HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2015-09-28 Item 4B - Discussion - Sound Cities Association Public Issues Committee (SCA PIC) ItemsCOUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
---------------------------------- Inifials
Meetin
,g Dale Prepared by Ma ors rev' e§�" Council review
09/28/15 LH
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEM NO.
4.B.
ISTAFFSPONSOR:
LAUREL HUMPHREY
I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 9/28/15
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Discussion on Sound Cities Association (SCA) Public Issues Committee (PIC) Items
CATEGORY Z Discussion
Alig Date 09128115
❑Motion
Mig Date
❑ Resolution
Alt g Date
❑ Ordinance
Mig Date
❑ BidAvard
At g Date
❑ Public Hearin g
At g Die
❑Other
At Date
SPONSOR Z Council ❑ Mayor ❑ HR ❑ DCD [:]Einance E].Fire ❑ IT ❑ P&R [:] Police ❑ PWI
SPONSOR'S As follow up to the September 9, 2015, Sound Cities Association Public Issues Committee,
SUMMARY Council President Kruller would like Council feedback on the King County Bridges and
Roads Task Force, which is exploring solutions for maintaining bridges and roads in
unincorporated King County. SCA staff is seeking jurisdictional information for the Task
Force. The second topic for Council discussion is E911 Oversight. PIC agenda materials are
attached for both.
REVIEWED BY ❑ COW Mtg. ❑ CA&P Cmte ❑ F&S Cmte ❑ Transportation Cmte
❑ Utilities Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: COMMITTEE CHAIR:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN. Council President
COMM1'f-I'EJ-;
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
ExPF"NDITURL; REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
9/21/15
Brief overview of items provided by the Council President
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
9/28/15
Excerpt from SCA PIC 9/9/15 Agenda Packet, Items 8 and 10
RE
M.:
Item 8
Bridges & Roads Task Force
DISCUSSION ITEM
SCA Staff Contact
Katie Kuciemba, Senior Policy Analyst, katie@soundcities.org, 206 - 433 -7169
City Representatives on the Bridges & Roads Task Force
Mayor Matt Larson, Snoqualmie; Councilmember Amy Ockerlander, Duvall; City Manager Bob
Harrison, Issaquah
Discussion Item
Public Issues Coi
in collaboration
identify policy a
uninrnr orated'
ling for rural or unincorporated roads in King County was identified by th
-nmittee at the April 2015 meeting. Since that time, the King County Exec
with Councilmember Lambert, convened the Bridges and Roads Task For
A fiscal strategies to maintain and preserve King County's rural or
Task Force is not charged with assess'
g feedback from PIC members and yot
cities infrastructure. SCA staff is seekin
ck on questions and issues that should be considered
Itive,
e to
of
ff would like
Background
King County maintains approximately 1,500 miles of roads and over 180 bridges in rural or
unincorporated areas outside of cites. As a result of the County not revisiting the funding
system for nearly 30 years, King County bridges and roads are in increasingly poor condition.
The King County road system revenue is projected to be an average of $90 million per year over
the next 10 -year period. This is far short of the $350 million that the King County Road Services
Division states is necessary to fully address the backlog of needs, embark on a asset
management program, address the division's future maintenance facility needs, and
systematically accomplish the road capacity, mobility and non - motorized needs of the County.
More information on the County's Road Services Division Strategic Plan can be found here.
It is concerning that King County has deferred maintenance of the road and bridge system to
such poor conditions. While there are connector roads in unincorporated King County of
regional significance to cities, it should not be lost on the County that cities have had their own
challenges in funding their roads and bridges. This includes regionally significant roads within
cities, and in many cities, roads that cities are now responsible for due to annexations that had
not been well- maintained when they were in unincorporated King County.
September 9, 2015
Item 8: Bridges and Roads Task Force
Page 68 of 180
we
Cities see the value of working collaboratively to identify efficiencies and funding strategies for
the future of regional road networks; however, not all rural roads are a regional priority. The
financing of rural and unincorporated roads and bridges should not come on the backs of local
jurisdictions and their residents who have implemented financing tools to preserve their own
aging infrastructure.
Establishment of the Bridges and Roads Task Force
The King County Executive, in collaboration with Councilmember Lambert, convened the
Bridges and Roads Task Force to "recommend financially sustainable and equitable strategies to
deliver an unincorporated road system that supports people's transportation needs, regional
economic development and quality of life."
