 contracted cities Cities receive the same level of service as unincorporated King County County keeps wall pet licensing revenue as compensation 74 Animal Services Background Over time gap between revenues and costs has grown Currently the funding gap for services to cities is approximately $2M per year Animal service program costs typically exceed revenues 75 Animal Services Background County provides geenral fund subsidy County subsidy unsustainable due to economic situation County planned to get out of animal services business shelter 1.30.10 In the interest of preserving regional system County agreed to extend services through 6.30.10 at a cost of $1M 76 animal Services Background Question is there an affordable effective option for county to continue to provide services regionally? In January 2010 joint city county workgroup convened to develop new regional service option Citites simultaneously analyzing subregional and local options 77 Animal Services Options Regional County and Cities Sub-regional Burien Kent SeaTac Tukwila Tukwila SeaTac Tukwila only Animal Services Options Challenges All options Animal services are complex Animal services are expensive Timeline is tight 7.1.10 Shelter options are limited in South King County no PAWS Human Society 79 Animal Services Regional Option Challenges Regional Option King County operational constraints as service provider Cities face different circumstances Heavy vs Light users High vs Low revenue generation 80 Animal Services Regional Option Control Services Field and phone response High priority emergent calls Animal bite vicious dog injured animal police assist loose livestock animal cruelty Lower priority calls Non-emergent high priority patrol request trespass confined stray barking dog leash law violation DOA 81 Animal Services Regional Option Control Service Levels 4 districts each staffed with 1 dedicated animal control officer Schedule 5 days per week 8 hours per day 6 total officers to cover sick and vacation leave Enhanced service possible currently $60,000 budgeted for dedicated 0.5 FTE 82 Animal Services Regional Field Service 4 Service Areas Proposed Boundaries All values estimated Bothell Snohomish County included in these values Urban Growth Boundary Animal Control Service Districts Animal Services Regional Option control Service Levels Regionally shared resources 1 field sergeant 1 animal cruelty sergeant 3 FTE call center 5 day 8 hour After hours emergency dispatch through Sheriff's Office and response through on-call Animal Control Officer Animal services regional option Control service levels current 1 FTE south of I-90 11 cities and unicorp 7 days per week 0.3 FTE through enhanced contract Proposed 1 FTE for Burien, SeaTac Tukwila Kent and Unincorporated area focus on urban area 5 days per week Enhanced service possible $120,000 per year 85 Animal Services Regional Option Shelter Services Kent shelter remains open Northern cities contract with PAWS to reduce pressure on Kent shelter Humane comprehensive care Owner released stray injured abused exotic animals and livestock full service medical includes spay neuter quarantine adoptions rescues animal care behavior education 86 Animal Services regional option Shelter service level Maintain current level 7 days per week Improve efficiency by decreasing annual animal intakes from approximately 10,000 to 7.000 Efficiency improvements create opportunites for cost savings fewer intakes shorter stays 87 Animal Services Regional Option Licensing Services Administer licensing system renewal letters, incentives to license online licensing responsible pet ownership education lost pet reunite hotline database management and discounted licenses for seniors 88 Animal Services Regional Option Licensing Service Level Maintain current service levels Tukwila eligible for enhanced marketing assisstance in 2010 to boost license sales Animal Services Regional Option Cost Allocation Cities very different from each other Higher vs Lower users Higher vs lower revenues Allocation seeks to balance these differences Allocation = 1/2 population + 1/2 usage Northern cities contracting with PAWS and paying 1/2 population allocation 90 Animal Services Regional Option Cost Allocation Tukwila Control $38,031 Sheltering $78,208 Licensing $12,000 Total cost $128,239 Licensing Revenue $30,348 Estimated Net Cost $97,892 91 Animal Services Regional Option cost allocation Tukwila with transition $ Net cost $97,892 Transition Funding $13,309 Rev License Support $10,000 Estimated Final Net Cost $74,282 92 Animal Services regional Option Revenue Allocation Fees and fines netted from operating costs before costs allocated Control revenue control violations leash law Shelter revenue adoption microchip Licensing penalty late fees Licensing fees allocated to jurisdiction of resident buying license 93 Animal Services Regional Option Payment Method Timing July - December 2010 due January 2011 based on 50% of 2010 regional program cost allocation estimate 2011 and 2012 due April 1 and October 1 based on prior year usage and revenue applied to current year budget Reconciliation in June based on prior year's actual usage and revenues 94 Animal Services Regional Option Cost Inflator Cap Costs for all control, shelter and licensing services allocated to cities not to increase by more than 5.5% per year Enhanced service contract to be separately negotiated 95 Animal Services Regional Option Term and Termination 2.5 years July 1, 2010 - December 31, 2012 6 months July 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010 6 month termination clause Transition funding and licensing support only available for 2.5 year term County reserves right to terminate services if too many cities withdraw Option 2 year extension through 2014 96 Animal Services Regional Option Services Purchased All three services must be purchased together (all or nothing) Anima Services Regiona. Option Commitment to On -going mprovements Exp o re private .icensing vendor Enhance non profit /vo.unteer resources Promote .icensing through marketing Expore service deivery efficiencies throughout system Study options for Kent she.ter repair/ rep.acement 98 Animal Services Regional Option Joint City County Committee Advisory function comprised of 3 county and 7 city reps Meet no less than twice annually Review service issues and make recommendations on improving services and efficiencies 99 animal Services Regional Option benefits of Regional System Public Health and Safety Centralized info to track control and communicate regarding rabies parvo and preventative vaccines Coordinated response to multi-jurisdictional cases puppy mills animal hording cock-fighting 100 Animal Services regional Option Benefits of Regional System Animal Welfare Strong network of volunteers to facilitate adoptions and rescues Customer Service Single point of contact for residents searching for lost pets Centralized database facilitates quicker pet return recover 101 Anima, Services Regional Option Benefits of Regional System Othaj er benefits of a regional Sy stem: _..,_cost neuter program to anima, reduce homeless jon Reduces demand on cities to respond to inquiries from media, advocacy groups A,.ows local police to focus on traditiona, law enforcement 0 County provides po,icy baseline 102 Animal Services Sub-Regional and Local Options Consultant under contract to develop: Burien SeaTac Tukwila Kent option SeaTac Tukwila option SeaTac only option Kennel vet assessment Results available early next week 103 Animal Services next Steps Request Council direction on regional option 4.26.10 Notify County of City interest by April 30th 104 End of Presentation 105 106 FINANCE AND SAFETY COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes April 20, 2010 5:00 p.m.; Conference Room #3 PRESENT Councilmembers: De' Sean Quinn, Chair; Allan Ekberg and Kathy Hougardy Staff: Shawn Hunstock, Dave Haynes, Christy O'Flaherty and Kimberly Matej Guest: Chuck Parrish CALL TO ORDER: Chair Quinn called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. City of Tukwila Finance and Safety Committee II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Resolution: Council Committee MeetinE Schedule Staff is seeking Council approval of a resolution that formally adopts the Council Committee meeting schedule. Christy O'Flaherty, City Clerk, recently identified adoption of the Council Committee schedule via resolution as an efficient way to provide notice to the public of Council- related meetings. In adherence to the Open Public Meetings Act and transparency in government, it is a best business practice for the City to provide this information through formal legislation. The legislation will be updated annually as needed. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 26 COW FOR DISCUSSION. B. New Travel Policy As an information only item, Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director, gave the Committee an overview of a new travel policy for City employees which is anticipated to be implemented in June. The new policy is a complete replacement of the previous policy. Highlights of the new policy include: Allows for a per diem. Decreases costs involved in preparing claim for expenses. Refines procedure requirements and adds clarity (i.e: travel status and meal reimbursement) Clarifies lodging expenses when not in travel status During review and discussion of policy specifics, Committee members acknowledged the purposes of the policy relative to providing structure and cost containment issues. Although the goals of the policy are good, the Committee has requested additional information as to how this policy compares to that of other cities as well as practical application (i.e.: can the policy be changed if other processes are determined to be more efficient The Committee also noted that this is not solely an operational policy issue, since there is an intricate link between the effects this policy has on Councilmembers and related travel. Specifically, the Committee expressed concern over how this policy may or may not be applied to legislative- related travel to higher priced areas (i.e.: Washington, DC) as well as the issue of compensable wages as a fringe benefit. INFORMATION ONLY. STAFF WILL RETURN TO A FUTURE FINANCE SAFETY MEETING TO DISUCSS THIS ITEM FURIITER. C. Animal Control/Services Update As an information only item, Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director, returned to the Finance and Safety Committee to provided updated information on the animal control services (also see Finance and Safety 107 108 Finance Safety Committee Minutes Aori! 20. 2010 Paae 2 minutes dated March 16, 2010). He will provide the same information to full Council at the April 26 Committee of the Whole. A substantial amount of work has been conducted since the inception and as a result of the weekly meetings of the Joint Cities County Work Group (includes the County and seven King County cities). Milestones to date include: a reduction of approximately $800,000 in the system wide cost of County services delivery for the animal control and services program, and continuing conversations regarding improvements to costs and service delivery. Additionally, the County has indicated a willingness to continue to engage in these types of conversations during the operation of the County- focused regional model. Shawn reviewed the various options to provide animal control services to the Tukwila community. Of those options, staff currently recommends entering into a 2'h year contract with King County for a County- focused regional model that will provide these services. Although this is not the least costly option, it will give the City an opportunity to evaluate the services provided by the County as well as create our own sub regional model, if necessary. Interested cities have been requested to return to their respective Councils to determine if there is an interest from the Council to pursue participation in the County- focused regional model. Currently, Burien is the only city who has expressed an interest to pursue providing their own services, and not participate in the County model. If too many cities opt out of the regional model, the County will be faced with significant cost and operational issues. INFORMATION ONLY. III. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 6:23 p.m. Next meeting: Tuesday, May 4, 2010 5:00 p.m. Conference Room #3 Committee Chair Approval Minutes by KAM. Reviewed by SH. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE 04/26/10 MTG. DATE 04/26/10 05/03/10 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Meeting Date Prepared by 04/26/10 BG 05/03/10 BG Initials AMOUNT BUDGETED Mayor's review I Council review KiJ 2 k ITEM INFORMATION I CAS NUMBER: 10-047 'ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: APRIL 26, 2010 AGENDA ITEM TITLE An Ordinance for Tsang Street Vacation CATEGORY Discussion Motion n Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Mtg Date 04/26/10 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 05/03/10 Mtg Date Mtg Date 04/26/10 Mtg Date SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs n DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R n Police PW/ SPONSOR'S The petitioner, Mr. Rick K. Tsang, provided a complete request for a street vacation of the SUMMARY property abutting 14403 51 Avenue South. Mr. Tsang is the only abutting property owner. The Public Hearing on the Street Vacation was set by Resolution #1709 and is being conducted 4/26/10. The Council is being asked to consider the attached ordinance vacating the street. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. n Parks Comm. DACE: 3/15/10 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Public Works Department COMMITILE Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION ATTACHMENTS Informational Memorandum dated 04/26/10 Ordinance in draft form with map as Exhibit A City GIS map Petition for Vacation of Street ST VAC 3.40.72 Resolution No. 1709 setting Public Hearing date of 04/26/10 Minutes from the Transportation Committee meeting of 3/15/10 ITEM No. Transportation Cmte Planning Comm. APPROPRIATION REQUIRED 109 110 RECOMMENDATION City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Jim Haggerton Committee of the Whole FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director DATE: April 26, 2010 SUBJECT: 14403 51s Avenue South Street Vacation File Number 3.40.72 ISSUE An ordinance vacating a portion of the street at 14403 51 Avenue South. BACKGROUND The petitioner, Mr. Rick K. Tsang, provided a complete request for a street vacation of the property abutting 14403 51 Avenue South and a comprehensive appraisal. Mr. Rick K. Tsang is the only abutting property owner. On April 5, 2010 the Council passed Resolution 1709 setting a public hearing date of April 26, 2010. This issue has been before the Transportation Committee, and this is the next step in the process. Public Works sent notices to all utilities and all property owners within 500' of the property proposed for vacation. The City received no written objections to the vacation. The ordinance defines the condition for the vacation. The condition is compensation to the City in the amount of $27,000.00, based on the fair market value appraisal. The Council is being asked to consider this item and approve the ordinance at the April 26, 2010 Committee of the Whole meeting and subsequent May 3, 2010 Regular Meeting. attachments: Ordinance with Exhibit A Map CityGls map Petition for Vacation of Streets 3.40.72 Resolution No. 1709, setting Public Hearing date of 4/26/10 W :\2010 InfoMemos\StreetVacOrd.doc Jim Haggerton, Mayor 111 112 RAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, VACATING CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY, DEDICATED FOR STREET PURPOSES, GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET BY 85 FEET ALONG 14403 51ST AVENUE SOUTH AND WITHIN A PORTION OF OLD MACADAM ROAD; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP OF THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILPI'Y; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on February 9, 2010, the Public Works Department deemed the Petition for Vacation complete; and WHEREAS, Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 11.60 identifies street vacation procedures, including public notification, a public hearing, review and comment, and submittal of relevant information to the City Council, all of which have been accomplished; and WHEREAS, utilities do not exist in the right -of -way proposed for vacation; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2010, following required public notification, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the matter, and at the conclusion of the public hearing, determined the aforementioned property should be vacated, subject to conditions identified in this ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Property Vacated. A. The property located in the City of Tukwila, described as follows and depicted on the map attached as Exhibit A, is hereby vacated: Approximately 60 feet by 85 feet along 14403 51st Avenue South and within a portion of Old Macadam Road. B. This vacation is conditioned upon receipt of compensation to the City of $27,000.00 by June 15, 2010. Section 2. Duties. A. The City Clerk is hereby directed to record this ordinance with King County, upon determination by the Public Works Director that the conditions referenced above have been satisfied. B. Upon the recording of this ordinance with King County, the Public Works Department shall amend the City's official street map to be consistent with this ordinance. W:\ Word Processing Ordinances \Street Vacation list Ave So.docx DM:ksn 04 /21/2010 Page 1 of 2 113 114 Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City. This vacation shall not become effective until the conditions contained herein have been fully satisfied, until all fees owed the City have been paid, and until five working days after the date this ordinance and all relevant documents have been recorded with King County Records. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2010. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A Map Jim Haggerton, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: W:\ Word Processing\ Ordinances Street Vacation 51st Ave So.docx DM:ksn 04/21/2010 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A Site Map Macadam Road South South 144th Street I-5 Right-of-Way Vacation Area 5,064 SF Portion of NW1/3, 23-23-04 115 Right-of-Way Vacation Area 14403 51st Avenue South Bonsai Northwest CityGIS PETITION FOR VACATION OF STREETS PURSUANT TO RCW 35.79 TO THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL: 1. The undersigned petitioners hereby request vacation of the following described property located in the City of Tukwila: (Provide legal description. If legal description is long, please attach. Attach a site plan of the area to be vacated.) S2 U 5R. Q- G,,,t G C- �x r V tCSL T s, C') v 2. The names aod addresses of ALL property owners abutting on the property to be follows: (do not include City -owned property) Owner Name Property Address Lorint) t cl< 1 t_ k i6. U j 14- s Q SI.N "'1 c 'T: Tg k 1 r I I 3. Petitioner signatures. Only owners of property abutting the street to be vacated may petition. For the petition to be valid, the signers must account for at least 2/3 of the property, by length, abutting the right -of -way: (do not include City -owned property) -Owner Name si Property Address Total ft nature) AK-c t3 _(feet) "(.C. 7 11 144 `3 S fX\I Z S T�1c\-' A 1 ti a IIs -1 2-- '-'Ji-r-- _y i v C lJ Fir e 4. In accordance with Resolution 1499, the $1200 fee for street vacation has been received. DAB RECEIPT NO. CLERK SIGNATURE uhf -I�, t vacated are as Total frontage f feet) I 9 1 1-6© 117 118 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, FIXING THE TIME FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY WITHIN THE CITY OF TUKWILA DEDICATED FOR STREET PURPOSES, GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET BY 85 FEET ALONG 14403 51st AVENUE SOUTH AND WITHIN A PORTION OF OLD MACADAM ROAD. WHEREAS, the property owner abutting the right -of -way has petitioned the City to vacate a portion of 51st Avenue South and a portion of Old Macadam Road; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.79.010 requires setting a public hearing by resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A public hearing regarding the vacation of a portion of 51st Avenue South and a portion of Old Macadam Road, adjacent to 14403 51st Avenue South and depicted on the map attached as Exhibit A, shall be held before the Tukwila City Council in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City HaIl, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, on April 26, 2010, which is not less than 20, nor more than 60 days from the date of passage of this resolution, at which time all persons interested in said right -of -way vacation are invited to appear and be heard. Section 2. The City Clerk is directed to post written notice of pendency of the public hearing in three public places in the City of Tukwila and in one additional conspicuous place on the right -of -way sought to be vacated at least 20 days prior to the date set for hearing. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this 5 J 1-/ day of /it' r, L 2010. ATTEST AUTHENTICA I ED: „A„, 77 bennis Robertson, Council President Chris O'Flafrt CMC, City �k t3' Y APPROVED AS TO /F9M BY: Office of the City Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A Map City of Tukwila Washington Resolution No. 1 O 9 W: \Word Processing Resolutions \Street Vacation 51st Ave So.docx DM:ksn 03/29/2010 Filed with the City Clerk: -.1 C' Passed by the City Council: L .3 L Resolution Number: I '•1 0 Page 1 of 1 119 120 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes March 15, 2010 5:00 p.m. Conference Room 1 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:01 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. City of Tukwila Transportation Committee PRESENT Councilmembers: Verna Seal, Chair; Joan Hernandez and De'Sean Quinn Staff: Bob Giberson, Frank Iriarte, Robin Tischmak, Cyndy Knighton, Mike Ronda, Peter Lau, Gail Labanara, and Steve Lancaster II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Tukwila International Blvd Phases II III Construction Mamt Supplement #8 with KPG Staff is seeking full Council approval for Supplement No. 8 with KPG, Inc. in the amount $181,903.40. This supplement is for additional construction management by KPG and their sub consultants as the other construction management firm, Harris and Associates, are not fulfilling their contract. This grant- funded supplement will be covered by the anticipated savings from the under utilized Harris contract. The supplement also covers adding a pedestrian access stairwell at the 37 Ave S road closure. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO MARCH 22 COW FOR DISCUSSION. B. Resolution Setting Street Vacation Public Hearine Date for 14403 51s Ave S Staff is seeking full Council approval to set a Public Hearing date for the proposed street vacation at 14403 51 Ave S for April 26, 2010. A previous street vacation request was submitted in 2002, but a change in ownership caused it to be dropped. The process for street vacations includes a resolution to set a Public Hearing date, advertise and hold the Public Hearing, and then return to Committee and Council with the ordinance that defines the street vacation's conditions and compensation ($27,000.00). UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO MARCH 22 COW FOR DISCUSSION. C. Transportation Element Update to the Comprehensive Plan. Supplement No.1 with Fehr Peers Staff is seeking full Council approval for Supplement No. 1 for Optional Task A with Fehr Peers. The original contract was approved February 1, 2010 (see 1/19/10 TC minutes) and the EETP grant was approved March 15, 2010 (see 3/1/10 TC minutes). The Fehr Peers supplement for $55,000.00 and $14,500.00 of City staff time will be covered by the $69,500.00 EETP grant. The supplement will add pedestrian and bike level of service analysis for arterial streets in the City as well as establish a multi -modal transportation system. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO MARCH 22 COW FOR DISCUSSION. D. Tukwila Urban Center Access (Klickitatl. Supplement No. 9 with HNTB Staff is seeking full Council approval for Supplement No. 9 with HNTB in the amount of $553,816.00. This supplement will cover the design changes required by WSDOT. Staff is currently pursuing Letters of Understanding with WSDOT for the final design, which may reduce the scope of work in this supplement. The project schedule now shows a two -year construction timeline. There is $400,000 budgeted for additional design, so remaining funds would come from the LID. Due to time constraints and WSDOT negotiations, staff requests discussion and approval at the 3/22 C.O.W. and the Special meeting that same night. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO MARCH 22 COW AND SPECIAL THAT SAME NIGHT FOR DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL. 121 122 CAS NUMBER: 10-048 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Noise Regulations Fund Source: Comments: I MTG. DATE I 04/26/10 EXPENDITURE REQUIRED $0 MTG. DATE 04/26/10 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials ITEM No. Iv!eeting Date Prepared by Mayors review ouncil review 04/26/10 KAS L I i— i e. 05/03/10 KAS I ITEM LNFORMATIO I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: APRIL 26, 2010 CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance ❑BidAward Public Hearing Other Mtg Date 04/26/10 Mtg Date Mtg Date 05/03/10 Mtg Date 05/03/10 Mtg Date Mtg Date 04/26/10 Mtg Date SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD n Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PWI SPONSOR'S A Public Hearing on an ordinance updating regulations related to noise will be conducted SUMMARY on 4/26/10. The Council is being asked to consider and approve an ordinance updating regulations related to noise; an ordinance amending the Zoning Code to reflect changes based on new noise regulations; and one resolution setting a fee schedule. REVIEWED BY (l COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. I Planning Comm. DA'Z'E: 04/12/10 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Department of Community Development Police Department COMMITTEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE AMOUNT BUDGETED RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION Transportation Cmte APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $0 $0 ATTACHMENTS Informational Memorandum dated 4/26/10 Noise Ordinance Matrix Ordinance updating Noise Regulations in draft form Ordinance amending the Zoning Code in draft form Resolution establishing a fee schedule in draft form Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 04/12/10 123 124 TO: DISCUSSION City of Tukwila Mayor Haggerton Committee of the Whole FROM: David Haynes, Chief of Police INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Jack Pace, Director, Department of Community Development DATE: April 26, 2010 SUBJECT: Draft Noise Ordinance ISSUE Should the City update its noise ordinance? BACKGROUND Jim Haggerton, Mayor The current noise ordinance was amended in 2002. The City's noise ordinance is confusing and difficult to enforce. Enforcement of noise regulations for public disturbance noises is difficult or impractical if the use of a noise measuring device is required. The variance process is time consuming, costly to the City, and frequently does not affect the outcome. In 2006, the Director of DCD wrote rules for processing noise variance requests, as allowed by the noise code. These rules for processing variance requests need to be revised and codified. There is no record of Department of Ecology approval for the existing noise code. The draft ordinance and fee schedule was presented to the Community Affairs and Parks committee on April 12, 2010 with a recommendation to forward to the Committee of the Whole for a public hearing on April 26, 2010. The committee also requested staff bring forward options for administering residential party variances. The noise code contains regulations that are administered by the Police Department and the Department of Community Development. The DCD Director issues variances and fields citizen complaints during the day; the Chief of Police is charged with enforcing the noise complaint sections of the code. Included with this staff report is a matrix comparing the current code with the new proposal. Outlined below is more information about the proposed changes. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 e Phone 206 -431 -3670 Fax: 206-431-3665 1 Definitions (8.22.020): There are several new definitions and terms included in the new ordinance: 1 Administrator DCD Director, Police Chief, or designees including the Hearing Examiner. The addition of "designees" gives the City flexibility and allows code enforcement to assist police with chronic offenses under a notice and order process. Specifying the Hearing Examiner clarifies that some noise code violations may proceed along that enforcement path. 2 Commercial music music originating from or in connection with the operation of any commercial establishment or enterprise. Noise from commercial music that is plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from the property line is a violation of this code. 3. Noise Sensitive Unit a residence, school, church, hospital, or public library. Property in an industrial or commercial zone is not a noise sensitive unit unless it is occupied or used as a residence, school, church, hospital or public library. 4. Plainly audible sound that can be heard. The City of Tacoma adds language to include "comprehensible musical rhythms" and "rhythmic bass heard by someone with "unaided hearing faculties." This language has been added to the draft code. 5. Receiving property the property within which the sound cannot be exceeded. The City of Tacoma adds "Individual offices or dwelling units within a building may constitute a receiving property This language allows police to enforce within an apartment, condominium or office complex. This language has been added to the draft code. 6. Residential party a social gathering held at a residence. Residential parties have always been eligible to apply for a variance but the code now specifically calls them out as a source of noise. 7. Sound Producina Source anything capable of making sounds. Examples include: audio equipment, power tools, musical instruments, motor vehicle sound systems audible at 50 feet from the vehicle itself, and commercial music audible at 50 feet from the property line. Measurement of Sound (8.22.040): Verifying nuisance or "public disturbance" noises under our current code requires standards that are impractical or difficult to use in the field. The proposed changes to this part of the code are significant and yet establish a standard that is measurable and verifiable in the field without requiring anything more than a tape measure or laser measuring tool and the ability to hear. The new code gives two standards to measure sound and determine if a violation exists under Maximum permissible sound levels (8.22.050): 1. It is a violation to exceed certain decibel levels based on the time of day, the zone of the source of sound, and the zone of the receiver. This allows projects using equipment with a known decibel level (WSDOT construction equipment for example) to determine if a variance is needed prior to starting a project. KS /SM Page 2 of 5 1 2 I C: \ternn\XP,rnwise \Noise COW staff report (4 -26 -101 1.docZ: \Noiec Code \Noise CAP staff report (4 26 10).doc 04/22/2010 2. It is also a violation to make a "plainly audible sound" from a "sound producing source The plainly audible standard specifies distances and locations, which is useful to police officers in the field to verify the violation. The plainly audible standard has two components based on the zoning designation of the receiving property: A. In any district the following are violations: A noise from a motor vehicle sound system at a distance of 50 feet from the vehicle itself. Commercial music at a distance of 50 feet from the property line of the commercial establishment. Any sound that is plainly audible inside a noise sensitive unit (a house, hospital, library, church or school that is not the source of the sound) during the nighttime hours. B. When receiving property is in a Residential district (LDR. MDR, HDR) an additional standard is imposed: A noise from ANY sound producing source that can be heard at a distance of 50 feet from the exterior of the source of the sound; Exemptions (8.22.090 8.22.110) There are sounds which are exempt at all times aircraft in flight, safety and protective devices, emergency equipment, city- sanctioned parades, sporting events and other public events, construction related and maintenance noise (if the receiving property is located in a commercial or industrial district of the City), and others. There are sounds which are exempt only during daytime hours bells, chimes, testing of emergency back -up generators, the firing range, construction related and maintenance noise (if the receiving property is located in a residential zone) and others. Variances (8.22.120): The new code allows for notice only to those tenants affected by the noise, only when the noise is in excess of 30 days, and to a 500' area. The code also allows provisions for the Director to require additional noticing and mitigation in order to grant the variance. Variances will be processed based on the length of time the noise will be created: Variances less than 30 days are approved by the Director and will not require public notice as permitted in the WAC. Variances for 31 -60 days of noise are also approved by the Director and will include public notice and an opportunity to comment prior to granting the variance. Variances for noise in excess of 60 days will require public notice and a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. KS /SM Page 3 of 5 04/22/2010 C: \temn\XPemwise \Noise COW staff report (4 -26 -101 1.doc 127 At the CAP meeting, council requested additional options for granting variances for residential parties. Committee members were concerned that residential parties could be granted a variance but that controls were not in place to prevent noise disturbances caused by permitted parties. Concerns were raised over allowing parties without restrictions on time or volume, the criteria for granting a variance, and potential lack of notice to neighboring properties that the party would be occurring. While the new code specifically lists residential, parties as a source of noise, the ability to seek and /or obtain a variance for a residential party is no different in the new versus the old code. If a variance is granted, however, the new code allows the Director to apply conditions specific to the variance request such as restrictions on time or volume and requiring notice to surrounding properties. The City has no record of anyone trying to obtain a variance for a residential party. The problem with parties is not that variances permit too much noise but that noise violations are not enforceable. With the new noise code, the Police Department will be able to more effectively verify noise violations and issue citations. Enforcing the noise code could lead to residents seeking noise variances for residential parties, however the new fee for a variance may deter residents from seeking one. Staff is offering three options for consideration to address the Committee's concerns. Option A: Adopt the new noise code with the modification as shown. 1. Residential party variances require the applicant to notify neighboring properties within a 500 foot radius prior to the variance being granted. 2. A noise variance for a party is not a free pass to make as much noise as one likes. The limitations would be spelled out in the decision and violations of these limitations could still result in a citation being issued. Option B: Revise the code so that variances for residential parties are not permitted. 1. Criteria would need to be written that would allow an application for a variance permit but conditions would be applied that would prevent a resident from gaining any noise allowances for sounds generated by a party. The City of Bellevue offers a version of this solution. They require a "Sound Amplification Permit" for amplified sound but the sound cannot exceed the maximum permissible sound levels allowed in a non amplified situation. Option C: Establish a party permit to be administered by the Police Department. 1. Party permits are fairly common in other states, especially in college towns. 2. Requirements could include: a. A party permit is valid until 12- midnight on weekends and holidays and 10 PM on all other nights. b. Only a maximum of 4 hours of noise /music is allowed. KS /SM Page 4 of 5 04/22/2010 1 28 I C:ltenln \X'Pvrowise \Noise COW staff report (4 -26 -101 l.doc P staff report (1 26 10).doc c. The applicant would have to notify all commercial and residential units within 500 feet at least 48 hours of the event. d. The permit wouldn't have an allowable decibel level. Instead, noise from the event could not be plainly audible 400 feet away. e. The proposal would prohibit multiple permits for similar locations and times and multiple permits within 90 days. f. There must be no history of chronic noise violations. 3. The party permit could have other restrictions not related to noise such as parking requirements, limits on the number of attendees, limits on who attends (invited guests only, no fees may be charged) 4. A party permit would not be a free pass to make as much noise as one likes. The limitations could be spelled out in the code and violations of these limitations could still result in a citation being issued. Violation Penalty section (8.22.150). At the request of the Police Department, changes have been made to the Violation Penalty section. Violations have been changed from misdemeanors to civil penalties for the first two offenses. Third and subsequent violations are misdemeanors. There is also a provision to suspend or revoke city issued permits and /or licenses for the site if two civil penalties have been issued within a one -year period. The section also clarifies that owners, tenants and others are jointly and severally responsible for compliance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends addressing the concern of noise from residential parties by adopting the code with the condition that all residential party variances require notification of neighboring properties within 500 feet. This change is shown in the strikethrough version of the ordinance before you tonight. If the Council agrees, staff recommends modifying the ordinance to reflect the residential party variance notification requirements and presenting the changes for adoption at the May 3, 2010 regular meeting along with the revisions to the Title 18 Ordinance, and the draft fee resolution at the May 3, 2010 regular meeting. Attachments: Noise Ordinance matrix Draft Noise Ordinance Draft Title 18 Ordinance Draft fee resolution KS /SM Page 5 of 5 04/22/2010 I C: \temn\XPemwise \Noise COW staff renort (4- 26 -10) 1.doc 129 130 "Old Ordinance" 8.22.010 Policy Findings of Special Conditions 8.22.020 Definitions 8.22.030 Environmental Sound Levels Unlawful Sounds "It is unlawful for any person to cause sound, or for any person in possession of property to permit sound originating from such property to intrude into the real property of another person, whenever such sound exceeds the maximum permissible sound levels established by this chapter." 8.22.040 Maximum permissible sound levels Chart referencing dB levels by district 8.22.050 Modifications to Maximum Permissible Sound Levels 8.22.060 Motor Vehicle Sound Levels Created by Operation 8.22.070 Muffler Requirements 8.22.080 Modification of Motor Vehicles 8.22.090 Tire Noise 8.22.100 Motor Vehicle Exemptions 1. Sounds created by motor vehicles are subject to the provisions of TMC 8.22.060 through 8.22.090 and are exempt from the maximum permissible sound levels of TMC 8.22.030 through 8.22.050; 2. Sounds created by any motor vehicles when the sounds are declared public disturbance noises pursuant to TMC 8.22.110; and 3. Sounds created by any motor vehicle operated off public highways when the sounds are received within a residential district of the City." 8.22.110 Public Disturbance Noises 8. Sounds from any motor vehicle audio sound system...audible at a distance greater than 50 feet... Noise Ordinance Matrix (TMC 8.22) Page 1 of 4 "New Ordinance" 8.22.010 Purpose Whereas statement addresses special conditions; new purpose is simplified and removes the requirement to use dB levels. 8.22.020 Definitions Several additions and clarifications, for example: "Affected Tenant" for noticing purposes, only those commercial tenants who will experience the sound; "Noise Sensitive Unit" real property such as a home, school, or church; "Plainly Audible" means sounds that can be heard by an unaided human ear. 8.22.050 Maximum permissible sound levels includes the following language: "It is a violation to produce sound in excess of the permissible sound levels established by this chapter" 8.22.050 Maximum permissible sound levels Section 1. Chart referencing dB levels by district and time of day. Section 3. Adds an entirely new section to disallow sounds that are plainly audible based on distance from the sound source, district sound is received in, type of sound, and time of day. 8.22.050 Maximum permissible sound levels Section 2. Modifications are enumerated Section deleted at the request of Police Department. Requires the use of dB meter, which they do not have for every officer. 8.22.060 Muffler requirements No change from previous 8.22.070 Modification of motor vehicles Minor editing for clarity. No substantive change 8.22.080 Tire noise No change from previous 8.22.090 Motor vehicle exemptions 1. Updated TMC reference numbers. 2. Deleted references to public disturbance noise 3. "Vehicles operated off public highways" reference has moved to 8.22.050(3)(b); added a section addressing motor vehicle audio systems operated anywhere are subject to the maximum permissible sound levels. Deleted entire section. No distinction is now made between "public disturbance" and other noises. All noises in excess of the limits in this chapter are violations. 8.22.050 3a1 Max permissible sound levels. 131 (5) Sounds created by auxiliary equipment on motor vehicles used for highway maintenance. 8.22.140 Sounds Exempt During Daytime Hours 8.22.150 Sounds Exempt from Nighttime Reduction 132 8.22.120 Exempted Noises "No sound source specifically exempted from a maximum permissible sound level by this chapter shall be a public disturbance noise, insofar as the particular source is exempted." 8.22.130 Sounds Exempt at All Times Noise Ordinance Matrix (TMC 8.22) Deleted entire section —this section caused the greatest problems in administering the code. Public disturbance noises were still subject to the maximum permissible sound levels. "Public disturbance" noises are not differentiated in our new code. 8.22.100 Sounds exempt at all times Edited for clarity. Added the following (paraphrased): (9) Sounds created by construction... when the receiving property is commercial or industrial. This was moved from the public disturbance section to this section with no substantive change in the allowance. (10) Maintenance equipment noise (lawnmowers, leaf blowers, etc) when receiving property is in commercial or industrial district Since the current and new code allows construction at all times in non residential zones, it is sensible to also allow maintenance equipment. The old code allowed daytime residential maintenance equipment but was silent on commercial/industrial maintenance equipment. (11) Highway maintenance noise when the receiving property is in Commercial or Industrial district. The next section exempts all daytime highway construction noise. Added language permitting the Administrator to require noise abatement technology subject to provisions of RCW 34.05 8.22.110 Sounds Exempt during daytime hours Edited for clarity. Added the followina (paraphrased): A. (6) Highway maintenance construction noise A. (7) Testing of back up generators or other emergency equipment. Research revealed that back -up generator testing creates a substantially lower noise level than running the generator. Back -up generators are located throughout the City at every lift station, most public serve locations and some commercial businesses. The City has no record of ever receiving a noise complaint from generator testing. Allowing daytime testing permits the situation that is currently in place. Testing typically occurs monthly. B. Same language as 8.22.100 regarding Administrator's ability to require installation of noise abatement technology Moved to 8.22.100 Page 2 of 4 8.22.160 Variance Procedure A -B. Allows variances and allows the director to promulgate rules for variances C -D. Variance criteria based on type of variance E. Extensions of variances (allowed for up to a year) F. Appeals of variance decisions 8.22.170 Types of Variances Describes variance types as 60 days or less; variances for noise that cannot technically be controlled; and variances for noise that are cost prohibitive to control and require extended time to mitigate. 8.22.180 Variances Administrator's Authority This is additional criteria for a variance. 8.22.190 Authority of Administrator 8.22.200 Duties of Administrator 8.22.210 Measurement of Sound 8.22.220 Measurement Technical correction 8.22.230 Receiving Properties Within More Than One District 8.22.240 Enforcement Civil 8.22.250 Right of Appeal Civil Enforcement Timeliness 8.22.260 Appeal Procedure Civil Enforcement 8.22.270 Enforcement, Criminal Sound Level Measurement Not Required 8.22.280 Penalties Civil and Criminal 8.22.290 Provisions Not Exclusive Public Nuisance Declared 8.22.300 Purpose Liability Noise Ordinance Matrix (TMC 8.22) 8.22.120 Variances (A) allows variances with minor language change. 8.22.030 B allows the director to promulgate rules with minor language changes. Eliminated this section. Variance criteria is the same for all variance types. 8.22.130 Extensions are allowed for up to the maximum time allowed based on the type of variance originally requested. This section also allows the administrator to require additional conditions, studies, and noticing. 8.22.120 Variances (C) Appeals are per Title 18. 8.22.120 (H) new section allows for revocation of a variance permit 8.22.120 Variances B. Simplifies types of variances based on the number of days /nights noise will exceed the permitted sound levels in a one year period. 8.22.120 Variances (E) establishes identical criteria for variances. 1 8.22.030 General Powers of the Administrator Deleted entire section. Some of the duties enumerated in the old code section are included under 8.22.030. (Promulgating rules, issuing violations) Deleted references to the acquiring, training, and use of a sound meter; assisting citizens in evaluating and reducing noise impacts; evaluating noise components in planning and zoning actions; instituting a public education program on noise; reviewing the code every three years. 8.22.040 Measurement of Sound Added language that clarifies that the use of a sound meter is not required to verify a noise complaint. Deleted this section. Specifications for use of a sound meter are included in 8.22.040. Deleted this section. 8.22.150 Violation Penalty Enforcement actions are referred to the City's Enforcement chapter TMC 8.45 for procedures. Penalty amounts are included in the ordinance, as they are different than the penalty amounts in TMC 8.45. Give administrator the ability to reduce monetary penalties if the violations have been remedied. Specifies who is responsible for the violation. Allows City to use any other remedies provided by law. Deleted I 8.22.160 Liability 8.22.140 Fees for variances Establishes a fee for each of the 3 variance types based on similar permits in the land use fee schedule. Page 3 of 4 133 134 Director's Rules created 7/21/06. This document provides detailed procedures including but not limited to: Variance Applications Noticing Public Meetings Decision Extension These rules were never codified. Noise Ordinance Matrix (TMC 8.22) Incorporates and updates the Director's rules into the new code: 8.22.150D Provides a revised list of application requirements 8.22.120B Notice is only required to go to those that will experience the noise "affected tenant" exempts notice to businesses not open when the variance is sought). Otherwise, notice is per Title 18 8.22.1208 -C requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner pursuant to Title 18 8.22.150G Conditions based on impacts of noise, ability to control noise, and public comments 8.22.130 Extensions Page 4 of 4 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, UPDATING REGULATIONS RELATING TO NOISE, AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.22, "NOISE," TO CLARIFY DEFINITIONS, REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT; REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2002; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to minimize the exposure of its citizens to the physiological and psychological dangers of excessive noise, and to protect, promote and preserve the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, it is the express intent of the City Council to control the level_ of noise in a manner that promotes commerce; the use, value, and enjoyment of property; sleep and repose; and the quality of the environment; and WHEREAS, it is the express intent of the City Council that noise be prohibited when it exceeds certain levels or when it unreasonably disturbs the peace, comfort and repose of others; and WHEREAS, the problem of noise in the City has been investigated by the Director of Community Development and the Chief of Police, and based on these investigations the City Council, pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 70.107 RCW, finds that special conditions exist within the City that make necessary any and all differences between this chapter and the regulations adopted by the Department of Ecology in Chapters 173 58,173 -60 and 173 -62 WAC, and that make necessary the provision for criminal as well as civil penalties for violation of this chapter; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that noise that travels more than 50 feet from its source disturbs the peace and repose of its citizens; and WHEREAS, it is demonstrated that enforcement of noise regulations is often difficult or impractical if a noise measuring device is required under every circumstance; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 26, 2010 on this matter; and WHEREAS, upon adoption, this ordinance will be submitted to the Department of Ecology for review and approval, pursuant to RCW 70.107.060; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Regulations Amended. TMC Chapter 8.22 shall read as follows: Chapter 8.22 NOISE W; Word Processing Ordinances \Noise.docx DM:ksn 04/22/2010 Sections: 8.22.010 Purpose 8.22.020 Definitions 8.22.030 General Powers of the Administrator 8.22.040 Measurement of Sound 8.22.050 Maximum Permissible Sound Levels 8.22.060 Muffler Requirements 8.22.070 Modification of Motor Vehicles 8.22.080 Tire Noise 8.22.090 Motor Vehicle Exemptions 8.22.100 Sounds Exempt at all Times 8.22.110 Sounds Exempt During Daytime Hours 8.22.120 Variances 8.22.130 Extension 8.22.140 Fees for Variances 8.22.150 Violation Penalty 8.22.160 Liability Page 1 of 8 135 136 Section 2. Regulations Amended. TMC Section 8.22.010 shall read as follows: 8.22.010 Purpose. It is the express purpose of this chapter to provide for and promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public, and not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of this chapter. Section 3. Regulations Amended. TMC Section 8.22.020 shall read as follows: 8.22.020 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth in this section, unless a different meaning is clearly indicated by the context in which the term is used. Terms not defined herein shall be interpreted using the meaning they have in common usage and to give this chapter its most reasonable application. 1. "Administrator" means the Director of Community Development, the Chief of Police, or their designee, including the Hearing Examiner. 2. "Affected tenant" means a business located within a required public notice area which conducts business or maintains open hours during the time period in which a noise variance is sought. For example, businesses closed during the night are not affected tenants when a nighttime noise variance is sought. "Affected tenants" refers to business tenants only and not residential tenants. 3. "Audio equipment" means compact disc players, radios, stereo systems, televisions, video cassette recorders, mp3 players and other such devices. 4. "Commercial music" means music originating from or in connection with the operation of any commercial establishment or enterprise. 5. "Construction" means any site preparation, assembly, erection, demolition, substantial repair, alteration, or similar action for or of public or private rights -of -way, structures, utilities or similar property. 