The Bridges and Roads Task Force will review the current financial picture of the bridges and
roads network, as well as the policy parameters under which the Roads Services Division
operates from. The Task Force scope of work will include review and recommendations for the
following:
Greater Efficiencies— review and evaluate strategies including facilities management,
collaboration with other departments, partnerships with outside agencies, technology
and fleet improvements, staffing adjustments, and environmental regulation
compliance.
Less Infrastructure — review strategies to decrease the County's roads infrastructure
including opportunities associated with annexations, closing unsafe infrastructure, and
transferring road ownership.
Increased Revenue — review and evaluate various funding sources including, but not
limited to, tolling, Local Transportation Benefit District funding, legislative solutions,
opportunities through the Puget Sound Regional Council, or other taxes or fees.
More information on the Bridges and Roads Task Force can be found here. The Bridges and
Roads Task Force Work Plan can be found in Attachment A.
Bridges & Roads Task Force Membership
Membership of the Task Force includes 21 regional leaders including subject matter experts,
users, neighbors and public policy leaders throughout King County. Membership includes a mix
of elected officials, agriculture /business leaders, emergency management professionals,
neighborhood /community representatives, recreational advocates, environmental groups,
planning organization leadership, and a Transportation Concurrency Expert Review panelist. A
full list of members on the task force can be found in here.
SCA was not asked to have a formal role in the make -up of the Task Force. Staff will closely
monitor the evolving work and recommendations so that cities can proactively understand the
direction of the Task Force — and the impact Task Force recommendations may have on cities.
September 9, 2015 Item 8: Bridges and Roads Task Force Page 69 of 180
70
Timeline
The Bridges and Roads Task Force held its first meeting on August 12, 2015. A final
recommendation from the Task Force is due to be complete by November 30, 2015, with a
subsequent meeting held in January to consider and recommend any potential legislative
approaches.
All Task Force meetings are scheduled from 3pm — 6pm as follows:
1. Wednesday, August 12 — Mercer Island Community Center
2. Wednesday, September 16 — King Street Center, 8t" Floor Conference Center
3. Wednesday, October 14— Mercer Island Community Center
4. Wednesday, October 28— Mercer Island Community Center
5. Thursday, November 12 —Mercer Island Community Center
6. Wednesday, January 20— Mercer Island Community Center
Bridges and Roads Task Force Meeting #1
The first meeting of the Task Force included a welcome by Councilmember Kathy Lambert, Task
Force member introductions, an overview of the charge /charter, and a presentation of King
County Roads system.
A "Bridges and Roads 101" presentation provided background on the county road assets,
infrastructure and revenue challenges, and consequences if additional funding resources
cannot be identified. The presentation included information stating that significant traffic
originates from cities and other counties. The 101 -style presentation can be found here (note:
large file).
The meeting also included a summary of member interviews presented by Bob Wheeler from
Triangle Associates. The individual interviews generated requests for additional information or
discussion from King County, including: a complete list of funding sources, 2015 Transportation
Package impacts, road and bridge tiered service levels, GMA policy background and
implementation, traffic concurrency, and design standards between the county and cities. Task
Force members identified potential concerns to be the difference between urban and rural
perspectives, cross - jurisdictional disputes, and equity concerns. Potential solutions identified
during the individual interviews included maintaining less infrastructure, identifying alternative
funding sources, leveraging more state resources, finding collaborative solutions, and building
city support for county roads funding.
At the conclusion of the Bridges and Roads Task Force meeting, members were encouraged to
express questions or comments, which included the following:
• King County stated that half of the trips on the high volume roads in King County come
from cities and other counties. Are there traffic counts demonstrating who travels on
state highways? City arterials?
• A comment that other counties and /or cities must be faced with similar revenue
constraints and aging road /bridge networks. What have other jurisdictions done to
increase revenue, reduce infrastructure ownership or find greater efficiencies?
September 9, 2015 Item 8: Bridges and Roads Task Force Page 70 of 180
71
• A question was asked of whether there is a relative measure that can be used to
evaluate which roads should be funded as a priority based on traffic counts. What is the
value of improving infrastructure on major arterials versus minor roadways? While the
cost might be the same, the value is different.
• A question about how the County might transfer roads to other jurisdictions, such as
Washington State Department of Transportation?
• An inquiry about how local jurisdictions are contributing to the road and bridge
network.
Interest in understanding the utilization of staffing resources.
Next Steps
The next meeting of the Bridges and Roads Task Force is scheduled for Wednesday, September
16, 2015 where there will be an overview of King County Office of Performance, Strategy and
Budget Director Dwight Dively will present the financial situation, analysis of need, and
potential revenue options.
SCA staff propose working with PIC members and jurisdictional staff to gather data in response
to questions identified by Task Force members and to reflect efforts made by cities, such as:
• What strategies does your jurisdiction employ to increase revenue or find greater
efficiencies in preservation and maintenance of road networks?
• Does your jurisdiction keep traffic counts of travelers coming from outside of the city
traveling on the city arterials?
• What major regional road networks connect your jurisdiction with rural or
unincorporated portions of King County?
• What is the percentage of general fund dollars your jurisdiction allocated for the
financing of preservation and maintenance of roads and bridges?
• The Task Force is considering a State legislative strategy. What concerns do you have in
the County proposing a Legislative approach to the financing of rural roads and bridges?
SCA staff will monitor and attend Task Force meetings and provide briefings to members of the
Public Issues Committee (PIC).
Attachment
A. Bridges and Roads Task Force Work Plan
September 9, 2015 Item 8: Bridges and Roads Task Force Page 71 of 180
72
Attachment A to the September 9, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Bridges and Roads Task Force WORKPLAN
Purpose: The Bridges and Roads Task Force will be comprised of a diverse set of stakeholders working to identify
policy and fiscal strategies to sustainably maintain and preserve King County's roads.
Desired
Outcome: The Bridges and Roads Task Force will develop a recommendation for sustainable solutions that
recognize the regional significance of the county road network. The task force will seek further efficiency
gains, review the impact /benefit of existing policies, and review the existing environment for other
opportunities.
It will consider the current framework provided by Strategic Plan for Road Services (SPRS) and will
provide short and long term strategies and funding alternatives, necessary to maintain and preserve the
county road network.
Background: The survival of King County's 1,500 mile rural and unincorporated road network and 183 bridges is
threatened by an obsolete and inadequate funding structure.
The state has not provided counties with financing tools that complement the state's Growth
Management Act (GMA). The GMA, which King County has successfully implemented, promotes
compact urban development inside cities by reducing development in rural areas. As a result, the
burden of funding the county's extensive road network falls on 13 percent of the county's total
population.
More than one million trips per day are taken on the unincorporated road network in King County. In
addition to the unincorporated residents of the county, roughly 250,000 people use the county road
system daily to move freight and goods, get their products from farm to market, and commute to their
jobs, schools, and recreational opportunities. On several of the county's major arterials, over 50 percent
of the daily commuters are from other cities or counties.
King County has put a plan in place to address the future of its road network, with a focus on public
safety. Its Strategic Plan guides investments in the rural road network and provides a framework to
restore the network to a steady state of good repair. Unfortunately, due to a lack of adequate resources,
the County is currently forced to use SPRS as a tool to prioritize and guide the selection of Bridges and
Roads for closure.
The Bridges and Roads Task Force will provide a constituency, momentum, and policy recommendations
to assist regional leaders in sustainably addressing this challenge.
Scope: The Bridges and Roads Task Force will review the current financial picture for our County Bridges and
Roads network, as well as policy parameters under which RSD currently operates. The Task Force will
review options for improving service delivery including our Roads Services Division's (RSD) work on
achieving greater efficiencies, exploring ways to decrease our infrastructure, and to procure additional
revenue.
Greater Efficiencies
The Task Force will review various strategies RSD is undertaking to increase efficiencies, including
facilities management, collaboration with other departments, partnerships with outside agencies,
technology and fleet improvements, staffing adjustments, and environmental regulation compliance
strategy.
Less Infrastructure
September 9, 2015
Item 8: Bridges and Roads Task Force
Page 72 of 180
73
Attachment A to the September 9, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
The Task Force will review various strategies RSD is undertaking to decrease the County's roads
infrastructure including opportunities associated with annexations, closing unsafe infrastructure, and
transferring road ownership.
Increased Revenue
The Task Force will review and evaluate various funding sources including or not limited to tolling, Local
Transportation Benefit District funding, legislative solutions, opportunities through the Puget Sound
Regional Council, and other taxes or fees.