6. "Daytime" means 7AM -10PM, Monday through Friday and 8AM -1OPM, Saturday, Sunday and State recognized holidays. 7. "dB(A)" means the sound level measured in decibels, using the A- weighting network. 8. "District" or "noise control district" means the land use zones to which the provisions of this chapter are applied. For the purposes of this chapter: a. "Residential district" includes zones designated as LDR, MDR and HDR; b. "Commercial district" includes zones designated as MUO, 0, RCC, NCC, RC, RCM, TUC, C /LI and TVS; and c. "Industrial district" includes zones designated as LI, HI, MIC /L and MIC /H. 9. "Emergency work" means work required to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, or work required to protect persons or property from an imminent exposure to danger, or work by private or public utilities for restoring immediately necessary utility service. 10. "Equipment" means any stationary or portable device or any part thereof capable of generating sound. 11. "Motorcycle" means any motor vehicle having a saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, except that farm equipment and vehicles powered by engines of less than five horsepower shall not be included. 12. "Motor vehicle" means any vehicle that is self- propelled, used primarily for transporting persons or property upon public highways, and required to be licensed under RCW 46.16.010. (Aircraft, watercraft and vehicles used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks are not "motor vehicles" as the term is used herein.) 13. "Motor vehicle sound systems" means audio equipment installed or used in a motor vehicle. 14. "Muffler" means a device consisting of a series of chambers or other mechanical designs for the purpose of receiving exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine and designed to reduce the sound resulting therefrom. 15. "Nighttime" means 10PM -7AM, Monday through Friday and 10PM -8AM, Saturday, Sunday and State recognized holidays. 16. "Noise" means the intensity, duration and character of sounds from any and all sources. 17. "Noise sensitive unit" means real property used as a residence, school, church, hospital or public library. Property located in an industrial or commercial zone is not a noise sensitive unit unless it meets the above criteria. W:\ Word Processing Ordinances Noise.docx DM:ksn 04/22/2010 Page 2 of 8 18. "Person" means any individual, firm, association, partnership, corporation or any other entity, public or private. 19. "Plainly audible" means sound made by a sound producing source that can be heard by a person using their unaided hearing faculties. Plainly audible sound includes any component of sound, including but not limited to, rhythmic bass or comprehensible musical rhythms. It is not necessary for such person to be able to determine the title, specific words or artist of music or the content of any speech for the sound to be considered "plainly audible." 20. "Public highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) or any county or city, when any part thereof is generally for the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel or a matter of right. 21. "Real property" means an interest or aggregate of rights in land that is guaranteed and protected by law; for purposes of this chapter, the term "real property" includes a leasehold interest. 22. `Receiving property" means real property within which the maximum permissible sound levels specified herein shall not be exceeded from sources outside such property. Individual offices or dwelling units within a building may constitute a receiving property. 23. "Residence" means a building regularly or intermittently occupied by a person for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes. 24. "Residential party" means a social gathering held in a place of residence. 25. "Sound level" means the weighted sound pressure level measured by the use of a metering characteristic and weighted as specified in American National Standards Institute Specifications, Section 1.4 -1971. 26. "Sound level meter" means a sound level measuring device, either Type I or Type II, as defined by American National Standards Institute Specifications, ANSI 51.4 -1983. 27. "Sound- producing source" means anything that is capable of making sound. Sound producing source includes, but is not limited to, the following: a. air conditioning or heating units, heat pumps, refrigeration units (including those mounted on vehicles) and swimming pool or hot tub pumps; b. air horns, bells or sirens; c. audio equipment; d. domestic tools, including chain saws, electric drills, electric saws, hammers, lawn mowers, leaf /snow blowers, and similar tools and devices; e. loudspeakers or public address systems; f. musical instruments; g. human voice; h. animal sounds; i. mechanical or electrical noise; j. vehicle engines or exhaust systems, other than regular traffic upon a highway, road or street; k. residential party; 1. motor vehicle sound systems; or m. commercial music 28. "Warning device" means any device intended to provide public warning of potentially hazardous, emergency or illegal activities, including, but not limited to, a burglar alarm or vehicle backup signal, but not including any fire alarm. Section 4. Regulations Amended. TMC Section 8.22.030 shall read as follows: 8.22.030 General Powers of the Administrator. A. Subject to the provisions of this code, the administrator may take such action as may be necessary to abate a sound producing source that causes or may cause, by itself or in combination with any other sound producing source or sources, an unreasonable or prohibited noise. The administrator may exercise or delegate any of the functions, powers and duties vested in him or her or in the department by this chapter. B. The administrator may promulgate such rules as are necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including but not limited to, rules setting forth specifications for the operation, installation, best available technology, or manufacture of sound generating equipment or devices or sound mitigation equipment or devices. Word Processing Ordinances Noise_docx DM:ksn 04 /22/2010 Page 3 of 8 137 138 C. The administrator may promulgate such rules as are necessary with regard to standards and procedures to be followed in the measurement of sound pressure levels governed by the provisions of this chapter. D. The administrator shall have the power to issue notices of violation for violations of this chapter. Section 5. Regulations Amended. TMC Section 8.22.040 shall read as follows: 8.22.040 Measurement of Sound. A. The use of a sound level meter is not required to verify a noise violation. B. If the measurement of sound is made with a sound level meter, it shall be an instrument in good operating condition and shall meet the requirement for a Type I or Type II instrument, as described in American National Standards Institute Specifications, ANSI 51.4 -1983. If the measurements are made with other instruments or assemblages of instruments, the procedure must be carried out in such a manner that the overall accuracy shall be at least that called for in ANSI S1.4 -1983 for Type II instruments. Section 6. Regulations Amended. TMC Section 8.22.050 shall read as follows: 8.22.050 Maximum Permissible Sound Levels. It is a violation to produce sound in excess of the permissible sound levels established by this chapter. 1. No person may produce or permit to be produced sound that exceeds the following maximum permissible sound levels when measured at or within the boundary of a receiving property: District of I District of Sound Receiving Property Producing Residential, Residential, Source Daytime Nighttime Commercial Industrial 1 Residential 1 55 dB(A) 45 dB(A) 1 57 dB(A) 1 60 dB(A) 1 Commercial 1 57 dB(A) 47 dB(A) 1 60 dB(A) 1 65 dB(A) 1 Industrial 1 60 dB(A) 50 dB(A) I 65 dB(A) I 70 dB(A) 1 that is: W.\ Word Processing\ Ordinances \Noise.docx DM:ksn 04/22/2010 2. At any hour of the day or night, the applicable noise limitations above may be exceeded for any receiving property by no more than: a. 5 dB(A) for a total of 15 minutes in any one -hour period; b. 10 dB(A) for a total of 5 minutes in any one -hour period; or c. 15dB(A) for a total of 1.5 minutes in any one -hour period. 3. The following also exceeds the maximum permissible sound levels: a. In all districts of the City, no sound from a sound- producing source is permitted 1) plainly audible from a motor vehicle sound system at a distance of at least 50 feet from the vehicle itself; 2) plainly audible commercial music at a distance of at least 50 feet from the property line of the commercial establishment; or 3) plainly audible during nighttime hours from within a noise sensitive unit of the receiving property; and b. When the receiving property is in a residential district, no sound from a sound producing source is permitted that is plainly audible at a distance of at least 50 feet from the exterior of a sound producing source, including sounds created by any motor vehicle operated off public highways. Section 7. Regulations Amended. TMC Section 8.22.060 shall read as follows: 8.22.060 Muffler Requirements. It is unlawful for any person to operate or for any owner to permit any person to operate any motor vehicle upon the public highways that is not equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation. Section 8. Regulations Amended. TMC Section 8.22.070 shall read as follows: 8.22.070 Modification of Motor Vehicles. It is unlawful for any person to operate a vehicle that has been modified or changed in any way or has had installed any device thereon in any manner that permits sound to be emitted by the motor vehicle in excess of the limits prescribed by this chapter. It is unlawful for any person to remove or render inoperative or cause to be removed or rendered inoperative (other than for purposes of maintenance, repair or replacement) any muffler or sound dissipative device on a motor vehicle that is operated on the public highway. Page 4 of 8 Section 9. Regulations Amended. TMC Section 8.22.080 shall read as follows: 8.22.080 Tire Noise. It is unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle in such a manner as to cause or allow to be emitted squealing, screeching or other such sound from the tires in contact with the ground because of rapid acceleration or excessive speed around corners or other such reason; provided, that sound resulting from emergency braking to avoid imminent danger shall be exempt from this section. Section 10. Regulations Amended. TMC Section 8.22.090 shall read as follows: 8.22.090 Motor Vehicle Exemptions. Sounds created by motor vehicles operated on public highways are subject to the provisions of TMC Sections 8.22.060 through 8.22.080 and are exempt from TMC Section 8.22.050. However, sounds created by motor vehicles operated off public highways and motor vehicle audio systems operated anywhere are subject to the provisions of TMC Section 8.22.050. Section 11. Regulations Amended. TMC Section 8.22.100 shall read as follows: 8.22.100 Sounds Exempt at all Times. A. The following sound producing sources are exempt from the provisions of this chapter at all times: 1. Aircraft in flight and sounds that originate at airports that are directly related to flight operations. 2. Safety and protective devices, such as relief valves and fire alarms, where noise suppression would defeat the intent of the device. 3. Systems used to warn the community of an imminent public danger or attack, such as flooding, explosion or hurricane. 4. Emergency equipment activated in the interest of law enforcement, activated to perform emergency work as defined in TMC Section 8.22.020, or activated in response to a power outage where it is necessary to activate such equipment to preserve the health and safety of persons or to prevent harm to property. 5. Warning devices not operated continuously for more than five minutes per incident. 6. The operation of equipment or facilities of surface carriers engaged in commerce by railroad. 7. Natural phenomena. 8. City- sanctioned parades, sporting events and other City- sanctioned public events. 9. Sounds created by construction or the movement of construction- related materials, including but not limited to, striking or cutting sounds from hammers, saws or equipment with electrical or internal combustion engines emanating from temporary construction sites, provided the receiving property is located in a commercial or industrial district of the City. 10. Sounds created by hand or powered equipment used in temporary or periodic maintenance or repair of property, uses or structures, including but not limited to, lawnmowers, powered hand tools, snow removal equipment, and composters, provided the receiving property is located in a commercial or industrial district of the City. 11. Sounds created by equipment used for public highway maintenance and construction, provided the receiving property is located in a commercial or industrial district of the City. 12. Sounds created by existing or new electrical substations and existing or new stationary equipment used in the conveyance of water, waste water and natural gas by a utility are exempt from the nighttime reduction of TMC Section 8.22.050(B) only. B. Nothing in these exemptions is intended to preclude the administrator from requiring installation of the best available noise abatement technology consistent with economic feasibility. The establishment of such requirement shall be subject to the provisions of RCW 34.05. Section 12. Regulations Amended. TMC Section 8.22.110 shall read as follows: 8.22.110 Sounds Exempt During Daytime Hours. A. The following sound producing sources are exempt from the provisions of this chapter during daytime hours: 1. Aircraft engine testing and maintenance not related to flight operations, provided that aircraft testing and maintenance shall be conducted at remote sites whenever possible. 2. Bells, chimes or carillons operating for not more than five minutes in any one hour. 3. Sounds created by construction or the movement of construction- related materials, including but not limited to, striking or cutting sounds from hammers, saws or equipment with W: \Word Processing Ordinances \Noise.docx DMdcsn 04/22/2010 Page 5 of 8 139 140 electrical or internal combustion engines emanating from temporary construction sites, provided the receiving property is located in a residential district of the City. 4. Sounds created by hand or powered equipment used in temporary or periodic maintenance or repair of property, uses or structures, including but not limited to, lawnmowers, powered hand tools, snow removal equipment, and composters, provided the receiving property is located in a residential district of the City. 5. Sounds created by the installation or repair of essential utility services. 6. Sounds created by equipment used for public highway maintenance and construction. 7. The testing of emergency back -up generators or other emergency equipment. B. Sounds originating from the discharge of firearms on shooting ranges authorized under State and local law are exempt from the provisions of this chapter between 7AM and 9PM, Monday through Friday and 8AM and 6PM, Saturday, Sunday and State recognized holidays. C. Nothing in these exemptions is intended to preclude the administrator from requiring installation of the best available noise abatement technology consistent with economic feasibility. The establishment of such requirement shall be subject to the provisions of RCW 34.04. Section 13. Regulations Amended. TMC Section 8.22.120 shall read as follows: 8.22.120 Variances. A. Any person who owns or operates a sound producing source may apply for a variance. B. Application types are based on the number of days /nights the sound source will exceed the maximum permissible sound levels as shown in the following table: Number of days /nights maximum permissible sound Notice of Public level may be exceeded within Application Hearing a 12 -month period Requirements Requirements 30 days or less 31 -60 days More than 60 days W: Word Processing\ Ordinances Noise. docx DM:ksn 04/22/2010 Variance Permit Type Type 1 Administrative Variance Type 2 Administrative Variance Type 3 Mailed notice Variance pa) No notice No 2 2,) Hearing Mailed notice (1,2) No Hearing Public Hearing (1) Mailed notice shall be provided per TMC Section 18.104.120 excepting that tenants that are not affected tenants per TMC Section 8.22.020 are not required to be sent notice. (2) The administrator shall have the discretion in unusual circ (i.e., unusual type or intensity of noise or length of request) to require (additional) public notification procedures, such as causing notice to be published on the City's website, mailed notice provided to a wider geographic area, and/or notice posted at the site. (3) In the case of residential parties and prior to granting the variance. the applicant shall provide written notice to all residents within 500 feet of where the event is being held. Men the 500 foot radius includes multi- fanrilu cornvleres. all residents of the consoler shall be notified. C. Variance types, procedures and appeals are pursuant to Title 18 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. D. Applications for a variance to exceed the maximum permissible sound levels shaII supply information, including but not limited to: 1. The nature, source, intensity and location of the sound; 2. The hours during the day and /or night the noise will occur; 3. The number of days and /or nights the noise will occur; 4. The ambient sound level during the time of day or night for which the variance is being sought; 5. The time period for which the variance is requested; 6. The reason for which the noise violation cannot be avoided; 7. Mitigating conditions the applicant will implement to minimize the sound level violations; 8. The name, address and means of contacting a responsible party during the hours of operation for which the variance is requested; and Page 6 of 8 9. Any additional information or studies regarding any aspect of the requested variance that is deemed necessary to complete the review of the variance request. E. No variance in the provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be authorized by the administrator unless the administrator finds that all of the following facts and conditions exist: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the appellant's property or as to the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to other properties in the same noise control district; 2. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial personal or property right of the appellant, such right being possessed by the owners of other properties in the same noise control district; 3. The authorization of such variance does not endanger public health or safety of named persons in the same or adjacent noise control districts; 4. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the general policy and purpose of this act as set forth in TMC Section 8.22.010. F. In authorizing a variance, the administrator may attach thereto such conditions regarding noise level, duration, type and other considerations as the administrator may deem necessary to carry out the policy and purpose of this chapter. The variance permit shall enumerate the conditions of the variance, including but not limited to: 1. Specific dates and times for which the variance is valid; 2. Additional mitigation measures or public notice requirements as determined by the administrator. G. In establishing conditions on granting a variance, the administrator shall consider: 1. Whether the public health, safety or welfare is impacted; 2. The social and economic value of the activity for which the variance is sought; 3. The ability of the applicant to apply best practical noise control measures; 4. Physical conditions that create a significant financial hardship in complying with the provisions of this chapter; and 5. Any comments received during public notice or public meeting, if provided, and comment or lack of comment received during similar noise generating events in the past. H. The variance permit may be revoked by the administrator and the issuance of future variance permits withheld, if there is: 1. Violation of one or more conditions of the variance permit; 2. Material misrepresentation of fact in the variance application; or 3. Material change in any of the circumstances relied upon by the administrator in granting the variance. Section 14. Regulations Amended. TMC Section 8.22.130 shall read as follows: 8.22.130 Extension. A. Variances granted pursuant to this chapter may be extended on terms and conditions applicable to the initial granting of the variance. B. If granted for a shorter timeframe than otherwise allowed under the permit type, the holder of a variance permit may request one or more extensions. C. Prior to granting an extension, the administrator shall consider any comment or Iack of comment received during the initial variance period. D. The administrator may request any information deemed necessary to the consideration of the extension, including but not limited to noise monitoring reports and an updated assessment demonstrating there are no practical means known or available for the adequate abatement or control of the noise involved. E. Any request for an extension shall be submitted in writing and received by the administrator at least 15 days prior to expiration of a Type 1 or 2 variance and at least 30 days prior to the expiration of a Type 3 variance. F. A request for an extension does not require re- noticing or a public hearing, but may be required by the administrator. Section 15. Regulations Amended. TMC Section 8.22.140 shall read as follows: 8.22.140 Fees for Variances. An application fee and charges shall be paid at the time the variance application is filed with the City. The fees and charges shall be per the Land Use Fee Schedule most recently adopted by the City Council. The LDR fee in the Land Use Fee Schedule W:\ Word Processing Ordinances \Noise.docx DM:ksn 04/22/2010 Page 7 of 8 141 142 applies when the entire district of sound source and the entire district of all receiving properties is LDR. In all other instances, the "Other Zones" fee applies. Section 16. Regulations Amended. TMC Section 8.22.150 shall read as follows: 8.22.150 Violation Penalty. A. Every person, entity, firm or corporation who is determined to be in violation of this chapter has committed a civil infraction and shall be subject to the provisions of TMC Section 8.45.050. The monetary penalties are set forth below: 1. First civil penalty, $250.00. 2. Second civil penalty, $500.00. 3. Third and subsequent violations shall be misdemeanors, the maximum penalty for which shall be 90 days in jail or a fine of $1,000.00 or both fine and imprisonment. 4. At such time that two civil penalties have been assessed within a one -year period, City- issued permits and /or licenses for the site or the site activity may be suspended or revoked until the condition is corrected. 5. Each day that a property or person is not in compliance with the provisions of this chapter may constitute a separate violation of this chapter. B. The administrator may waive or reduce monetary penalties if findings are made demonstrating that the noise violation has been remedied. C. The owners, agents, contract buyers, tenants or lessees of all residential dwellings, commercial establishments, and or real estate upon which a violation of this chapter is found shall be jointly and severally responsible for compliance with this chapter and jointly and severally liable for any damages or costs incurred or imposed under this chapter. D. The penalties set forth in this chapter are not exclusive. The City may avail itself of any other remedies provided by law. Section 17. Regulations Amended. TMC Section 8.22.160 shall read as follows: 8.22.160 Liability. Nothing contained in this chapter is intended to be nor shall be construed to create or form the basis for any liability on the part of the City, its officers, employees or agents for any injury or damage resulting from the failure of anyone to comply with the provisions of this chapter, or by reason or in consequence of any inspection, notice, order, certificate, permission or approval authorized or issued or done in connection with the implementation or enforcement pursuant to this chapter, or by reason of any action or inaction on the part of the City related in any manner to the enforcement of this chapter by its officers, employees or agents. Section 18. Repealer. Ordinance No. 2002 is hereby repealed. Section 19. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 20. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City within five days of passage as provided by law. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force following review and approval by the Department of Ecology, pursuant to RCW 70.107.060. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2010. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney W: \Word Processing Ordinances \Noise.docx DM:ksn 04/22 /2010 Jim Haggerton, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Page 8 of 8 W:\ Word Processing\ Ordinances Title 18 Zoning Code Noise.doc KS:ksn 04 /07/2010 wrr i L1Y AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 2119, 2135, 2235 AND 2251, AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 18, "ZONING CODE," TO CLARIFY AND UPDATE THE ZONING CODE AND ITS PROVISIONS TO REFLECT CHANGES TO TUICWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.22, "NOISE PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the noise code of the City of Tukwila establishes permit application types pursuant to the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Code of the City of Tukwila lists permit application types and procedures and the City wishes to update these permit types to include noise variance applications; and WHEREAS, on April 26. 2010. the Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole, following adequate public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning amending the noise code and adopted a motion recommending the proposed changes; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinances Amended. Ordinance Nos. 2119 §1, 2135 §19, 2235 §19 and 2251 (part), as codified at TMC Section 18.104.010, are amended to read as follows: 18.104.010 CIassification of Project Permit Applications Project permit decisions are classified into five types, based on the degree of discretion associated with each decision, as set forth in this section. Procedures for the five different types are distinguished according to who makes the decision, whether public notice is required, whether a public meeting and /or a public hearing is required before a decision is made, and whether administrative appeals are provided. 