Meeting Schedule:
Meeting Location: Mercer Island Community Center for all meetings except #2 which will be held at King Street Center
in Seattle
Project Coordination Team (to date):
Chris Arkills, Executive's Office
Stephanie Pure, KC DOT (KC DOT lead)
Bill Greene, KC DOT
Shelley DeWyse, PSB
Brenda Bauer, RSD
Jay Osborne, RSD
Susan West, RSD
John Resha, Council Staff
Project Coordination Team Meeting Schedule: One week before each Task Force meeting and the day after.
Timeline: Proposed Task Deliverables:
Task
Date
Topic
Meeting #1
August 12, 3 -6pm
Overview and Introductions, "Roads 101 ", Financial overview
Meeting #2
September 16, 3 -6pm
Financial situation — review and analysis of need and revenue
options
Meeting #3
October 14, 3 -6pm
Financial and infrastructure TF recommendations
Meeting #4
October 28, 3 -6pm
Financial and efficiencies TF recommendations
Meeting #5
November 12, 3 -6pm
Strategy development
Meeting #6
January 20, 3 -6pm
Implementation strategies and Task Force close out
Meeting Location: Mercer Island Community Center for all meetings except #2 which will be held at King Street Center
in Seattle
Project Coordination Team (to date):
Chris Arkills, Executive's Office
Stephanie Pure, KC DOT (KC DOT lead)
Bill Greene, KC DOT
Shelley DeWyse, PSB
Brenda Bauer, RSD
Jay Osborne, RSD
Susan West, RSD
John Resha, Council Staff
Project Coordination Team Meeting Schedule: One week before each Task Force meeting and the day after.
Timeline: Proposed Task Deliverables:
Task
Deadline
Owner
Done
Confirm timeline
6/12/15
KC DOT
x
Procure consultant for third party verification of
numbers
6/17/15
RSD
x
Vet membership list with Councilmembers
6/19/15
Executive
x
Confirm meeting location(s)
6/19/15
KC DOT
x
Procure independent facilitator
6/22/15
RSD
x
Recruit individuals to serve
6/26/15
Executive
x
Draft letter to Council re: Task Force
6/26/15
KCDOT /RSD
x
Final and send letter to Council
7/1/15
RSD
x
Submit third party verification of the roads financial
situation
7/1/15
RSD
x
Complete interviews of Task Force Members
8/11/15
Facilitator
x
Mail out Meeting #1 Materials
8/6/15
RSD
x
Draft letter & mail to Task Force
8/5/15
KCDOT /RSD
x
Create Task Force webpage, update RSD Twitter
8/5/15
RSD
x
Draft and send out Public announcement
8/5/15
KCDOT /PIO /RSD
x
September 9, 2015
74
Item 8: Bridges and Roads Task Force
Page 73 of 180
Attarhmant A to tha 4antamhar 9 ?n1,; PIf Aaandi Itam A
Compile notebook for Task Force Members
8/10/15
RSD
x
Mail out Meeting #2 Materials
9/9/15
RSD
Mail out Meeting #3 Materials
10/7/15
RSD
Develop outline of draft recommendations
10/7/15
Facilitator
Mail out Meeting #4 Materials
10/14/15
RSD
Mail out Meeting #5 Materials
11/5/15
RSD
Draft and support preparation of summary report
11/5/15
RSD /Facilitator
Final summary report /Task Force recommendations
11/18/15
RSD /Facilitator
Mail out Meeting #6 Materials
1/13/16
RSD
Budget: The budget for the Task Force is $50,000.
Roles and Responsibilities
This section outlines the roles and responsibilities of the facilitator /mediator, RSD /DOT staff and Task Force members.
Responsibilities of the Facilitator /Mediator
The facilitator /mediator will be responsible for the following list of tasks. This task list may be updated in the future.
Lav the Process Foundation
• Conduct initial communication with Task Force members.
• Help with preparation of initial materials for Task Force members.
• Prepare and review materials and agendas for Task Force meetings.
Build the Framework of Consensus
• Facilitate Task Force meetings.
• Conduct ongoing communication with Task Force members.
• Facilitate sub - committee meetings as needed.
• Communicate and meet with Project Coordination Team.
Finalize the Recommendations
• Prepare final recommendations and summary report for regional, local and unincorporated areas.
• Participate in and prepare for briefings and updates of County Executive, County Council, and other
stakeholders.