1. Type 1 decisions are made by City administrators who have technical expertise, as designated by ordinance. Type 1 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner who will hold a closed record appeal hearing based on the information presented to the City administrator who made the decision. Public notice is not required for Type 1 decisions or for the appeals of those decisions. Type 1 Decisions TYPE OF PERMIT Administra tive Variance for Noise 30 days or less (TMC 8.22.120) Any land use permit or approval issued by the City, unless specifically categorized as a Type 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision by this Chapter Boundary Line Adjustment, including Lot Consolidation (TMC Chapter 17.08) I Development Permit Minor modification to design review approval (TMC Section 18.60.030) Minor Modification to PRD (TMC Section 18.46.130) DECISION MAKER Conmmnity Development Director As specified by ordinance Community Development Director Building Official Community Development Director Community Development Director Page 1 of 4 143 144 TYPE OF PERMIT Sign Permit, except for those sign permits specifically requiring approval of the Planning Commission, or denials of sign permits that are appealable Tree Permit (TMC Chapter 18.54) Wireless Communication Facility, Minor (TMC Chapter 18.58) TYPE OF PERMIT Administrative Design Review (TMC Section 18.60.030) Administrative Planned Residential Development (TMC Section 18.46.110) Administrative Variance for Noise 31 -60 days (TMC Section 8.22.120) Binding Site Improvement Plan (TMC Chapter 17.16) Cargo Container Placement (TMC Section 18.50.060) Code Interpretation (TMC Section 18.90.010) Exception from Single- Family Design Standard (TMC Section 18.50.050) Modification to Development Standards (TMC Section 18.41.100) Parking standard for use not specified (TMC Section 18.56.100) Sensitive Areas (except Reasonable Use Exception) (TMC Chapter 18.45) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (TMC Chapter 18.44) Short Plat (TMC Chapter 17.12) Sign Area Increase (TMC Section 19.32.140) Sign Permit Denial (TMC Chapter 19.12) Special Permission Parking, and Modifications to Certain Parking Standards (TMC Sections 18.56.065 and .070) Special Permission Sign, except "unique sign" (various sections of TMC Title 19) W: \Word Processing Ordinances \Title 18 Zoning Code Noise.doc KS:ksn 04 /07/2020 I DECISION MAKER Community Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director 2. Type 2 decisions are decisions which are initially made by the Director or, in certain cases, other City administrators or committees, but which are subject to an open record appeal to the Hearing Examiner, Board of Architectural Review, or, in the case of shoreline permits, an appeal to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. Type 2 Decisions INITIAL DECISION MAKER Community Development Director Short Plat Committee Community Development Director Short Plat Committee Community Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director Short Plat Committee Community Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director APPEAL BODY (open record appeal) Board of Architectural Review Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner State Shorelines Hearings Board Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Page 2 of 4 TYPE OF PERMIT Wireless Communication Facility, Minor (TMC Chapter 18.58) TYPE OF PERMIT Public Hearing Design Review (TMC Chapter 18.60) Subdivision Preliminary Plat with an associated Design Review application (TMC Section 17.14.020) Unique Signs (TMC Section 19.28.010) W: \Word Processing Ordinances \Title 18 Zoning Code Noise.doc KS:ksn 04/07/2010 INITIAL DECISION MAKER Community Development Director 3. Type 3 decisions are quasi judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner following an open record hearing. Type 3 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court, except for shoreline variances and shoreline conditional uses that may be appealed to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. Type 3 Decisions TYPE OF PERMIT I Conditional Use Permit Modifications to Certain Parking Standards (TMC Chapter 18.56) Reasonable Use Exceptions under Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC Section 18.45.180) Resolve uncertain zone district boundary Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (TMC Section 18.44.050) Subdivision Preliminary Plat with no associated Design Review application (TMC Section 17.14.020) TSO Special Permission Use (TMC Section 18.41.060) Variance (zoning, shoreline, sidewalk, land alteration, sign) Variance from Parking Standards over 10% (TMC Section 18.56.140) Variance for Noise in excess of 60 days (TMC Section 8.22.1201 Wireless Communication Facility, Major or Waiver Request (TMC Chapter 18.58) 4. Type 4 decisions are quasi- judicial decisions made by the Board of Architectural Review or the Planning Commission, following an open record hearing. Type 4 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner based on the record established by the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, that are appealable to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. Type 4 Decisions DECISION MAKER Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner I Hearing Examiner I Planning Commission Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner J I Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner INITIAL DECISION MAKER Board of Architectural Review Planning Commission APPEAL BODY (open record appeal) Hearing Examiner APPEAL BODY Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court State Shorelines Hearings Board Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court APPEAL BODY (closed record appeal) Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Planning Commission Hearing Examiner 5. Type 5 decisions are quasi judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner or City Council following an open record hearing. Type 5 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court. Page 3 of 4 145 146 Type 5 Decisions DECISION TYPE OF PERMIT MAKER Planned Residential Development (PRD), City Council including Major Modifications (TMC Chapter 18.46) Rezone (TMC Chapter 18.84) City Council Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC Section City Council 18.45.160) Shoreline Environment Re- designation (Shoreline City Council Master Program) Subdivision Final Plat (TMC Section 17.12.030) I City Council Unclassified Use (TMC Chapter 18.66) I City Council Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City within five days of passage as provided by law. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force following review and approval by the Department of Ecology, pursuant to RCW 70.107.060. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2010. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney W.\ Word Processing Ordinances \Title 18 Zoning Code Noise.doc KS:ksn 04/07/2010 Jim Haggerton, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: APPEAL BODY Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court I Superior Court I Superior Court Page 4 of 4 AF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1672, LAND USE FEE SCHEDULE, TO INCLUDE A NEW NOISE FEE SCHEDULE. 'WHEREAS, the City has adopted a revised Noise Code, pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 8.22; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to impose fees for services rendered; and WHEREAS, the amended fee resolution will take effect and be in full force following review and approval by the Department of Ecology; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The following fees shall be added to the Land Use Fee Schedule: Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney W: \Word Processing\Resolutions \Noise Fee Schedule.docx SM 4/7/2010 Permit Type Noise Administrative Variance 30 days or less (TMC Section 8.22.140) Noise Administrative Variance 31-60 days (TMC Section 8.22.140) Noise Variance in excess of 60 days (TMC Section 8.22.140) LDR Other Zones $400 $400 $550 $550 $1,260 $1,260 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2010. Dennis Robertson, Council President Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Resolution Number: Page 1 of I 147 148 I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes April 12, 2010 5:00 p.m.; Conference Room #3 CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Duffle called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. City of Tukwila Community Affairs and Parks Committee PRESENT Councilmembers: Joe Duffle, Chair; Joan Hernandez and Verna Seal Staff: Kathy Stetson, Stacy MacGregor, Mary Hulvey, Jack Pace, Evie Boykan, Bruce Linton, Mayor Haggerton, Steve Lancaster and Kimberly Matej Guests: Chuck Parrish IL BUSINESS AGENDA A. 2011 Minor Home Repair Program Staff is seeking Council authorization to submit the 2011 Community Development BIock Grant application to King County requesting $110,000 for the Minor Home Repair Program. The City's application proposes to continue the Human Services Minor Home Repair Program for Tukwila as well as the fiscal management (via self renewing interlocal agreements) of similar programs for the cities of SeaTac, Des Moines and Covington. This year's proposal asks for additional funding to address work with lead based paint. As with past applications, incorporation of multiple cities into one application makes our request more competitive against other projects. The funding for this program is not a guarantee. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 26 COW FOR DISCUSSION. B. Interlocal Agreement between Tukwila and King County regarding Permits for the Tukwila South Annexation Area Staff is seeking Council approval of an interlocal agreement with King County for the processing of building permits and land use applications that were filed with King County prior to Tukwila's annexation of the southern most portion of the City. There are currently four permit related items outstanding that were filed with the County prior to the City's annexation (two land use applications, one construction permit and one code enforcement file). This interlocal agreement will allow King County to complete outstanding actions as necessary on these applications and/or files as well as provide continuity of permitting In addition to the interlocal agreement, staff distributed a draft resolution at the Committee meeting which authorizes King County to charge applicant fees as relative and appropriate for the above items. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 26 COW FOR DISCUSSION. C. DRAFT Noise Ordinance Staff is seeking Council approval of a draft ordinance relating to noise. Adding clarity to definitions, enforcement and standards, this will repeal the current Noise Ordinance which was last amended in 2002. The Committee was provided with an update on the draft ordinance last December (see CAP minutes dated December 14, 2009). At that time, staff suggested the ordinance be separated into two sections (to improve efficiency and enforcement); however, they have since determined that this separation did not provide the 149 150 Community Affairs Parks Committee Minutes April 12. 2010 Paae 2 most efficient means for enforcement. The draft ordinance now applies to the Department of Community Development as well as Police. Highlights of new definitions and enforcement regulations in the draft ordinance include: Inclusion of commercial music (commercial establishments that produce music). Definition of noise sensitive units (i.e.: church, school, hospital or public library). Regulations based on plainly audible sounds which can be detected via unaided hearing, including rhythmic bass or comprehensible musical rhythms that are difficult to measure with a noise meter Removed reference to public disturbance noise, and refer only to noise. A more consistent, reliable and enforceable way to measure potential sound disturbances. Change in penalties for ordinance violations; first and second offenses are civil penalties and will result in monetary fines, and a 3r offense is a misdemeanor. If two civil penalties have been assessed within a one -year period, City- issued permits and/or license for the location may be suspended or revoked until the condition is corrected. Staff reviewed exemptions to the regulations, such as community events and sounds that happen during the daytime hours, and explained the variance process. Variances will be administered based on the number of days noise will be generated. Notice will now be required only when sound exceeds 30 days and only to those tenants that will be affected by the noise. The Committee had a lengthy discussion regarding the criteria for residential party variances including sound limits (i.e.: time, days and distance) and notification to abutting property owners when a variance has been granted. Staff will provide options for addressing these two concerns and the information will be presented to Council when this item moves forward to the COW. Staff reported that this ordinance will be sent to the Department of Ecology for review. STAFF TO PROVIDE REQUESTED INFORMATION. FORWARD TO APRIL 26 COW FOR DISCUSSION. III. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 5:49 p.m. Next meeting: Monday, March 22, 2010 5:00 p.m. Conference Room 43 Committee Chair Approval Mattes by KAM. Reviewed by KS. CAS NUMBER: 10-036 MTG. DATE 04/05/10 04/26/10 I 0 --0 REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. DA 1'E: RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Briefing only. COMMITTEE MTG. DATE 04/05/10 I Discussion COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review Council review 04/05/10 SL I I L 04/26/10 SL I I AGENDA ITEM TITLE Eight revenue options for addressing budget gap. CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution I I Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Mtg Date 04/26/10 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mig Date Mtg Date 04/05/10 SPONSOR Council Mayor Arlin Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal n P&R Police PW SPONSOR'S In accordance with Council request and the schedule established at the April 5, 2010 SUMMARY Regular Council meeting, staff is presenting information on eight revenue enhancement options previously identified by the Council as potential candidates for helping to close the City's budget gap. .COST,IMPACT /.FU SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED $N /A $N /A Fund Source: N/A Comments: ITEM INFORMATION I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: APRIL 5, 2010 F &S Cmte Parks Comm. RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION ATTACHMENTS Informational Memorandum dated 04/02/10 Revenue Enhancement Options (8) ITEM No. Il Transportation Cmte Planning Comm. APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $N /A 151 152 CITY OF TUKWILA REVENUE ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL AND ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL: Identify properties that are surplus to the City's current needs and evaluate potential sales. DESCRIPTION: The attached table Iists those properties that are currently surplus, and other properties that are underutilized at this time and could be sold or put to a different use. SERVICE IMPACT: Selling the surplus property could be accomplished with little cost and effort on the part of City staff. Each property should be reviewed separately to determine what the highest and best use of the property is, and determine whether selling the property is warranted. PROPOSAL DECISIONS: There are two major decision points in this proposal. 1) Whether to sell each particular property. 2a) If the decision is to sell, when should that sale take place? 2b) If the decision is to not sell, is there a better use for the property than its current use? NEXT STEPS: 1) Decide whether to sell each property. 2a) If the decision is to sell, decide when to sell. 2b) If the decision is to not sell, decide if there is a better use of the property than its current use. BUDGET IMPACT: ANNUAL REVENUE INCREASE LESS: COST OF PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 2010 2011 $2,470,000 ANNUAL NET INCREASE $2,470,000 (one -time) tukstore shawn -h$ budget \revenue enhancement proposal 04262010 rev- surplus property.docx /sdh Page 1 153 154 ALTERNATIVES: In addition to selling these properties, the City could opt to lease them to interested parties. The total annual lease value of the properties on the table below is $302,400. If the City leased some or all of these properties, this would provide an on -going revenue source rather than a one -time inflow of money from the sale of the property. Leasing the properties would more than likely incur a property management fee of an as yet undetermined amount. \tukstore \shawn -h$ \budget \revenue enhancement proposal 04262010 rev- surplus property.docx /sdh Page 2 Potential Surplus Property Description /Location Old Fire Station 53 -12026 42nd Ave S S 180114W Valley Highway Old Newporter site 149xx TIB, just north of Southtowne Auto Old Library/City Hall 15421 42nd Ave S 14688 Macadam Rd S `TOTALS; \tukstore Current Use Vacant front building; rear building used by PD for vehicle evidence sob-age. 2009 Land Land SF Assessed Value 3347400300 21,042 526,000.00 Parcel NC Machinery Generator 3623049037 9,583 storage with month -to -month agreement and no compensation to City Previously intended for 41000130 35,198 950,300 Northfield Car Wash, currently vacant Fire Station and vacant library 3365901275 50,530 202,100 539,100 Way Back Inn transitional housin; 0043000270 15,561 54,000 Way Back Inn transitional housin, 7661600270 204,781 115,500 192,000 ,S: '-2;019.900,00 2009 Building Estimated Sale SF Building Value Value 5,608 429,500.00 450,000 250,000 Estimated Annual Lease Value 60,000 Constraints Need to find new space for PD evidence storage (see recent F &S committee agenda for cost to move to leased space); served by an old shared septic system; new sewer and water would cost $50,000 to install; Demolition of buildings would cost $50,000+ 50,000 Small corner parcel without full access; need to research title (5500 to find easements 1,000,000 100,000 Appraisal to be done to determine current value, 500,000 300,000 60,000 One parcel contains FS 52, old library/city hall, and Hazelnut Park 1,020 200,000 220,000 14,400 Need to perform a title search; property may have been purchased with Open Space funds; sale value will be diminished by deed restrictions. 1,800 287,000 250,000 18,000 Need to perform a title search; property may have been purchased with Open Space funds; sale value will be diminished by deed restrictions. 1,419.SO0,0o 1, 0,6011,O0 302,400,00' shawn -h$ \budget \revenue enhancement proposal 04262010 rev- surplus property.docx /sdh Comments Lease and sale of existing land and buildings are constrained by the existing non conforming use in a residential zoned area; it is possible that a Short Plat of three(3) 6500+ SF lots could sell for 3`$150,000 each city staff can be used for the process at low cost. Certain uses that do not require full and unrestricted access could find this property to be of high value to their business. Any business requiring full and restricted access should be encouraged not to pursue this property. Tukwila Historical Society is interested in property; need to look at splitting lot to possibly save Hazelnut Park and Protect FS 52. North and east half of this 4 acre parcel is classified as a wetland Page 3 156 CITY OF TUKWILA REVENUE 1 HANCEMENT PROPOSAL AND ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL: Increase property tax assessments through an increase in the City's property tax levy rate, also known as a levy lid lift. DESCRIPTION: The City's levy rate for 2010 is $2.67 per $1,000 of assessed value. The City's overall assessed valuation for 2010 is $4,973,984,133. Each increase of $0.10 per $1,000 of assess value would generate just under $500,000 of additional property tax revenue. The City's maximum allowable levy rate is $3.10. An increase from the existing $2.67 to the maximum of $3.10 (an increase of $0.43) would generate just over $2.1 million in additional revenue. There are two options for levy lid lifts, both of which require voter approval. The first option is to increase the levy rate by a set amount or percentage, for instance, an increase in the levy rate of $0.25 per $1,000. This stated increase would remain in effect, unchanged through the duration of the lift period, unless made permanent. This option does not require the purpose of the lid lift to be stated in the ballot, nor does it have to be for a specific period of time, although stating a purpose and period of the lift might increase the chances of voter approval. The second option is to increase the levy rate initially by a specific rate, then index future increases for up to six years according to CPI, a specific percentage, or another method. At the end of the six years, the levy rate in effect at that time could be made the permanent levy rate if the original ballot measure indicated as such. A specific purpose must be included in the ballot title for this type of lid lift. The state statutes regarding this option require the increased property tax revenue not supplant other revenue. This would require funding of new programs or services. However, the legislature recently enacted a lifting of the "non- supplanting" language until January 1, 2012. Levy lid lifts approved before then would not be subject to the non supplanting limitations. SERVICE IMPACT: Implementation of a levy lid lift would require Iittle administrative effort, with the exception of getting the item on the ballot for voter approval. Once the lid lift is in place, no other time or expense would be involved with this new revenue source. The first option above can be placed on any election date listed in RCW 29A.04.321. The second option above can only be on the \tukstore \shawn -h$ \budget \revenue enhancement proposal 04262010 rev levy lid lift.docx /sdh Page 1 157 158 PROPOSAL DECISIONS: BUDGET IMPACT: August primary or November general election dates. A levy lid lift of $0.10 per $1,000 of assessed value would mean an increase in property taxes of $30 for an average house of $300,000 value. A levy lid lift of $0.43 per $1,000 of assessed value would result in an increase in property taxes of $129 for a home of $300,000 value. There are four major decisions with this proposal: 1) Determine whether to place a levy lid lift on the ballot for voter approval. 2) Determine what rate increase to include in the ballot language. The proposed levy lid lift rate could be anywhere from $0.10 to $0.43 per $1,000 of assessed value. This range of increase would generate between $500,000 and $2.1 million in additional property tax revenue. 3) Determine the use of the levy lid lift revenue, and consider placing this reason /justification in the ballot title. 4) Determine the timing of the ballot measure for voter approval (2010 vs. 2011). NEXT STEPS: 1) Decide on items 1— 4 above. 2) Set an approximate date for discussion at a Regular Meeting. Work with City Clerk's office to schedule a public hearing. ANNUAL REVENUE INCREASE LESS: COST OF PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ANNUAL NET INCREASE 2010 2011+ $500,000 $50,000* $450,000 Program administration cost above includes a rough estimate of one -time costs from King County for placing a levy lid lift on the ballot and preparation and distribution of ballot information. ALTERNATIVES: The City could decide to not implement an increase to the existing property tax levy rate and instead pursue other revenue enhancement or expenditure reduction options. \tukstore \shawn -h$ \budget \revenue enhancement proposal 04262010 rev levy lid lift.docx /sdh Page 2 PROPOSAL: Increase property tax assessments through an increase in the City's property tax levy rate via an EMS levy. DESCRIPTION: The City's levy rate for 2010 is $2.67 per $1,000 of assessed value. The City's overall assessed valuation for 2010 is $4,973,984,133. The City's maximum allowable levy rate is $3.10. CITY OF TUKWILA REVENUE ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL AND ASSESSMENT State statutes (RCW 84.52.069) allow for an additional regular property tax levy for emergency medical services of up to $0.50 per $1,000 of assessed value. King County currently has a county -wide levy in place for EMS purposes. The City could assess the difference, or $0.20 per $1,000 of assessed value. An assessment of $0.20 would generate just under $1,000,000 of additional property tax revenue at the City's current assessed valuation. There are two different scenarios for voter approval of an EMS levy. If at least 60 percent of the voters vote "yes," with a voter turnout of more than 40 percent of the number of people voting in the last general election, the measure is passed. However, if the voter turnout is 40 percent or less of the number voting in the last general election, all is not lost. In that case, as long as the number of "yes" votes is equal to at Ieast 60 percent times 40 percent of the number of people voting in the last general election, the measure will pass. The funds from an EMS levy can only be used for providing emergency medical care or emergency medical services. The levy can be assessed for either six consecutive years, ten consecutive years, or permanently. The levy is subject to the 1% annual limitation on increases, if not already assessed at the highest allowable rate. An EMS levy is subject to voter referendum at any time. The levy, though, is not subject to the overall limitation for junior or senior taxing districts (in this case, the City's limitation of $3.10 per $1,000 of assessed value). SERVICE IMPACT: Implementation of an EMS levy would require little administrative effort, with the exception of getting the item on the ballot for voter approval. Once the levy is in place, no other time or expense would be involved with this new revenue source. The levy can be placed on any election date listed in RCW \tukstore \shawn -h$ \budget \revenue enhancement proposal 04262010 rev ems levy.docx /sdh Page 1 159 160 PROPOSAL DECISIONS: NEXT STEPS: BUDGET IMPACT: 29A.04.321. An increase of $0.20 per $1,000 of assessed value would result in an increase in property taxes of $60 for an average home of $300,000 value. There are four major decisions with this proposal: 1) Determine whether to place an EMS Ievy on the ballot for voter approval. 2) Determine what rate increase to include in the ballot language. The maximum rate is $0.20 per $1,000 in assess value, and would result in just under $1,000,000 in additional property tax revenue. 3) Determine the use of the EMS levy revenue, and consider placing this reason/justification in the ballot title. 4) Determine the timing of the ballot measure for voter approval (2010 vs. 2011). 1) Decide on items 1— 4 above. 2) Set an approximate date for discussion at a Regular Meeting. Work with City Clerk's office to schedule a public hearing. ANNUAL REVENUE INCREASE LESS: COST OF PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ANNUAL NET INCREASE 2010 2011+ $1,000,000 $50,000* $950,000 Program administration cost above includes a rough estimate of one -time costs for placing an EMS levy on the ballot. ALTERNATIVES: The City could decide to not implement an EMS levy and instead pursue other revenue enhancement or expenditure reduction options. \tukstore \shawn -h$ \budget \revenue enhancement proposal 04262010 rev ems levy.docx /sdh Page 2 CITY OF TUKWILA REVENUE ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL AND ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL: Develop a land use permit fee structure that would recover the City's full cost to review applications. DCD proposes implementing an across the -board fixed fee increase for most permits while implementing a retainer plus hourly fees process for more complex, less predictable permit types such as unclassified uses, development agreements, comprehensive plan amendments and subdivisions. This would avoid the administrative effort and processing delay involved in tracking hours and issuing multiple bills to applicants where the revenue increase would be minimal. DESCRIPTION: Most cities, including Tukwila, use fixed land use fees which are simple to administer and predictable for applicants, however they do not account for the extra review time required for complex, controversial or frequently revised projects. In the past Tukwila has not set land use fees to recover costs, instead we have surveyed nearby jurisdictions and set our fixed fees around their average cost, see Attachment A. In 2009 we reset our fees to raise them where they were lower than average and provide at least a 4% increase over 2008 fees. For 2010 we increased the 2009 rates by 5 The other approach is payment of a retainer at application and then payment of an hourly fee for any review time in excess of that covered by the retainer. This requires that staff track their time by project and that we collect additional fees periodically and prior to permit issuance, increasing administrative costs. The advantage is that the applicant pays for the full cost of review. Based on our current salary, benefit and overhead costs staff has developed a combined hourly cost per planner of $92 for 2011. Other jurisdictions such as King County and Seattle charge hourly rates of $140 and $250. Many land use permits are routed to other departments such as Public Works, Building, Fire and Police so we should also capture their review hours. In addition we would add flat fees to cover administrative work based on whether the project requires a notice of application, notice of hearing, mailed staff report packet and notice of decision. SERVICE Full cost recovery would mean that we would move to a single fee system for all IMPACT: zones and raise appeal fees to cover staff and hearing examiner costs. We have historically charged lower fees for many permits on sites in the Low Density Residential Zone and have kept appeal fees nominal so as not to discourage legitimate appeals, therefore these permits would need to double or triple in cost. C:\DOCUME -1\ user\ LOCALS- 1 \Temp\XPgrpwise\REVENUE ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL 042620 ]0 Planning Fees_3.docx /sdh Page 1 161 162 PROPOSAL DECISIONS: Under either an hourly, fixed fee or hybrid approach application costs would rise significantly, in many cases doubling or more. We would need to increase our nominal pre application conference fee and would no longer be able to credit it toward a subsequent land use permit application fee. We suggest instituting a mailing charge of $1 per address per mailing (Notice of Application, Notice of Hearing) to cover the cost of paper and postage. Additional new fees have been included in the Noise and Sign Code Ordinances. There are two major decisions with this proposal: 1) Determine the extent to which Tukwila planning fees will be comparable to those of surrounding jurisdictions. 2) Determine whether to raise our fixed permit fees, move to an hourly fee system or develop a hybrid approach. NEXT STEPS: 1) Decide on items 1 2 above. 2) Set an approximate date for discussion at a Regular Meeting. Work with City Clerk's office to schedule an appropriate time and method for public input. BUDGET 2010 2011+ IMPACT: ANNUAL REVENUE INCREASE 100% LESS: COST OF PROGRAM ADMIN Covered by fees ANNUAL NET INCREASE 100% ($90,000 $120,000) Revenue estimates are only for comparison purposes. Actual revenues depend on the number and type of permits submitted. To be defensible permit fees should only recover costs incurred to provide review service. 2009 2008 2007 Actual Permit Revenue $86,129 $135,297 $119,944 Estimate w/New Fees $176,203 $252,444 $251,776 Percentage Increase 104% 87% 110% In addition we could look for ways to increase revenues by offering expedited ALTERNATIVES: review and reduce costs by streamlining our review processes. C:\DOCUME- 1 \user\LOCALS-1 \Temp\XPgrpwise\REVENUE ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL 04262010 Planning Fees_3.docx /sdh Page 2 'Land Use Permit Fees in Jurisdictions' La Neighbor Comparison pederalw V C' gurien Auburn $172 D iifere n Tones Gilles Net Average Net Difference Other of ce Neigh t DR o $286 1551 for Plus $516g minor $1,139 VONA 2010 Tukvilia fees App eal or `rype Decision Binding Site Plan 1mpro nt Shoreline Substantial DevvelopMent P?nrt Short Plat Short Plat 5-9 lots Varianc Appeal of Type 4 Decision r C7rel iminary nditional Use Permit r m it n eating P is+ �t4 o 0 C Rezone Code Text Zoning Amen Plat Subdivisio (10+ lots SEPA Checklist ange $2,03 $1,050 $1,050 $1 ,2$4 $1,139 $1 449 $1,449 NIA NIA ($260) $2,000 $453 NIA plus $5170 $3,000 $i201lot $1301 $4,76 $1- Plus $1,533 $52tlot $1,550 Plus 110 $80 $259/study $2' Other 1.DR Zones $22 $1,340 $2,100 $1,050 $2,100 $115 $2,685 $1,87 $383 785 $2,434 ($1,5g4 $188 ($73' $225 ($260' $2,685 $2,945 $527 $2,855 $2.402 ($130', $3830 +13 $4,618 $1050 $2,734 $1684 $818 $1 ,68 $2.033 $1,120 $3,790 $3,790 $3 ,7g1 $288 3,7g1 $4,767 $904 for $3,665 res $172 $3,665 $2.25 Upto $2,446 $1 3,818 $2,25 $2 25 $2,912 $1,59 Kent PP Renton $100 $7� $1,00 $1,0 $1 $1,000 $960 Plus $3,919 $761lot $1,0 $50 $2,213 $7F $215 $2 ,000 $588 multitam $2,00 $2213 Plus $11 NIA plus Plus $6,000 $1 s $1 000 or {or{ plus $4,101 $5411ot $2,000 $2,000 acres 4,500 $1600Iaor_ Plus $3,000 $10011ot i Varies 1000 {{tom __35-1-=400 to 300 upto $2,252 $3.113 plus $7 91acre X2, Plus Plu $2,203 $221lot \N! varies from 350 $3,000 to 8000 I $4,29 5 1$4,295 $2,0 NIf $4,00 1 $1,0 $1,00 $790 164 CITY OF TUKWILA REVENUE ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL AND ASSESSMEN T PROPOSAL: Create a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) with funding through a 0.2% increase in the sales tax rate for the City of Tukwila. DESCRIPTION: Cities may create a TBD with voter approval after conducting a public hearing. One of the options available is a 0.2% increase in the local sales tax rate. During 2009 Tukwila businesses generated just under $1.7 billion in taxable retail sales. At this level, an increase of 0.2% in the sales tax rate would generate approximately $3.4 million in additional sales tax receipts. Revenue collected must be used for qualifying transportation improvements. These include any transportation improvement contained in any existing local, state or regional transportation plan that is necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable congestion levels. Maintenance of existing and new facilities is an eligible expense. A Transportation Benefit District is a separate quasi municipal corporation and a separate taxing district from the City. The legislative authority, Tukwila City Council in this case, would be the governing body of the TBD. Revenue of the TBD need not be spent as they are collected. The TBD could fund infrastructure projects by selling bonds and use the sales tax collected for debt service payments. The TBD may also fund projects through transportation impact fees, but the City could not then collect transportation impact fees as well. SERVICE IMPACT: Creation of a Transportation Benefit District, and implementation of a 0.2% sales tax increase, can be accomplished with moderate administrative burden. The formation of a TBD would be subject to voter approval, so staff would need to work with the County to get the item on a future ballot. As a separate legal entity apart from the City, certain administrative functions would need to be conducted on behalf of the TBD, such as conducting meetings, maintaining meeting notes, retention of records, responding to records requests, separately accounting for the TBD revenue and expenses, etc. For an average consumer purchase of $100, the increase in sales taxes for \\tukstore\shawn-h$\budget\revenue enhancement proposal 04262010 rev tbd sales tax.docx /sdh Page 1 165 166 PROPOSAL DECISIONS: BUDGET IMPACT: funding of the TBD would result in an additional $0.20 in sales tax paid. There are four major decisions with this proposal: 1) Determine whether to place a sales tax funded Transportation Benefit District on the ballot for voter approval. 2) Determine the boundaries of a TBD. Could be citywide or smaller geographic area. 3) Determine the use of TBD revenue. The use of TBD revenue must be stated in the ordinance authorizing the ballot measure. 4) Determine the timing of the ballot measure for voter approval (2010 vs. 2011). NEXT STEPS: 1) Decide on items 1— 4 above. 2) Set an approximate date for discussion at a Regular Meeting. Work with City Clerk's office to schedule a public hearing. ANNUAL REVENUE INCREASE LESS: COST OF PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ANNUAL NET INCREASE 2010 2011+ $3,400,000 $50,000* $3,350,000 Program administration cost above includes a rough estimate of one -time costs for placing a sales tax funded TBD on the ballot. The administrative costs for operating a separate legal entity, including conducting meetings, taking minutes, providing for public notification of meetings, separately accounting for TBD revenue, etc, have not been estimated at this time. ALTERNATIVES: The City could decide to fund the TBD through another mechanism, such as a vehicle license fee, an excess property tax Ievy or through vehicle tolls. All of these options, though, require voter approval. The City could also decide to not create a TBD at all, and continue to fund such improvements through an allocation of sales tax receipts. \tukstore \shawn -h$ \budget \revenue enhancement proposal 04262010 rev tbd sales tax.docx /sdh Page 2 CITY OF TUKWILA REVENUE ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL AND ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL: Increase tax rate on city-run utilities to accomplish a $280,000 increase in utility tax revenue. DESCRIPTION: The City adopted Ordinance 2258 on October 19, 2009, enacting a utility tax of 15% from December 31, 2008 through April 30, 2010, and a rate of 10% from May 1, 2010 through December 31, 2012. The tax is on the City's water, sewer and surface water funds. An increase of three percent from May 1, 2010 on would generate approximately $300,000. If the sunset provision is removed from TMC 3.54.030, the tax would need to be included in cost assumptions for annual utility rate setting purposes. SERVICE IMPACT: Because the utility tax is a tax on the enterprise utility fund itself, and not on the customers, implementation of the tax, and changes to it, can be accomplished with minimal administrative burden. When the utility tax was originally adopted, the goal was to not pass the tax along to customers, but rather reduce the fund balance in the utility funds. Extension of the utility tax beyond the sunset period, if Council chooses to do so, will necessitate building this cost into the rate model for future years that utility customers pay. PROPOSAL DECISIONS: There are three major decisions with this proposal: 1) Increase current utility tax rate by 3% on the water, sewer and surface water funds. This would generate approximately $300,000 per year in revenue ($150,000 for half year in 2010, and $300,000 thereafter). 2) Extend sunset provision in the current utility tax ordinance. Rather than the current rate of 10% expiring at the end of 2012, it could expire at the end of the six -year financial planning period in 2015. This would generate approximately $1 million annually in revenue. 3) Some combination of the above, with a rate increase now through 2012, then a continuation of the utility tax past 2012 at a rate to be determined by Council. \tukstore \shawn -h$ \budget \revenue enhancement proposal revised utility tax.docx /sdh Page 1 167 168 NEXT STEPS: 1) Decide on items 1 3 above. 2) Decide whether to vote to implement this July or next January. 3) Set an approximate date for discussion at a Regular Meeting. BUDGET IMPACT: ANNUAL REVENUE INCREASE LESS: COST OF PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ANNUAL NET INCREASE 2010 2011+ $150,000 $300,000 $150,000 $300,000 ALTERNATIVES: The City could chose to not implement an increase to the existing tax on city run utilities and make up this difference either through other revenue enhancements, or additional expenditure reductions. \tukstore \shawn -h$ \budget \revenue enhancement proposal revised utility tax.docx /sdh Page 2 CITY OF TUKWILA REVENUE ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL AND ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL: Increase the fee for business licenses in Tukwila to accomplish a $160,000 increase in business license revenue. DESCRIPTION: The City last updated its business license fee amounts with Ordinance 2179 on October 15, 2007. Below is a table that illustrates the current and proposed fee amounts: of businesses Current Fee Pronosed Fee Home Occupation 172 $50 $100 0 to 20 Employees 1,898 $100 $150 21 to 50 Employees 222 $150 $300 51 to 100 Employees 67 $200 $400 101+ Employees 63 $300 $600 Total 2,422 The above proposed fees would generate approximately $169,000 of additional revenue per year. All fee categories would double, with the exception of the 0 to 20 employee category, which would go from $100 per license to $150. This is the single largest category of business licenses that the City issues. The table at the end of page two illustrates different license fee rates for businesses with various numbers of employees. SERVICE IMPACT: Implementation of a business license fee increase would be minimal by way of process and staff time. New forms and correspondence are printed each year with updated information, and the new fees would be included at that time. It is anticipated we would experience an increase in phone calls, at least initially, due to the fee increase. PROPOSAL DECISIONS: There are two major decisions with this proposal: 1) The number of employees in each category could be increased or decreased. 2) The proposed fee for each category could be raised or lowered. \tukstore \shawn -h$ \budget \revenue enhancement proposal revised business license fees.docx /sdh Page 1 169 170 NEXT STEPS: Business License Fee Options: Several different proposals are presented at the bottom of this page. 1) Decide on items 1— 2 above. 2) Decide on whether to vote to implement this July or next January. 3) Set an approximate date for discussion at a Regular Meeting. Original of of Proposal Employees Businesses Current Fee (Above) Option A Option B Option C 0 -5 172 50 100 50 50 50 0 -5 1268 100 150 100 100 100 6 -10 367 100 150 100 100 150 11 -15 162 100 150 150 150 200 16 -20 101 100 150 150 150 250 21 -25 67 150 300 300 300 300 26 -30 47 150 300 300 300 350 31 -50 108 150 300 300 500 400 51 -75 46 200 400 400 500 450 76 -100 21 200 400 400 500 500 101 -150 21 300 600 600 1,000 1,000 151 -250 23 300 600 600 1,000 1,000 251 -500 12 300 600 600 1,000 1,000 501+ 7 300 600 600 1,000 1,000 Total Revenue Generated 264,000 433,100 342,750 396,250 422,050 Increased Revenue (over Current) 169,100 78,750 132,250 158,050 Home occupations \tukstore \shawn -h$ \budget \revenue enhancement proposal revised business license fees.docx /sdh Page 2 PROPOSAL: CITY OF TUKWILA REVENUE ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL AND ASSESSMENT Enact a Revenue Generating Regulatory License (RGRL) fee, sometimes known as a head -tax, on businesses operating within the City to accomplish a $2.5 million increase in revenue in the General Fund. DESCRIPTION: The RGRL is a supplemental fee, and is charged in addition to the basic business license fee. Approximately twenty -seven cities in the state impose a RGRL. State statute allows for a variety of options for implementing the fee, including per employee, per hour worked, square footage of the business, or a combination of these or other factors. The statute also allows for a different fee based on the type of business, so long as every business within a particular classification is charged the same fee. The City of Seattle last year repealed their RGRL. The City of Renton imposes a fee of $55 per full time equivalent employee. The City of Redmond imposes a basic fee of $35 per employee, plus a surcharge of $55 per employee, for a total fee of $90. SERVICE IMPACT: Implementation of a RGRL would have impacts to staff in facilitating the program, including working with businesses and answering questions regarding completion of forms, formulas, employee eligibility, compliance, auditing of fee information as submitted by businesses, etc. It is expected that administration of an RGRL would require the addition of one full -time equivalent employee, plus typical supply and equipment costs. Additional marketing materials, publications, forms and postage would be needed as well. The projected annual cost of program administration is $150,000. PROPOSAL DECISIONS: The proposal is to implement a fee of $65 per full time equivalent employee. The fee would generate approximately $2.5 million in gross additional revenue each year in the General Fund, based on employee count data from 2009, as originally submitted on business license applications. There are three major decisions with this proposal: 1) Set the fee per FTE at $55.00 or at $65.00. The lower fee ($55) would tukstore shawn -h$ bud et revenue enhancement proposal revised g p p sed rgrl.docx /sdh Page 1 171 172 generate $2.1 million and the higher fee ($65) would generate $2.5 million. 2) A portion of the revenue generated could be dedicated to a particular item in the budget. As an example, 70% of the revenue could be dedicated to the Arterial Street fund with the remaining 30% going to the General Fund. 3) A future committee of citizens and business representatives could be formed to provide guidance to the City Council on what rates to set the fee at, what percentage to dedicate to a particular fund, and when to end the RGRL. NEXT STEPS: 1) Decide on items 1 3 above. 2) Decide on whether to vote to implement this July or next January. 3) Set approximate date for Regular Meeting. The City Clerk's office, in conjunction with the Council President, will finalize the date for the Regular Meeting as well as public input. BUDGET IMPACT: ANNUAL REVENUE INCREASE LESS: COST OF PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ANNUAL NET INCREASE 2010 $1,150,000 $75,000 $1,075,000 2011+ $2,500,000 $150,000 $2,350,000 Program administration costs include forms, postage, web site updates, auditing of returns after they are filed by taxpayers, responding to business inquiries, concerns and questions, etc. ALTERNATIVES: The City could chose to not implement a RGRL and make up this difference either through other revenue enhancements, or additional expenditure reductions. However, the available options for making up this amount of revenue are very limited. \tukstore \shawn -h$ \budget \revenue enhancement proposal revised rgrl.docx /sdh Page 2 CAS NUMBER: 10-049 CATEGORY Discussion Motion Mtg Dote 4/26/10 Mtg Date Fund Source: Comments: EXPENDITURE REQUIRED I MTG. DATE I I 4/26/10 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor'sje view I Council review 1 04/26/10 CO cam' Wye 05/03/10 CO I ITEM INFORMATION to- ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: APRIL 26, 2010 AGENDA ITEM TITLE A resolution formally adopting the Council Committee Meeting schedule. 'SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD n Finance Fire Legal P&R Police n PW SPONSOR'S RCW 42.30.030 states that all meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be SUMMARY open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of a public agency. While the City's website has the full schedule of Council Committee meetings, it is in the best interest of the City to formally adopt legislation, by way of resolution, that establishes the Council Committee meeting days. times. and locations. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. n Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DA1'E: 4/20/10 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. City Clerk's Office COMMIrILE Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole C :OST:IMPACT %::FUND= SOURCE Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Mtg Date 5/3/10 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date AMOUNT BUDGETED ECORD COUNCIL ACTION MTG. DATE I 4/26/10 Informational Memorandum dated 4/14/10 Resolution in draft form Council Procedures Ordinance #2024 Minutes from Finance and Safety Committee meeting of 4/20/10 ATTACHMENTS ITEM No. APPROPRIATION REQUIRED 173 174 TO: FROM: Christy O'Flaherty, City Clerk DATE: April 14, 2010 SUBJECT: A Resolution formally adopting the Council Committee Meeting Schedule ISSUE It is in the best interest of the City to adopt a Council resolution establishing the meeting dates, times, and locations of the 4 standing Council Committees. BACKGROUND The Council passed Ordinance #2024 on July 21, 2003 which established Council Meeting procedures. Section 2.04.180 states there are 4 standing Committees of the Council, consisting of 3 members each. The ordinance specifies the Council President shall appoint the membership of each Committee, and the Committee Chair shall set the schedule of meetings. DISCUSSION RCW 42.30.030 states "All meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of a public agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter." While the City's website has the full schedule of Council Committee meetings, it is in the best interest of the City to formally adopt legislation, by way of a resolution, that establishes the Council Committee meeting days, times, and locations. If and when the Council chooses different dates, times, or locations for the Council Committee meetings, a new resolution reflecting the changes can be adopted at that time. RECOMMENDATION The Council is being asked to consider this item at the April 26, 2010 Committee of the Whole meeting and subsequent May 3, 2010 Regular Meeting. ATTACHMENTS Resolution in draft form Council Procedures Ordinance #2024 W:\2010 InfoMemos\CommitteeSchedule.doc City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Finance and Safety Committee Jim Haggerton, Mayor 175 176 Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE MEETING SCHEDULE FOR CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES. WHEREAS, RCW 42.30.030 states that all meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public; and WHEREAS, all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of a public agency; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to inform all citizens of all City Council Committee meeting days, times and locations; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 2024 and Tukwila Municipal Code Section 2.04.180, there are four standing committees of the Council, consisting of three members each. A quorum of the Tukwila City Council (four members) will not be present at any Council Committee meetings. The Council President shall appoint the membership of each committee and the Committee Chair by the second Regular Meeting of each year. The Chair for each committee shall set the schedule of meetings and cause them to be published. All meetings are open to the public. Section 2. The Council Committee meeting schedule and locations are as follows: 1. Community Affairs and Parks Committee meetings shall be held on the second and fourth Monday of every month at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, in Conference Room No. 3, commencing at 5:00 p.m. 2. Finance and Safety Committee meetings shall be held on the first and third Tuesday of every month at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, in Conference Room No. 3, commencing at 5:00 p.m. 3. Transportation Committee meetings shall be held on the first and third Monday of every month at the City of Tukwila Public Works Department, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, Suite 100, commencing at 5:00 p.m. 4. Utilities Committee meetings shall be held on the second and fourth Tuesday of every month at the City of Tukwila Public Works Department, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, Suite 100, commencing at 5:00 p.m. Section 3. Committee meetings falling on a Monday holiday will be held on Tuesday, with the regularly scheduled Tuesday meeting moving to Wednesday. In the event there is a Tuesday holiday, the Committee meeting will move to Wednesday. Section 4. In the event there is a fifth Monday in a month, there will be no Council Committee meetings during that week. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Council Meeting thereof this day of 2010. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: W: \Word Processing Resolutions \Council Committee Meeting Schedule.doc MH:ksn 04/21/2010 Dennis Robertson, Council President Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Resolution Number: Page 1 of 1 177 178 :aunc11 Meeting Procedures 1 City of Tukwila (p4 Washin on Ordinance No. c.71 C 9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, SETTING COUNCIL MEETING PROCEDURES; REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS. 1311, 1345, 1421, 1770 §1, AND 1796 §3 (PART); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council has decided to alter the procedures under which it operates to provide for a more efficient and orderly governmental process; and WHEREAS, several different ordinances from various years now have portions of operating procedures that could more easily be followed in one ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 2.04 of the TMC is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.04.010 Meetings Declared Open and Public All meetings of the Tukwila City Council and its committees shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of these bodies, except as otherwise provided in Section 2.04.140. 2.04.020 Regular Meetings The City Council shall meet regularly on the first and third Mondays of each month at 7:00 p.m., unless an alternative starting time is set and notice is provided to the public pursuant to Section 2.04.040. If at any time any Regular Meeting falls on a holiday, the Council shall meet on the next business day at the same hour. The City Council shall meet at Tukwila City Hall, unless otherwise publicly announced. 2.04.030 Committee of the Whole Meetings A. The Council shall sit as a Committee of the Whole on the second and fourth Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m., unless an alternate starting time is published; except, if at any time any committee meeting falls on a holiday, the Council shall meet on the next business day at the same hour. The City Council shall meet at Tukwila City Hall, unless otherwise publicly announced. B. Meetings of the Committee of the Whole shall be held primarily for the purpose of considering current issues of the City, coordinating the work of the City Council, and discussing draft ordinances, resolutions and policy issues in detail. The Committee of the Whole will have no power to take final actions including, but not limited to, adopting ordinances or passing motions or resolutions. C. The Committee of the Whole may meet in a retreat setting to plan their work at the beginning of the year or at any time beneficial to in -depth deliberations by the Council. Results of the Committee of the Whole's retreats will be discussed with the Mayor and administration in order to establish and understand City goals. A report summarizing the proceedings will be made available following each retreat. No official action will be taken at a retreat. 2.04.040 Special Meetings Special meetings may be called by the Mayor, or any three Councilmembers by written notice delivered by City employee(s) to each member of the Council at least 24 hours before the time specified for the proposed meeting and with public notice made pursuant to RCW 42.30.080. 179 180 2.04.050 Quorum At all meetings of the City Council, four members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. 2 04.060 Seating A. Members of the City Council will be seated at the Council table according to seniority of the Council, except that the Council President will be seated at the right of the Mayor. B. Seniority shall be determined by the: 1. Greatest consecutive number of years served. 2. Greatest consecutive number of years plus months or years served prior to the current term(s). 3. Number of votes when elected. 2.04.070 Council President -Mayor Pro Tempore A. At the first Regular Meeting in January of each year, members of the City Council shall elect from their number a Council President who shall hold office at the pleasure of the Council. The general policy of Council is to elect presidents in a rotating order. If a vacancy occurs in the office of Council President, the City Council, at their next Regular Meeting, shall select a new Council President to serve the remainder of the year. B. In the absence of the Mayor, the Council President shall become the Mayor Pro Tempore and perform the duties of the Mayor except that the Council President shall not have the power to appoint or remove any officer or to veto any ordinance. If a vacancy occurs in the office of the Mayor, the City Council at their next Regular Meeting shall elect from their number a Mayor who shall serve until a Mayor is elected and certified at the next municipal election. 2 04.080 Presiding Officer A. All Regular and Special Meetings of the City Council shall be presided over by the Mayor or, in his /her absence, by the Mayor Pro Tempore. If neither the Mayor nor the Mayor Pro Tempore is present at a meeting, the presiding officer for that meeting shall be elected by a majority of the vote of those Councilmembers present, provided there is a quorum. B. All Committee of the Whole meetings shall be presided over by the Council President. If the Council President is temporarily absent, the Council shall elect a Councilmember to serve in that capacity until the Council President returns. C. The City Clerk or his /her designee will staff Regular and Special Council meetings and Committees of the Whole meetings. In the absence of the Clerk, Deputy Clerk or other qualified staff member appointed by the Clerk, the Mayor or Council may appoint a staff person to act in that capacity. D. The appointment of a Councilmember as Mayor Pro Tempore shall not in any way abridge his /her right to vote on matters coming before the Council at such meeting. E. The presiding officer shall preserve strict order and decorum at all meetings of the Council. The presiding officer shall state all questions coming before the Council, provide opportunity for discussion on each item on the table, and announce the decision of the Council on all subjects. Procedural decisions made by the presiding officer may be overruled by a majority vote of the Council. 2.04.090 Agenda for Regular or Special Council Meetings All items to be included on the agenda for Council consideration must be submitted to the City Clerk in full by 12:00 p.m. Noon on the Wednesday preceding each Council meeting. The City Clerk shall then prepare a proposed agenda, with attachments, according to the order of business. After the proposed agenda has been approved by the Council President or, in his /her absence, by his /her designated member of the City Council, the City Clerk shall prepare the final agenda, which shall be distributed to the Mayor, Councilmembers, City Attorney and Department Heads no later than Noon on the Friday preceding the Council Meeting. A copy of the agenda and subsequent documents shall be posted on the lobby bulletin board at City Hall. A copy of the Agenda face sheet will be posted on the City's website. Council Meeting Procedures 2 2 2.04.100 Agenda Format The format of a Regular or Special City Council agenda shall be as follows: A. Call to Order. B. Pledge of Allegiance. C. Roll Call. D. Special Presentations on key agenda items. E. Appointments and Proclamations of the Mayor. F. Citizens' Comments. This is an opportunity for the audience to comment on items not listed on the agenda. G. Consent Agenda. 1. Contains all consent agenda items approved by the Council President, from a Committee of the Whole, or forwarded by unanimous committee action, and routine items such as, but not limited to, approval of minutes and approval of vouchers. No ordinances, resolutions or bid awards will be included on the consent agenda. 2. The following rules shall apply to the consent agenda: a. Any member of the City Council may, by request and without a Council vote, have any items removed from the consent agenda. That item will, by automatic procedure, be placed under New Business for further discussion. b. The remaining items shall be approved by motion. H. Bid Awards. All competitive bid awards shall comply with RCW Title 39, and those that require Council approval shall include the contractor /vendor name, the project name, and the total dollar amount of the award. The award may or may not include Washington State Sales Tax. I. Public Hearings. 1. For public hearings required by City, State or Federal law or as the Council may direct. Examples may include, but not be limited to: a. LID b. Zoning c. Budget d. Revenue sharing grants e. Annexation f. Moratoria g. Quasi judicial decisions 2. The following procedures shall apply to public hearings, except public hearings subject to TMC Chapters 18.104 through 18.116, which shall be subject to the procedures specified therein: a. The presiding officer may exercise a change in the procedures, but said decision may be overruled by a majority vote of the City Council. b. The proponent spokesman shall speak first and be allowed 15 minutes. The Council may ask questions. c. The opponent spokesman shall be allowed 15 minutes for presentation and the Council may ask questions. d. Each side shall then be allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal. e. After the proponents and opponents have used their speaking time, Council may ask further questions of the speakers, who may respond. 3. At public hearings and for issues where a public meeting is required or requested, and a general audience is in attendance to present arguments for or against a public issue: a. A signup sheet for speakers will be available, and all citizens considering speaking will be asked to write their name and address legibly. If they speak without signing up, they will be asked to sign in after speaking. Council Meeting Procedures 3 3 181 182 b. A person may speak for five minutes. No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to speak. c. After the speaker has used the allotted time, Council may ask questions of the speaker and the speaker may respond, but may not engage in further debate. d. Speakers should address their comments to the City Council and should not address other audience members. No disparaging remarks or remarks directed to opponents will be allowed. e. The hearing will then be closed to public participation by the presiding officer and open for Councilmember discussion. J. Unfinished Business. This section of the agenda shall include items of a general nature, including resolutions and ordinances previously discussed at a Council meeting. The following procedures shall apply during this section of the agenda: 1. The item will be put on the table by motion. 2. The committee chair, sponsor or a designated spokesman of each item may give a presentation. 3. If a resolution or ordinance, the City Attorney or City Administrator may read the item by title only or, if requested by any Councilmember, the document may be read in its entirety. A motion by Council shall rule. 4. The Council may then question the sponsor or designated spokesman of the presented item. 5. When discussions conclude, the Council, by motion, will act upon the resolution, ordinance or other item. K. New Business. This section of the agenda shall include all items of a general nature including resolutions and ordinances previously discussed at a Committee Meeting and put forward to the Regular Meeting and items that have been removed from the consent agenda. The procedures that apply during this section shall be the same as those under Unfinished Business. L. Reports. Reports on special interest items from the Mayor, City Council, staff, City Attorney, and intergovernmental representatives. M. Miscellaneous. N. Executive Session. 0. Adjournment. 2. 04.110 Miscellaneous Agenda Procedures A. The City Council desires to provide adequate time for administration and staff analysis, fact finding and presentation. 1. Items to come before the City Council should first be placed on the agenda of the appropriate committee for discussion before they are placed on the agenda of a Regular Council Meeting. 2. All items that are not routine in nature and presented shall include a completed Council Agenda Synopsis (CAS), a staff report, and Committee Minutes. The City Clerk or a designated person shall be responsible for attaching a CAS number, keeping the original CAS, and maintaining an index for future reference. B. The agenda and provision for the Committee of the Whole shall be citizen comments, committee reports, discussion of items referred from committees, items referred by three Councilmembers, and items set by the Council President. The agenda and any attachments will be approved by the Council President or his /her designee, and shall be prepared by the City Clerk for distribution to the Council by 12:00 p.m, Noon on Friday. C. Items may be placed directly on the agenda of a Regular Meeting when the items are approved by the Council President, and: 1. The items are routine in nature, such as approval of vouchers, proclamations, acknowledgement or receipt of petitions or documents, or discussion of claims for damages. Council Meeting Procedures 4 4 2. An emergency condition exists that represents a personnel hazard, impending deadline, or risk of immediate financial loss. In such instances, the CAS summary or staff memo should clearly define why the special procedure is necessary. 3. In the event the sponsor of any items to come before the City Council feels it both appropriate and beneficial to the City, that sponsor may bring such items directly to the Regular Meeting with the concurrence of three Councilmembers. D. The Council President may affix an approximate time limit for each agenda item at the time of approval of the agenda. E. All proposed ordinances and resolutions shall be reviewed by the City Attorney and bear the Attorney's certification that they are in correct form before final passage. All accompanying documents shall be available before ordinances and resolutions can be passed. F. Resolutions of the City Council shall be signed by the Council President. G A joint resolution of the City Council and the Mayor may be proposed when: 1. The subject of the resolution is of broad City concern, and the subject contains Council policy and administrative procedure; or 2. The subject of the resolution is of a ceremonial or honorary nature. H. Joint resolutions will be subject to the voting rules in TMC Chapter 2.04.130 and will be signed by the Mayor and Council President. The Council may provide for all Councilmembers to sign the joint resolution enacted under TMC Chapter 2.04.110 G. 2.04.120 Speaking Procedures A. Speaking procedure for agenda items under consideration is as follows: 1. A Councilmember desiring to speak shall address the chair and, upon recognition by the presiding officer, shall confine him /herself to the question under debate. Recognition of Councilmembers shall be by seniority. 2. Any member, while speaking, shall not be interrupted unless it is to call him or her to order. 3. No Councilmember shall speak a second time on the same motion before an opportunity has been given each Councilmember to speak on that motion. B. Addressing the Council for items under Council discussion shall proceed as follows: 1. Any person, with the permission of the presiding officer, may address the Council, but the presiding officer shall be required to recognize speakers in the following order: a. A person designated by the presiding officer to introduce the subject under discussion. b. Those whose request to be heard is contained in the written agenda. c. Those who have submitted their request to be heard in writing or to the City Clerk before the meeting. d. Those who ask recognition from the floor. 2. In addressing the Council, each person shall advance to the podium and, after recognition, give name and address, and unless further time is given by the presiding officer shall limit his /her address to five minutes. All remarks shall be made to the Council as a body and not to any individual member or to the audience. 3. No person shall be permitted to enter into any discussion from the floor without first being recognized by the presiding officer. 4. Any person making personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks while addressing the Council shall be barred from further audience participation by the presiding officer unless permission to continue is granted by a majority vote of the Council. 2.04.130 Voting A. Silence of a Councilmember during a voice vote shall be recorded as an affirmative vote except where such a Councilmember abstains because of a stated conflict Council Meeting Procedures 5 5 183 184 of interest. Each member present must vote on all questions before the Council and may abstain only by reason of conflict of interest. B. A roll -call vote may be requested by the presiding officer or any member of the Council. Voting normally shall be by seniority; however, this procedure may be changed by the presiding officer. C. Confirmations of appointments by the Mayor, budget transfers, personnel levels, and formal motions, resolutions, ordinances and amendments thereto shall require the affirmative votes of four Councilmembers. 2.04.140 Executive Sessions The City Council may hold an Executive Session during a Regular Meeting, Special Meeting or Committee of the Whole meeting to consider certain matters as set forth in RCW 42.30.110. 2.04.150 Continuances Any hearing being held or ordered to be held by the City Council may be continued in the manner as set forth by RCW 42.30.100. 2.04.160 Adjournment A. Any Committee of the Whole, Regular, adjourned Regular, Special or adjourned Special Meeting may be adjourned in the manner as set forth in RCW 42.30.090. B. All meetings of the Council shall adjourn no later than 11:00 p.m. If the Council desires to extend the meeting, a motion shall be required of a majority plus one vote of Councilmembers present. Items not acted on by the 11:00 p.m. deadline shall be deferred to the next respective Council meeting as unfinished business, unless Council, by a majority vote of members present, determines otherwise. 2.04.170 Questions of Parliamentary Procedure Questions of parliamentary procedure not covered by this chapter shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised (latest edition). 2.04.180 Council Committees and Representatives A. There are four standing committees of the Council consisting of three members each. The Council President shall appoint the membership of each committee and the committee chair by the second Regular Meeting of each year. The chair for each committee shall set the schedule of meetings and cause them to be published. In the event a committee member is unable to attend a meeting, that member may ask another Councilmember to attend in his /her place. B. The standing committees shall consider and may make policy and legislative recommendations to the City Council on items referred to the committee by the Council President, the Council, administrative departments, boards or commissions. If budgeted in an amount less than or equal to $25,000, a committee can approve a bid or negotiation award by an affirmative vote of three committee members. If a unanimous committee vote is not obtained, the award will be referred to the City Council for action. The standing committees, their scopes of authority, and the supporting City departments are as follow: 1. Transportation Committee, which shall consider matters related to transportation, transportation plans, traffic, transit, streets, street lighting, signals, street LIDs, and rights -of -way in coordination with the Public Works Department and Department of Community Development. 2. Utilities Committee, which shall consider matters related to water; sewer; electric power; natural gas; telephone; cable television; telecommunications; solid waste reduction, reuse and recycling; river basins; and levies in coordination with the Public Works Department. 3. Finance and Safety Committee, which shall consider matters related to the general fiscal and financial operations of the City; budget and financial reports; and policy matters related to personnel including, but not limited to, the salary grade schedule, position classifications and salary changes in coordination with the Finance Department, Administrative Services Department, and City Administrator. They will consider library issues, tourism, administrative matters, and information technology issues in conjunction Council Meeting Procedures 6 6 with the City Clerk, Library Advisory Board, Lodging Tax Advisory Board, Chamber of Commerce, and Information Services. They shall consider matters related to police and fire protection; the municipal court; emergency services; and animal control in coordination with the Police Department, Fire Department, Civil Service Commission, Public Works Department, and Community- Oriented Policing Board. 4. Community Affairs and Parks Committee, which shall consider matters related to the planning of the physical, economic, aesthetic, cultural and social development of the City; and Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, Building Code, code enforcement, Sign Code and annexation policies, in coordination with the Department of Community Development, Human Services, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner, Sister Cities Committee, Human Services Advisory Board, and the Equity and Diversity Commission. They shalt consider matters relating to parks and park plans, recreation facilities and community activities, in coordination with the Parks and Recreation Department, the Arts Commission, and Park Commission. B. The Council President may establish such ad hoc committees as may be appropriate to consider special matters that do not readily fit the standing committee structure or that require special approach or emphasis. The Council President shall appoint Council representatives to intergovernmental councils, boards and committees as needed. C. Council committees shall consider all matters referred. Each committee chair shall report to the Council the findings of the committee. Committees may refer items to the Council with no committee recommendation. D. Each committee chair may review and approve his /her committee agenda and will approve committee minutes before distribution. The committee chair can authorize the cancellation of a committee meeting. An affirmative vote of three members of Finance and Safety Committee is required when the committee approves unbudgeted items. 2.04.190 Filling Council Vacancies If a vacancy occurs in the office of Councilmember, the Council will follow the procedures outlined in RCW 35A.12.050. In order to fill the vacancy with the most qualified person available until an election is held, the Council will widely distribute and publish a notice of the vacancy, the procedure and any application form for applying. The Council will draw up an application form, which contains relevant information to answer set questions posed by the Council. The application forms will be used in conjunction with an interview of each candidate to aid the Council selection of the new Councilmember. Section 2. Repealer. Ord. Nos. 1311, 1345, 1421, 1770 §1, and 1796 §3 (part) are hereby repealed. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUI WILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2003. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: 7h 3 Passed by the City Council: 7/. /d 3 Published: 7/1yr.1 Effective Date: '7/3o Ordinance Number: ;Vi ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: )4. --2 And E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: /t1,'A Office of the Cit Attorney Council Meeting Procedures 7 7 185 186 FINANCE AND SAFETY COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes April 20, 2010 5:00 p.m.; Conference Room #3 PRESENT Councilmembers: De'Sean Quinn, Chair; Allan Ekberg and Kathy Hougardy Staff: Shawn Hunstock, Dave Haynes, Christy O'Flaherty and Kimberly Matej Guest: Chuck Parrish CALL TO ORDER: Chair Quinn called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. City of Tukwila Finance and Safety Committee II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Resolution: Council Committee Meeting Schedule Staff is seeking Council approval of a resolution that formally adopts the Council Committee meeting schedule. Christy O'Flaherty, City Clerk, recently identified adoption of the Council Committee schedule via resolution as an efficient way to provide notice to the public of Council related meetings. In adherence to the Open Public Meetings Act and transparency in government, it is a best business practice for the City to provide this information through formal legislation. The legislation will be updated annually as needed. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 26 COW FOR DISCUSSION. B. New Travel Policy As an information only item, Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director, gave the Committee an overview of a new travel policy for City employees which is anticipated to be implemented in June. The new policy is a complete replacement of the previous policy. Highlights of the new policy include: a Allows for a per diem. a Decreases costs involved in preparing claim for expenses. a Refines procedure requirements and adds clarity (i.e: travel status and meal reimbursement) a Clarifies lodging expenses when not in travel status During review and discussion of policy specifics, Committee members acknowledged the purposes of the policy relative to providing structure and cost containment issues. Although the goals of the policy are good, the Committee has requested additional information as to how this policy compares to that of other cities as well as practical application (i.e.: can the policy be changed if other processes are determined to be more efficient The Committee also noted that this is not solely an operational policy issue, since there is an intricate link between the effects this policy has on Councilmembers and related travel. Specifically, the Committee expressed concern over how this policy may or may not be applied to legislative- related travel to higher priced areas (i.e.: Washington, DC) as well as the issue of compensable wages as a fringe benefit. INFORMATION ONLY. STAFF WILL RETURN TO A FUTURE FINANCE SAFETY MEETING TO DISUCSS THIS ITEM FURHTER. C. Animal Control/Services Undate As an information only item, Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director, returned to the Finance and Safety Committee to provided updated information on the animal control services (also see Finance and Safety 187 188 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS F Meeting Date Prepared by I Mayor',prisOep I Council review 04/26/10 EB et tar 05/03/10 EB Initial ITEM NO. ITEM INFORMATION CAS NUMBER: 10-050 (ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: APRIL 26, 2010 AGENDA ITEM TITLE 2011 CDBG application for Minor Home Repair Program CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Mtg Date 4/26/10 Mtg Date 5/3/10 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PTV SPONSOR'S Council approval requested for Mayor's signature on 2011 application for Community SUMMARY Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to be used for Minor Home Repair for the cities of Tukwila, SeaTac, Des Moines, and Covington REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte n Arts Comm. n Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DA_ E: 4/12/10 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Mayor's Office COMMITTEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole COST,IMPACT'l FUND:SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED $110,000 Fund Source: HUMAN SERVICES GENERAL FUND Comments: *Funds are paid upfront by the city and reimbursed by King County MTG. DATE MTG. DATE 04/26/09 :CORD OE'CO.UNCIL ACTION APPROPRIATION REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS Informational Memorandum dated 04/12/10 King County Pre- Application Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee Meeting of 04/12/10 189 190 TO: City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Community and Parks FROM: Evie Boykan, Human Services Manager DATE: April 12, 2010 SUBJECT: Authorization to submit CDBG Application for Minor Home Repair 2011 ISSUE King County must receive the Mayor's signature by authorization from the City Council to submit the annual application to King County for Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. These funds target the Tukwila Minor Home Repair program. For 2011, we again propose serving as the fiscal administrator for minor home repair in the cities of Tukwila, SeaTac, Des Moines, and Covington. This program successfully assists low and moderate income homeowners in maintaining their homes. BACKGROUND Jim Haggerton, Mayor The Office of Human Services has been administering this program in -house since 2005. In 2009 our contractors served 24 unduplicated households with 165 hours of labor. Tukwila's current budget for this program is $100,000 for the entire program and $25,000 for Tukwila. We propose asking for $110,000 to cover work related to new regulations on lead based paint. DISCUSSION This application competes county wide with other capital federal applications from both cities and non profit agencies. Tukwila sits at the table to recommend capital projects, but of course cannot vote on their own application. RECOMMENDATION We seek Council support for this application and look forward to discussion at the April 26, 2010 Committee of the Whole Meeting and subsequent May 3, 2010 Regular Meeting. ATTACHMENTS Part I of the Application to King County. W:12010 I nfoMemos \MinorHomeRepair2011.doc 191 192 PRE APPLICATION FORM for 2011 CDBG Capital Funds Deadline: April 9th, 2010 The purpose of this pre application is to assist CDBG applicants with the submission of their project proposals. Using the answers provided by applicants, we hope to ensure that proposals contain all necessary information to qualify by the final I application deadline. If the proposed project is ineligible under the CDBG Program guidelines, this screening will prevent the applicant from spending time on an unnecessary final application. (For paper forms, please type or print legibly) Released: March 10, 2010 King County King County Department of Community and Human Services Community Services Division Housing and Community Development Program King County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consortium Funding 2011 *North /East sub region Identify the Sub Region you are located *see bottom of page 4): Both Sub regions 1. Project Title: Tukwila, SeaTac, Des Moines, Covington Minor Home Repair program 2. Project Location: The jurisdictional boundaries of Tukwila, SeaTac, Des Moines and Covington Agency Name: City of Tukwila Agency Address: 6200 Southcenter Blvd, Tukwila,WA 98188 Contact Person: Evelyn Boykan Title: Human Services Manager Telephone: 206- 433 -7180 Email Address: eboykan @ci.tukwila.wa.us 3. On page 2 please provide a brief description of the proposed project. Include the project location, address, the geographic area the project will serve, and the population group the project will serve in King County. 4. Identify the category to which you are applying Community Facilities Microenterprise Pu blic Improvements Parks 5. Identify the population that will be served, Lo w/Moderate Income Elderly Persons with Disabilities Horn eless Other: 6. Is acquisition of property or right of way involved? Yes 0 No SUBMITTAL of PRE APPLICATION REQUIRED to QUALIFY for FUNDING Minor Home Repair Other *South sub region 7. Indicate amounts requested from Joint Agreement Cities of Federal Way, Renton or Shoreline and other funders (if any): Indicate Cities: (check all that apply) CDBG Joint Agreement Cities I Total Funding Federal Way Renton Shoreline I Other Grant, State, Federal Funding I Private Fundraising: I Total Other Funds: I $0 8. Estimate amount of funds you anticipate requesting: King County Consortium CDBG Funds Requested: Total Other Funds: Total Project Cost: $110,000 $0 $110,000 Status Indicate one: Anticipated I Committed Award Date I I I Alternate formats available moon request (206) 296 -9092. or TTY:711 Relay Service) 193 194 Response to question 3: Project Description: Describe in detail what you plan to acquire, construct, or rehabilitate. Give specific, details related to the project and proposed use of the CDBG funds. Identify the permits that will be required for the project as well as any land use approvals (i.e. lot line adjustment, subdivision, rezone, conditional use, etc.) Limit answer to space provided. Funds will be used to pay licensed contractors to provide minor home repair to income eligible populations within the jurisdictions of Tukwila, SeaTac, Des Moines and Covington. Staff support from each respective city is contributed to administer the program at each respective city while the City of Tukwila provides support as the fiscal agent. Repairs target maintaining the safety and health of the residents and preserving the housing as well as conserving energy. All permits required by consistency with city code are obtained as necessary. Activities include but are not limited to earthquake preparedness, small plumbing and electrical repairs, preventive maintenance activities, etc. The program is offered to residents on a first come first serve basis with safety and health concerns being prioritized. This subregional program has successfully widened it's scope of influence each year by bringing on new city partners to meet the needs of communities with affordable homeownership housing stock in need of preventive maintenance and repair. The majority of residents served in the program are extremely low to very low in income. Additional funds have been added to cover the costs of environmental review and lead based paint regulations. Return this form by April 9, 2010 by FAX, electronically by e-mail or hand deliver by close of business to: Kathy Tremper, Community Development Coordinator King County Housing and Community Development; 401 Fifth Avenue, Suite 510, Seattle, WA 98104. Telephone: (206) 263 -9097 Fax (206) 296 -0229 TTY: 711 (Relay Service). If sending fax, please confirm that receipt of document with Kathy Tremper. Kathy.tremper @kingcounty.gov Alternate formats available upon request (206) 296- 9092, or TTY:711 (ReravServicel To request additional information contact King County Housing Community Development Program (HCD), (206) 293 -9092, or TTY:711 (Relay Service). ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES Fire Protection acquisition, design, construction or rehabilitation of fire protection facilities and purchase of fire protection equipment. Relocation relocation payments and assistance to individuals, families or businesses displaced temporarily or permanently by a CDBG project. A CDBG proposal which may entail relocation must include a relocation plan and budget. Community Facilities acquisition, design, construction, or rehabilitation of community facilities which primarily serve, or will serve, low- and moderate income persons. CDBG funds can be used to acquire, rehabilitate, or construct senior centers, food banks, emergency shelters, and community clinics. Minor Home Repair Programs activities related to emergency repairs including activities that protect, repair or arrest the effects of disasters, imminent threats or physical deterioration that pose an imminent danger to life, health or safety. Public Infrastructure Improvements paving of gravel streets; installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage, etc. Environmental Quality Projects design, construction or reconstruction of water and sewer projects, flood drainage facilities, and solid waste disposal facilities to serve existing low- and moderate income communities or neighborhoods. Parks, Recreation, Open Space acquisition, design, site preparation, drainage, construction or rehabilitation of parks or recreational facilities. Any park structure must be permanently affixed. Communities can use these funds to build picnic shelters, and purchase and install play structures. Streets, Walkways, and Architectural Barriers street improvements such as curb and roadside drainage; purchase and installation of traffic signals; construction of walkways, crosswalks, neighborhood roads, parking lots, and pedestrian malls; and ;the removal of architectural barriers that bar persons with disabilities and elderly and limit their mobility within the public right of :way. Removal of Architectural Barrier A projec t w hich rem oyes material or architectural barriers restri cting m obility and accessibility of elderly persons or adults meeting the Bureau of the Census' Current Popul ation Reports def inition of "severely disabled" to publicly -owned and privately -owned nonresidential buildings, facilities and improvements, and the common areas of residential structures containing more than one dwelling unit is considered to benefit primarily low- and moderate income persons if it is restric ted to the extent possible t o the rem oval of sue h b arriers. (Must b e q ualified through Pu blic Facility or Pu blic Improvement) Alternate formats available upon request (206) 296 -9092 or TTY:711 &lav Service) 195 WaMIQ ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS Presumed Benefit Certain groups are presumed by HUD to be principally low- and moderate income. These are abused children, battered spouses, elderly persons, adults meeting the Bureau of the Census' Current Population Reports !definition of "severely disabled," homeless persons, illiterate persons, persons living with AIDS, and migrant farm workers. Verification of Benefit For public facility projects: Agency client data must verify the income of those receiving benefit, and at least 51% of the beneficiaries must be low- and moderate income. For public infrastructure improvement projects of a neighborhood or community -wide benefit at least 45.2% of the beneficiaries must be low- and moderate income. Income Eligibility (Direct Benefit) Requirements In this case, each direct beneficiary is screened for income to restrict project benefit to only those persons who are low- and moderate income. Benefit by Nature /Location of the Project This means that the project activity is of such a nature and in such a location that it may be concluded that the clientele will be primarily low- and moderate income persons; for instance, a food bank at an assisted housing project. Request For Proposal (RFP) application are available for non profit organizations and public agencies only who serve residents of: North/East sub region cities: Beaux Arts, Bothell, Carnation, Clyde Hill, Duvall, Hunts Point, Issaquah, Kenmore, Kirkland, Lake Forest Park, Mercer Island, North Bend, Redmond, Sammamish, Skykomish, Snoqualmie, Woodinville and Yarrow Point. South sub region cities: Algona, Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Maple Valley, Pacific, SeaTac and Tukwila. Please return the Pre Application form to: King County Housing and Community Development; Kathy Tremper, Community Development Coordinator; 401 Fifth Avenue, Suite 510, Seattle, WA 98104. Telephone: (206) 263 -9097 Fax (206) 296 -0229 TTY: 711 (Relay Service). If sending fax, please confirm receipt. 196 March 10, 2010 April 9, 2010 April 12, 2010 Applications March /April /May May 21, 2010 June July 2010 August, 2010 Evaluation August 13, 2010 August (TBD); 2nd September 23, 2010 November 2010 January 1, 2011 New FUNDING TIMELINE Pre- Applications Available on Web Pre Applications Due (Required to be eligible to submit Application Available Technical Assistance Workshops and One on One consultation w /HCD Staff Applications Due to King County HCD, 12:00 p.m. Review Process (Applicants may be contacted during this time for additional information). Process King County Community Development Block Grant Consortium Cities are: Public Forum Applicant Presentations at the King County International Airport Sub Regions Advisory Group(s) meet finalize award recommendations (if needed) Meeting (if needed) JRC Adopts/Modify Recommendations Applicants are notified of awards program year begins *North/East sub region cities: Beaux Arts, Bothell, Carnation, Clyde Hill, Duvall, Hunts Point, Issaquah, Kenmore, Kirkland, Lake Forest Park, Mercer Island, North Bend, Redmond, Sammamish, Skykomish, Snoqualmie, Woodinville and Yarrow Point. *South sub region cities: Algona, Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Maple Valley, Pacific, SeaTac and Tukwila. on ble upon 20�6� 29079092.... or TTY 711 (Relay Service) A ternate_f orma s ava! a request COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes April 12, 2010 5:00 p.m.; Conference Room #3 PRESENT Councilmembers: Joe Duffie, Chair; Joan Hernandez and Verna Seal Staff: Kathy Stetson, Stacy MacGregor, Mary Hulvey, Jack Pace, Evie Boykan, Bruce Linton, Mayor Haggerton, Steve Lancaster and Kimberly Matej Guests: Chuck Parrish CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Duffie called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. 2011 Minor Home Renair Program Staff is seeking Council authorization to submit the 2011 Community Development Block Grant application to King County requesting $110,000 for the Minor Home Repair Program. City of Tukwila Community Affairs and Parks Committee The City's application proposes to continue the Human Services Minor Home Repair Program for Tukwila as well as the fiscal management (via self renewing interlocal agreements) of similar programs for the cities of SeaTac, Des Moines and Covington. This year's proposal asks for additional funding to address work with lead based paint. As with past applications, incorporation of multiple cities into one application makes our request more competitive against other projects. The funding for this program is not a guarantee. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 26 COW FOR DISCUSSION. B. Interlocal Aareement between Tukwila and Kina Counts/ regarding Permits for the Tukwila South Annexation Area Staff is seeking Council approval of an interlocal agreement with King County for the processing of building permits and land use applications that were filed with King County prior to Tukwila's annexation of the southern most portion of the City. There are currently four permit- related items outstanding that were filed with the County prior to the City's annexation (two land use applications, one construction permit and one code enforcement file). This interlocal agreement will allow King County to complete outstanding actions as necessary on these applications and/or files as well as provide continuity of permitting In addition to the interlocal agreement, staff distributed a draft resolution at the Committee meeting which authorizes King County to charge applicant fees as relative and appropriate for the above items. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 26 COW FOR DISCUSSION. C. DRAFT Noise Ordinance Staff is seeking Council approval of a draft ordinance relating to noise. Adding clarity to definitions, enforcement and standards, this will repeal the current Noise Ordinance which was last amended in 2002. The Committee was provided with an update on the draft ordinance last December (see CAP minutes dated December 14, 2009). At that time, staff suggested the ordinance be separated into two sections (to improve efficiency and enforcement); however, they have since determined that this separation did not provide the 197 198 AGENDA ITEM TI"fLE CATEGORY SUMMARY REVIEWED BY Fund Source: Comments: 1 MTG. DATE 1 04/26/10 MTG. DATE 04/26/10 EXPENDITURE REQUIRED Meeting Date 04/26/10 05/03/10 Co UNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS 1 ITEM INFORMATION CAS NUMBER: 10-051 ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: APRIL 26, 2010 Interlocai agreement between King County and the City of Tukwila relating to processing of building permits and land use applications for the Tukwila South annexation area. Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Mtg Date 04/26/10 Mtg Date Pits Date 05/03/10 Mtg Date Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police Pty Interlocal agreement between King County and the City of Tukwila to have King County staff continue to process any building permits or land use applications that were filed with King County prior to the Tukwila South annexation becoming effective. The Council is being asked to consider the interlocal agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign it and approve the resolution authorizing King County to charge application fees per Kina County Code. COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DATE: 4/12/10 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Department of Community Development COMMI"ITE Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED Prepared by JP JP Irntlats c —cotincikevieu/ WAX Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date ECORD COUNCILACTION ITEM No. ATTACHMENTS Informational Memorandum dated 04/20/10 Resolution in draft form Interlocal Agreement between King County and City of Tukwila Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 4/12/10 199 200 TO: ISSUE BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Committee of the Whole FROM: Jack Pace, Community Development Director DATE: April 20, 2010 Jim Haggerton, Mayor SUBJECT: Interlocal agreement between King County and the City of Tukwila relating to processing of building permits and land use applications for the Tukwila South annexation area. Should the City enter into an interlocal agreement with King County to have King County staff continue to process any building permits or land use applications that were filed with King County prior to the Tukwila South annexation becoming effective as they are vested to King County Code? There are only a couple of building permits and land use applications that were filed with King County prior to the Tukwila annexation becoming effective. Since these permits are vested to King County Code these would have to be reviewed under the King County Code. The list of permits that the City received from King County includes two land use applications for a cell tower; one construction permit to work in the public right -of -way; and two grading permits related to one code enforcement file for an illegal fill. In order for King County to continue to process and complete these applications an interlocal agreement between the two jurisdictions has to be in approved by the City Councils of both jurisdictions. A draft interlocal agreement is attached for your review. Also, per section of the agreement city shall adopt legislation authorizing King County to charge applicants fees per King County Code. A resolution authorizing King County to charge their fees is also attached. If the Committee of the Whole agrees then the next step is to schedule this item for Regular Council meeting on May 3, 2010, where the City Council may authorize the Mayor to sign the interlocal agreement and adopt the resolution authorizing the County to charge applicants fees per King County Code. Resolution authorizing King County to charge applicants fees per King County Code Interlocal Agreement between King County and City of Tukwila. 201 202 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATED TO THE PROCESSING OF BUILDING PERMITS AND LAND USE APPLICATIONS FILED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE TUKWILA SOUTH ANNEXATION AREA. WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila and King County entered into an interlocal agreement related to the processing of building permits and land use applications; and WHEREAS, any building permits and land use applications filed with King County prior to the effective date of the Tukwila South Annexation are vested to the King County Code; and WHEREAS, the interlocal agreement states that the City shall adopt legislation authorizing King County to charge building permit and land use application fees in amounts currently specified or hereafter adopted in King County Code Title 27 for applications processed by the County in accordance with the terms of the interlocal agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The City of Tukwila authorizes King County to charge fees in amounts currently specified or hereafter adopted in King County Code Title 27 for applications processed by King County in accordance with the terms of the interlocal agreement between King County and the City of Tukwila related to the processing of building permits and land use applications filed with King County prior to the effective date of the Tukwila South Annexation. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2010. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney DA ri Attachment: Interlocal Agreement with King County W: \Word Processing \Resolutions \Tukwila South KC Interlocal.docx JP:ksn 04/21/2010 Dennis Robertson, Council President Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Resolution Number: Page 1 of 1 203 204 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF TUKWILA RELATING TO PROCESSING OF BUILDING PERMITS AND LAND USE APPLICATIONS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day by and between the City of Tukwila, a municipal corporation in the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as the "City and King County, a home rule charter County in the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as the "County WHEREAS, the City annexed an area of unincorporated King County described in Attachment 1 (referred to herein as the annexation area); and WHEREAS, all Local governmental authority and jurisdiction with respect to the Annexation Area transfers from the County to the City upon the date of annexation; and WHEREAS, the County and City agree that having County staff process various Annexation Area building permits and land use applications on behalf of the City for a transitional period will assist in an orderly transfer of authority and jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, it is the parties' intent by virtue of this Agreement that any and all discretionary decisions shall be made by the City; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is authorized by the Interlocal Cooperation Act, RCW Chapter 39.34; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and provisions, it is agreed by and between the City and the County as follows: 1. Fees. The City shall adopt legislation authorizing the County to charge applicants fees in amounts currently specified or hereafter adopted in King County Code Title 27 for applications processed by the County in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 2. Pre annexation Building Permit Applications Filed with King County. 2.1 Except as otherwise provided for herein, the County shall continue to review on behalf of the City all vested building- related permit applications filed with the County before the effective date of annexation that involve property within the Annexation Area. For the purposes of this Agreement, building- related permits include but are not limited to building permits, mechanical permits, fire systems /fire sprinkler permits and clearing and grading permits. Review by the County shall occur in accordance with the regulations to which the applications are vested. Any decision regarding whether or when an application has vested shall be made by the City. 2.2 Except as provided in Section 4 of this Agreement, the County's review of building related permits shall include rendering decisions to approve, condition or deny such applications; conducting inspections; issuing correction notices, certificates of occupancy, permit extensions and completion of extensions; and evaluating compliance with approval conditions that extend beyond issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The County agrees to consult with the City prior to rendering any administratively appealable building- related permit decision. Appeals of building related permit 205 206 decisions, if any, shall be processed by the City in the same manner as appeals of land use peuiiits are addressed in Section 3.4; provided that the City and County may agree to have the County conduct such appeals on behalf of the City in particular instances where such processing by the County would further the orderly transition envisioned by this Agreement. 2.3 The County shall receive and process any permit applications made following annexation that implement conditions of a Commercial Site Development permit issued by the County prior to annexation. The County shall additionally receive and process ancillary permit applications, such as fire and mechanical permits, that are made following annexation and that are essential for completion of an approved project permit. 2.4 The County shall review and make a recommendation to the City on requests to renew County permits within the Annexation Area that are approaching their expiration date without having completed the permitted activity. The City shall render any final decisions on such requests. 2.5 The County shall review and render decisions on requests for changes to approved building- related permit plans up to the time that either a certificate of occupancy is issued or final construction approval has been issued for the project. Following issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final construction approval, requests for changes to the approved set of plans shall be referred to the City. The City intends to process such requests as new permit applications. 2.6 The County shall review and make recommendations to the City's designated decision maker on applications to vary adopted road or drainage standards that are made in conjunction with a building related application being reviewed by the County pursuant to this Agreement. All final decisions on such variance applications shall be rendered by the City. 3. Pre annexation Land Use Permit Applications Filed with King County. 