Responsibilities of RSD /DOT Staff
RSD /DOT staff will be responsible for the following list of tasks. This task list may be updated in the future.
Lav the Process Foundation
• Set up Task Force meetings and framework.
• Prepare initial materials for Task Force members.
• Prepare materials and agendas for Task Force meetings.
Build the Framework of Consensus
• Handle meeting logistics and materials preparation for all meetings.
• Respond to requests for information.
September 9, 2015 Item 8: Bridges and Roads Task Force Page 74 of 180
75
Attachment A to the September 9, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Finalize the Recommendations
• Prepare final recommendations and summary report for regional, local and unincorporated areas.
• Participate in and prepare for briefings and updates of County Executive, County Council and other stakeholders.
Responsibilities of Task Force Members
Task Force Members will be engaged in the following list of activities. This list may be updated in the future.
Lay the Process Foundation
• Participate in initial interviews with Facilitator and:
• Express opinions, perspectives, and interests.
• Identify possible solutions that might be proposed during the meetings.
Build the Framework of Consensus
• Attend Task Force meetings between August and January. Meetings are expected to be three hours each.
• Communicate as needed with Facilitator between meetings.
• Keep an open mind about possible solutions that could reflect a consensus among Task Force members.
• Work together to identify a consensus set of recommendations to the Facilitator and Metro.
Finalize the Recommendations
• Review and provide comments on recommendations.
Responsibilities of Project Coordination Team
The Project Coordination Team will consist of members of DOT and Road Services staff, the Facilitator, County Council
central staff, and County Executive staff, and will be engaged in the following list of activities. This list may be updated in
the future.
Lay the Process Foundation
• Prepare agendas and review materials for Task Force meetings.
Build the Framework of Consensus
• Attend Task Force meetings. Meetings are expected to be three hours each.
• Prepare agendas and review materials for Task Force meetings.
Finalize the Recommendations
• Review final recommendations and summary report for regional, local and unincorporated areas.
• Participate in and prepare for briefings and updates of County Executive, County Council and other stakeholders.
September 9, 2015 Item 8: Bridges and Roads Task Force Page 75 of 180
76
Attachment A to the September 9, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Task Force Membership:
Task Force Member
Organization /Neighborhood
More info
Category
Accepted?
1. Cecilia
Mena
PTE Local 17
More Info
Business /Labor
Yes
2. Rep. Luis
Moscoso
Washington State Legislature
More Info
City /Elected
Yes
3. Sen. Joe
Fain
Washington State Legislature
More Info
City /Elected
Yes
4. Blake Trask
Statewide Policy Director, Washington Bikes
More info
Recreation
Yes
5. Van
Anderson
Member, Boundary Review Board
More info
Planning
Yes
6. Bryce Yadon
Futurewise, State Policy Director
More info
Planning
Yes
7. Duana
Kolouskova
Member, Transportation Concurrency Expert
Review Panel
More Info
Business /Labor
Yes
8. Michael
Gonzales
Teamsters 174
More Info
Business /Labor
Yes
9. Matt Larson
Mayor, City of Snoqualmie
More Info
City /Elected
Yes
10. Louise
Miller
Former King County Councilmember and State
Representative
More Info
Planning
Yes
11. Hank Lipe
Emergency Management Expert
More info
Safety
Yes
12. Josh Brown
Executive Director, Puget Sound Regional
Council
More Info
Planning
Yes
13. George
Irwin
Member, King County Agriculture Commission
More Info
Business /Labor
Yes
14. Janet Keller
Proprietor, Keller Dairy
Of file
Business /Labor
Yes
15. Ron
Paananen
Seattle Area Manager, Parsons Brinckerhoff
More Info
Planning
Yes
16. Peter
Eberle,
President Four Creeks Unincorporated Council
More Info
Resident
Yes
17. Bob
Harrison
City Manager, City of Issaquah
More info
City /Elected
Yes
18. Amy
Ockerlander
Councilmember, City of Duvall
More Info
City /Elected
Yes
19. Ashley
Glennon
President, Fall City Community Association
More Info
Neighborhood
representative, resident
Yes
20. Andra
Kranzler
Skyway Solutions
More Info
Neighborhood
representative
Yes
21. John
Bloomer
King County Fire District 28 /Enumclaw Fire
Department
Safety, Resident
Yes
September 9, 2015 Item 8: Bridges and Roads Task Force Page 76 of 180
ff.*]
SCA
September 9, 2015
SCA PIC Meeting
Item 10
E911 Oversight
UPDATE
SCA Staff Contact
Deanna Dawson, Executive Director, office 206 - 433 -7170, deanna@soundcities.org
Regional Policy Committee (RPC) Members
Council President Hank Margeson, Redmond; Councilmember Bill Peloza, Auburn; Mayor Bernie
Talmas, Woodinville; Mayor Amy Walen, Kirkland; Mayor Suzette Cooke, Kent (alternate);
Mayor Dave Hill, Algona (alternate)
Update
The Regional Policy Committee (RPC) is scheduled to make a recommendation at its September
9, 2015 meeting on the establishment of a committee to provide oversight of E911 operations,
and development and implementation of Next Generation 911 technology `in King County. At
the PIC meeting, staff 'will provide PIC members with an update on the action taken at the RPC
meeting, and next steps in the process.
Background
King County's Enhanced 911 (E911) system provides emergency dispatch services to the more
than two million residents in the county. The E911 system consists of the King County Enhanced
911 Program Office (currently housed within the King County Office of Emergency
Management), and 12 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs):
Bothell Police Department
Redmond Police Department
Enumclaw Police Department
Seattle Fire Department
Issaquah Police Department
Seattle Police Department
King County Sheriff's Office
University of Washington Police Department
North East King County Regional Public Safety
Communications Agency (NORCOM)l
Valley Communications Center
Port of Seattle Police Department
Washington State Patrol
1 NORCOM serves the following agencies: Bellevue Police and Fire, Bothell Fire, Clyde Hill
Police, Duvall FD 45, Eastside Fire and Rescue, Fall City FD 27, Kirkland Police and Fire, Medina Police, Mercer
Island Police and Fire, Northshore Fire, Redmond Fire, Shoreline Fire, Skykomish Fire, Snoqualmie Fire,
Snoqualmie Pass Fire & Rescue (FD 51), and Woodinville Fire & Rescue.
2 Valley Com serves the following agencies: City of Algona Police, City of Auburn Police, City
of Black Diamond Police, Burien /Normandy Park FD 2, City of Des Moines Police, City of Federal Way Police,
City of Kent Police, Fire and EMS, King County Medic One, Maple Valley FD 43, Mountain View FD 44, North
Highline Fire, City of Pacific Police, Palmer /Seleck FD 47, City of Renton Police, Fire and EMS, SeaTac Fire,
South King Fire and Rescue, Skyway FD 20, City of Tukwila Police, Fire and EMS, Valley Regional Fire
Authority, and Vashon Island Fire and Rescue
September 9, 2015 Item 10: E911 Oversight Page 102 of 180
79
For several years, this region has been exploring ways to enhance the E911 system. These
include but are not limited to looking at moving to "Next Generation 911" (NG911), which
would allow digital information (such as text messages, photos, and videos) to be sent by the
public to the PSAPs (the 911 call taking and dispatch agencies), and on to first responders.
HISTORY
In 2012, King County retained the firm GeoCom to conduct an assessment of the existing E911
system in King County, including a review of the existing operations and technology at each of
the 12 PSAPs. The 2012 GeoCom report was met with significant skepticism by many cities
(particularly those cities who operated th& own PSAPs, because the stated goal of the review
"was to determine the feasibility of consolidating none, some, or all of the PSAPs and public
safety communications functions serving the county and municipalities within King County."
In 2012, during the 2013 budget process, the County Council adopted a budget proviso
requiring the Executive to develop a plan for implementing the GeoCom report. That plan was
initially due to the council on May 31, 2013. A work group was formed, but unable to come to
consensus. The deadline was extended to September 2014, and the scope of the proviso was
changed from reporting on recommendations to reporting on progress and plans for
completion. The Executive reported to the County Council in 2014 that a new "PSAP Future
Configuration Recommendation Committee" would be formed to make recommendations on
next steps.
In the meantime, due to opposition from many PSAPs and cities, the County Executive's office
has backed off of the initial proposal to consolidate PSAPs. Instead, the focus of the work has
shifted to coming up with a governance structure that will enable the region to move forward
with NG911. There has also been a focus on a looming budgetary crisis within the E911
program.