3.1 Except as otherwise provided for herein, the County shall continue to review on behalf of the City all vested land use permit applications filed with the County before the effective date of annexation that involve property within the Annexation Area. Review by the County shall occur in accordance with the regulations to which the applications are vested. Any decisions regarding whether or when an application has vested shall be made by the City. 3.2 For those vested land use applications that do not require a public hearing prior to issuance, the County will continue to process such applications and shall make a report and recommendation to the City's designated decision maker based upon the regulations under which the applications are vested. Any decisions to approve, deny, or approve with conditions such applications shall be made by the City's designated decision maker and will be processed pursuant to the City's applicable land use review and appeal procedures. 3.3 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, applications for any rezone and any associated permit applications shall be referred to the City for all further processing. 3.3 For those vested land use applications that require quasi judicial or legislative approval, e.g., subdivision or conditional use, or which involve administrative appeals, the County shall prepare a report and preliminary recommendation to the City's designated decision maker for a final decision or a recommendation to the designated decision -maker pursuant to the City's applicable Iand use review and Tukwila Interlocal Agreement Page 2 of 8 Building and Land Use Permit Processing appeal procedures. The City's decision -maker shall not be a County employee. The City shall be responsible for scheduling, providing notice, conducting any public hearings required, and making any decision in conjunction with the application. County staff may attend the public hearing to testify with respect to analysis set forth in the County's report and preliminary recommendation. 3.4. The County shall continue to review those vested subdivision, short subdivision and binding site plan applications that have not yet received preliminary approval up to the point of making a recommendation to the City's designated decision maker on preliminary approval. At the request of the City, County staff shall appear at the public hearing to testify with respect to analysis set forth in the County's preliminary recommendation. 3.6 For those vested subdivision, short plat and binding site plan applications that have received preliminary approval prior to annexation, the County shall continue and complete all post preliminary review up to the point of making a recommendation to the City on final approval. For purposes of this section, post preliminary review includes: engineering plan approval, final plat, short plat or binding site plan approval, and construction inspection approval. 3.7 The County shall review and make recommendations to the City's designated decision maker on applications to vary adopted road or drainage standards that are made in conjunction with a land use application being reviewed by the County pursuant to this Agreement. All final decisions on such variance applications shall be rendered by the City. 3.8 The County shall review and render decisions on requests for changes to approved land use permit engineering plans up to the time that final construction approval has been issued for the project. Following issuance of final construction approval, requests for changes to the approved set of plans shall be referred to the City. 4. List of Proiects and Notice of Meetings. 4.1 The County will prepare and send to the City a quarterly list of all building, land use and associated ancillary penult applications pending within the Annexation Area as of the date of annexation. The list shall include the status of the projects as it is shown in the County Permits Plus system. The City or County may at any time exclude from this Agreement any application(s) on any such list upon providing to the County or City ten days advance written notice of its intent to exclude the application(s). Upon excluding any application from review under this Agreement, the County shall turn the application over to the City for all further processing. 4.2 The County shall notify the City of all technical screening meetings, pre construction conferences and engineering pre submittal meetings for projects being reviewed by the County under this Agreement. Such notice shall be provided promptly upon scheduling of the meeting. The City may participate in these meetings to learn more about the project and to offer comments. 4.3 The County shall provide the City with a copy of files and records of all land use and building permit applications processed under this Agreement upon completion of permit review, termination of the Agreement under Section 11 or expiration of the Agreement, whichever comes first. Tukwila Interlocal Agreement Page 3 of 8 Building and Land Use Permit Processing 207 208 5. SEPA Compliance. 5.1. In order to satisfy the procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the City shall serve as lead agency for all Annexation Area building permit and land use applications, including those being processed by the County pursuant to this Agreement. 5.2. Any and all appeals from SEPA threshold determinations and other SEPA matters relating to projects within the City shall be heard and decided by the City. 5.3. For those permit applications requiring a SEPA determination, the County will not take final action upon the application until the City has acted. Upon written request with regard to a particular project being reviewed by the County, the County agrees to provide technical and administrative SEPA assistance to the City on that project. Such assistance may include, but is not limited to: review of an applicant's environmental checklist and collection of relevant comments and facts; preparation of a proposed SEPA threshold determination with supporting documentation for approval, publication and notice by the County on behalf of the City; preparation and submittal of a written review and comment on any appeal received on a SEPA threshold determination recommended by County staff to the City; attendance at appeal hearings to testify with respect to analysis of environmental impacts, mitigation measures and the environmental review process; preparation of any required draft, final, addendum or supplemental EIS for approval of the City; and coordination of adopted or required SEPA measures of mitigation with project review staff. 5.4. Any decision whether to condition or deny an application on SEPA grounds shall be made by the City. 6. Administrative and Ministerial Processing. County review specified in this Agreement is intended to be of an administrative and ministerial nature only. Any and all final recommendations on legislative or quasi-judicial decisions or decisions of a discretionary nature shall be made by the City's designated decision maker and processed pursuant to the City's applicable review and appeal procedures. 7. Code Enforcement and Financial Guarantees. 7.1. Within a reasonable period following the effective date of this Agreement, the County shall provide the City with a list and brief explanation of all Annexation Area code enforcement cases under review by the County at the time of annexation. The City shall be responsible for undertaking any code enforcement actions following the date of annexation. The County shall provide the City with copies of any Annexation Area enforcement files requested by the City. Tukwila Interlocal Agreement Page 4 of 8 Building and Land Use Permit Processing 7.2 Any financial guarantee that is intended to secure compliance with project conditions that are being or will be reviewed by the City shall be turned over to or posted with the City, which shall have sole authority and discretion over its release and/or enforcement. Any financial guarantee that has been posted or is otherwise required in order to guarantee compliance with conditions that are being reviewed by the County pursuant to this Agreement shall be retained by or posted with the County. On behalf of the City, the County is authorized to accept such financial guarantees and to release them where it determines that conditions for release have been satisfied. In making such decisions whether to release a financial guarantee instrument, the County may at any time seek direction from the City. The City shall be solely responsible for making any demands or initiating any legal action to enforce financial guarantees for Annexation Area projects. 7.3 Code enforcement abatement actions necessary to eliminate public health or safety hazards shall be the sole responsibility of the City. 8. Processine Priority. Within budgetary constraints, the County agrees to process pre annexation building and land use applications in accordance with the County's administrative procedures, at the same level of service as provided to County applications. 9. Fees and Reimbursement. 9.1 In order to cover the costs of providing services pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, the County is authorized to collect and retain such application and other fees authorized by the County fee ordinances adopted by the City pursuant to Section 1 above, or as may be modified at some future date by the County and the City. 9.2 For all applications excluded from County processing or transferred to the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, the County will retain the base permit fee and a percentage of fees equivalent to the percentage of permit processing and administration performed by the County on the application. Any remaining application fee amounts received by the County prior to the exclusion or transfer shall be promptly forwarded to the City. 9.3 In order to cover the costs of providing review, technical and administrative assistance, and other services not otherwise reimbursed pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to providing testimony at public hearings, the City shall pay the County at such hourly rate as specified in the version of King County Code Title 27 in effect at the time the services are performed. The County shall not seek reimbursement under this paragraph for review services performed on an individual permit application where the County has already been fully compensated for such services by the receipt of permit application review fees. The County shall provide the City with quarterly invoices for assistance and services provided, and the City shall tender payment to the County within thirty days after the invoice is received. 10. Duration. This Agreement shall become effective upon approval by the City and the County and shall continue until December 31, 2014, unless otherwise terminated in accordance with paragraph 11 or extended in accordance with paragraph 12. 11. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement for good cause shown upon providing at least sixty (60) days written notice to the other party. Upon expiration or termination of this Tukwila Interlocal Agreement Page 5 of 8 Building and Land Use Permit Processing 209 210 Agreement, the County shall cease further processing and related review of applications it is processing under this Agreement. The County shall thereupon transfer to the City those application files and records, posted financial guarantee instruments, and unexpended portions of fling fees for pending land use and building related applications within the Annexation Area. Upon transfer, the City shall be responsible for notifying affected applicants that it has assumed all further processing responsibility. 12. Extension. The City and County may agree to extend the duration of this Agreement through December 31, 2019 or to a date prior thereto. In order for any such extensions to occur, the City shall make a written request to the County not less than sixty (60) days prior to the otherwise applicable expiration date. Any agreement by the County to the proposed extension(s) shall be made in writing. If the parties have not agreed to the extension in writing by the otherwise applicable expiration date, the Agreement shall expire. 13. Annlication Process. The County and the City will each prepare and have available for applicants and other interested parties a document describing the handling of applications based on this Agreement. 14. Indemnification. Hold Harmless and Defense. 14.1 The County shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason or arising out of any negligent action or omission of the County, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, in performing obligations pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damage is brought against the City, the County shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense, provided that the City retains the right to participate in said suit if any principal or governmental or public law is involved, and if final judgment be rendered against the City and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against the City and County and their respective officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, the County shall satisfy the same. 14.2 The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the County and its officers, agents and employees or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason or arising out of any negligent action or omission of the City, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, in performing obligations pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damage is brought against the county, the City shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense, provided that the County retains the right to participate in said suit if any principal of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment be rendered against the County and its officers, agents, employees, or any of them, or jointly against the City and County and their respective officers, agents, and employees or any of them, the City shall satisfy the same. 14.3 The City and the County acknowledge and agree that if such claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses and damages are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of the City, its agents, employees, and/or officers and the County, its agents, employees, and/or officers, this section shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of each party, its agents, employees and/or officers. Tukwila Interlocal Agreement Page 6 of 8 Building and Land Use Permit Processing 14.4 In executing this Agreement, the County does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way release the City from any liability or responsibility that arises in whole or in part from the existence or effect of City ordinances, rules, regulations, policies or procedures. If any cause, claim, suit, action or proceeding (administrative or judicial), is initiated challenging the validity or applicability of any City ordinance, rule or regulation, the City shall defend the same at its sole expense and if judgment is entered or damages awarded against the City, the County, or both, the City shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorneys' fees. 15. Personnel. Control of County personnel assigned by the County to process applications under this Agreement shall remain with the County. Standards of performance, discipline and all other aspects of performance shall be governed by the County. 16. Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the County Director of the Department of Development and Environmental Services or his/her designee, and by the City's designated decision maker or his/her designee. 17. Amendments. This Agreement is the complete expression of the terms hereto and any oral representation or understanding not incorporated herein is excluded. Any modifications to this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. 18. Legal Representation. The services to be provided by the County pursuant to this Agreement do not include legal services, which shall be provided by the City at its own expense. 19. Notice of Annexation Area Processing. In the event that the City intends for the County to conduct permit review in any future City Annexation Area pursuant to this Agreement, the City shall exercise its best efforts to provide the County with written notice of its intent no less than sixty days prior to the date County processing of such Annexation Area applications would occur. 20. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties hereto. No other person or entity shall have any right of action or interest in this Agreement based upon any provision set forth herein. Tukwila Interlocal Agreement Page 7 of 8 Building and Land Use Permit Processing 211 212 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed. KING COUNTY King County Executive Dated Approved as to Form: DANIEL T. SATTERBERG King County Prosecuting Attorney By: Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Dated CITY OF TUKWILA Tukwila Dated Approved as to Form: City Attorney Dated Tukwila Interlocal Agreement Page 8 of 8 Building and Land Use Permit Processing Tukwila Corporate Limits with Proposed Tukwila South Annexation Attachment 1 Legend City Limits Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Tukwila South Annexation Area Green/Duwamish River Unincorporated King County 213 214 COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes Apri112, 2010 5:00 p.m.; Conference Room #3 CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Duffie called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. City Of Tukwila Community Affairs and Parks Committee PRESENT Councilmembers: Joe Duffie, Chair; Joan Hernandez and Verna Seal Staff: Kathy Stetson, Stacy MacGregor, Mary Hulvey, Jack Pace, Evie Boykan, Bruce Linton, Mayor Haggerton, Steve Lancaster and Kimberly Matej Guests: Chuck Parrish H. BUSINESS AGENDA A. 2011 Minor Home Repair Program Staff is seeking Council authorization to submit the 2011 Community Development Block Grant application to King County requesting $110,000 for the Minor Home Repair Program. The City's application proposes to continue the Human Services Minor Home Repair Program for Tukwila as well as the fiscal management (via self renewing interlocal agreements) of similar programs for the cities of SeaTac, Des Moines and Covington. This year's proposal asks for additional funding to address work with lead based paint. As with past applications, incorporation of multiple cities into one application makes our request more competitive against other projects. The funding for this program is not a guarantee. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 26 COW FOR DISCUSSION. B. Interlocal Agreement between Tukwila and King County regarding Permits for the Tukwila South Annexation Area Staff is seeking Council approval of an interlocal agreement with King County for the processing of building permits and land use applications that were filed with King County prior to Tukwila's annexation of the southern most portion of the City. There are currently four permit related items outstanding that were filed with the County prior to the City's annexation (two land use applications, one construction permit and one code enforcement file). This interlocal agreement will allow King County to complete outstanding actions as necessary on these applications and /or files as well as provide continuity of permitting In addition to the interlocal agreement, staff distributed a draft resolution at the Committee meeting which authorizes King County to charge applicant fees as relative and appropriate for the above items. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 26 COW FOR DISCUSSION. C. DRAFT Noise Ordinance Staff is seeking Council approval of a draft ordinance relating to noise. Adding clarity to definitions, enforcement and standards, this will repeal the current Noise Ordinance which was last amended in 2002. The Committee was provided with an update on the draft ordinance last December (see CAP minutes dated December 14, 2009). At that time, staff suggested the ordinance be separated into two sections (to improve efficiency and enforcement); however, they have since determined that this separation did not provide the 215 216 I CAS NUMBER: 10-052 IU 052 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Ilnttals Meeting Date Prepared by Ma ar,:,review ouncil review 04/26/10 KAM YlAk ITEM INFORMATION ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: APRIL 26, 2010 AGENDA I IEM TITLE Draft Agenda for Joint Meeting with the Tukwila School District. Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE MTG.- DATE 04/26/10 RECORDOF COUNCIL =ACTION ATTACHMENTS Draft Agenda for May 27 Joint Meeting as issued by the School District. ITEM No. G. CA I'EGORY Discussion Motion f l Resolution Ordinance n Bid Award Public Hearing Other Mtg Date 04/26/10 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date SPONSOR Councll Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PT/ SPONSOR'S The Annual Joint School District City Council meeting will be held May 27, 2010. This SUMMARY year, the School District is hosting the meeting. They have prepared a draft agenda and have inquired if the City Council has any additions. Council President Robertson has requested this item be brought forward to the full Council for discussion. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte n F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DATE: RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Council President COMMITTEE N/A COST FUND,SOURC EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED 217 218 i) DRAFT AGENDA Tuk ik. Schoo1Dist ict13oa rd of D rectors Tukwila i y 'ounc#1 et ng 1. Call To Order 2. Flag Salute 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of the Agenda 5. Update on the Howard Hanson Dam 6. Update on the light at 144 and 42 Avenue, Safe Schools Route 7. District and City Summer Programs 8. District Technology Update 9. Consolidation of School Districts 219 220 26th (Monday) Community Affairs Parks Cmte, 5: 00 PM (CR #3) City Council Committee of the Whole Mtg. 7:00 PM (Council Chambers) 12:00 NooN Civil Service (Chamber Commission, Office) 5:00 PM (CR #3) Finance City Council Safety Cmte, 5:00 PM Regular Mtg., (CR 43) 7:00 PM (Council Chambers) Arts Commission, 5:30 PM (Community Center) Upcoming Meetings Events APRIL MAY 2010 27th (Tuesday) 28th (Wednesday) 29th (Thursday) 30th (Friday) 1st (Saturday) Utilities Cmte, COPCAB, 5:00 PM 6:30 PM (CR 41) (CR 45) Court Teen Career Fair 1:30to3:30 Foster High School 3rd (Monday) 4th (Tuesday) 5th (Wednesday) 6th (Thursday) 7th (Friday) 8th (Saturday) Y Transportation Chamber of Sistcr City Equity Cmte, Commerce Cmtc Diversity 5:00 PM Gov't, CANCELLED Commission, (CR 41) Community 5:15 PM Affairs Cmte., (CR 43) Court Celebrating 10 years Backyard Wildlife Festival at Tukwila Community Center A fun, FREE event for all! 9 AM Codiga Park dedication 9 AM —3 PM: Vendors, workshops and presentations, crafts, music, recycled art show 3 PM 5 PM: Self guided tour of local gardens certified as backyard wildlife habitats Visit www.backvard wildlifefair.ori: for times and information on other events including a guided bird tour, Ed Hume, Linda Chalker Scott, and composting demonstration (or call 106-768-2822.) Council Coffee Chat 1 0:00 AM to 12:00 NOON at Starbucks (13038 Interurban Ave.) Stop by and informally talk with a Tukwila City Council member about anything on your mind regarding Tukwila. City Council Committee of Whole (C.O.W.) Meeting: 2nd 4th Mon., 7:00 PM, Council Chambers at City Hall. Community Affairs Parks Committee: 2nd 4th Mon., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room #3. Agenda items for 4/26/10 meeting: (A) Renaming of Sound Transit/Amtrak Station. (B) Raikes Foundation grant m+word. (C) 2010 Parks Recreation issues— Senior programs. COPCAB (Community Oriented Policing Citizens Adv, Board): 4th Wed., 6:30 PM, Conf. Rm #5. Phi Huynh (206 433 7175). Utilities Committee: 2nd 4th Tues., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room 41. Agenda items for 4/27/10 meeting: (A) MWPAAC resolution establishing agency representative. (B) Water and sewer comprehensive plan 2010— consuhanl selection and agreement. Court Busy Court and /or Jury Calendar (noted to alert employees and citizens of potential parking difficulty). 221 222 MONTH MEETING 1- MEETING 2. MEETING 3 MEETING 4 REGULAR C.O.W. REGULAR C.O.W. April 5 12 May 31 :r Memorial Day (City offices closed) Tentative Agenda Schedule 3 Special Presentation: Briefing from Miyoshi delegation Public Hearin: Ordinance amending various ordinances to incorporate definitions of Diversion Facility and Diversion Interim Services Facility and clarify other definitions (continued from 4- 12 -10) Ordinance establishing a moratorium on the filing of applications for develop- ment permits for food or drink establishments conducting social card game gambling activities Unfinished Business: Ordinance relating to Diversion Facilities (see above) Ordinance establishing a moratorium (see above) Minor Home Repair Program for 2011 Ordinance updating regulations relating to noise to clarify definitions, requirements and enforcement Ordinance vacating certain right -of -way (approxi- mately 60 feet by 85 feet) along 14403 51st Ave. S. and within a portion of Old Macadam Road Resolution formally adopting the Council Committee meeting schedule Resolution authorizing Mayor to sign an interlocal agreement with King County relating to processing of building permits and land use applications for Tukwila South annexation area 10 Special Issues: Program reductions (City Council, Mayor's Office, Boards and Commissions, Community Developnrent, Information Technology, Municipal Court, evaluation of CSC program for potential gaps /duplication) 19 17 Special Presentations: Briefing on Sound Transit Link Light Rail (Ron Lewis, Deputy Director, Link Light Rail Dept.) Briefing on Tukwila Village and economic develop- ment (Derek Speck, Economic Development Administrator) Bid Award: Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Scarsella Bros., Inc. for the Southcenter Parkway Extension project, in the amount of $16,030,030.63 Unfinished Business: Southcenter Parkway Extension project documents (7) 26 See agenda packet cover sheet for this week's agenda (April 26, 2010 Committee of the Whole Meetfng) 24 Soecial Issues: Program reductions (Parks Recreation, Foster Golf Course, Public Works Deparbnent) COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING TO BE FOLLOWED BY A SPECIAL MEETING