The King County Council included a proviso in its 2015 -2016 budget for the Auditor's Office to
conduct a financial and technical audit of King County's 911 system. The Auditor's Report
found:
King County has been a national leader in updating and enhancing its 911 system.
However, it anticipates the program will run out of money within the next three years
and it faces a number of other challenges in its current efforts to implement Next
Generation 911 services. The lack of an effective governance structure that includes
King County and its PSAP partners is the most serious of these challenges. Because of
this, while solutions exist for many of the financial and technical challenges that we
identify in our report, there is currently no formal means for King County and its
partners to make decisions. We also found that King County has not consistently
followed its own guidelines and process for managing information technology projects.
Based on these findings, the Auditor's Report recommended the following:
September 9, 2015 Item 10: E911 Oversight Page 103 of 180
-M
We recommend that King County temporarily suspend its implementation of Next
Generation 911 until this governance issue can be resolved. In addition, we make
recommendations to help King County and its partners move forward with
implementation of Next Generation 911. Our recommendations focus on improving
collaboration and planning as well as establishing a financial baseline that would allow
stakeholders to agree on required spending and estimated revenue for the program.
The Auditor's Report is based in part on a study conducted by an outside firm, Mission Critical
Partners. That full report can be found on the Auditor's website, and an executive summary is
included as Attachment A. That report was critical of the County's E911 Office, describing the
approach taken to planning to be "piecemeal" noting, "The absence of project planning,
timelines, accountability and a collaborative requirements- gathering process are the primary
barriers King County faces to successfully implement NG9 -1 -1. The expected upcoming budget
shortfall is indicative of these and other problems the County faces."
In addition to calling for the Auditor's review of the E911 system in King County, the budget
adopted by the King County Council also contained a proviso requiring the County Executive to
transmit an ordinance establishing a "King County regional public safety answering point
oversight committee." The Auditor's Report made a similar recommendation, noting that
the County lacked a formal governance structure for decision making on matters related to
E911. The Auditor's Report recommended that the County Executive create a governance
mechanism that would build on the group called for by the County Council. "This group should
balance King County's statutory responsibilities under Washington state law, with providing a
formal, clear, and transparent mechanism for the Public Safety Answering Points and other
regional partners to participate in the decision - making process."
In response to the County Council's budget proviso, the County Executive transmitted a
Proposed Ordinance 2015 -0255, Attachment B, which would establish the King County Regional
Public Safety Answering Point Oversight Committee ( "Oversight Committee "). The proposed
ordinance also defines a proposed work plan for the Oversight Committee, the primary
objective of which is to recommend a strategic plan for the implementation, governance and
operation of the Next Generation 911 (NG911) system in King County. The ordinance received a
dual referral to the COW, and to the Regional Policy Committee (RPC).
Directors of the various PSAPs were unhappy with the recommendations contained in the
ordinance transmitted by the Executive, as well as the fact that the process was developed
without consultation with the PSAPs and other stakeholders, and submitted their own proposal,
Attachments C and D.
The RPC will review and make a recommendation on the competing proposals at its September
9, 2015 meeting.
E911 Oversight Committee
A preliminary note on terminology: The King County Council budget proviso called for the
establishment of a "King County regional public safety answering point oversight committee."
September 9, 2015 Item 10: E911 Oversight Page 104 of 180
The original ordinance submitted by the Executive maintained this terminology. Both the PSAP
Directors and the County Executive's Office now agree that the term "PSAP Oversight
Committee" is a misnomer. The committee would provide oversight in some capacity to the
E911 system, not the individual PSAPs. The PSAP Directors have proposed the title of "King
County Regional 9 -1 -1 Emergency Number Program Steering Committee (REPSC)." While the
ultimate title of the committee is to be determined, this memo uses the term "E911 Oversight
Committee" (or "Committee ") as a placeholder.
The PSAP Directors met with representatives from the Executive's office on Monday August 31,
2015. As of the drafting of this staff report, both the Executive's office and the PSAP Directors
were working on amendments to their proposals. The below comparison references the version
of the Executive's proposal submitted to the County Council on June 30, 2015, and the version
of the PSAP Directors' proposal sent to RPC members in August 2015, except as otherwise
noted. Updated materials will be distributed to PIC members as they become available.
Makeup of the E911 Oversight Committee
The King County Council's budget proviso contained a list of proposed members for the
committee:
• the vice chair of regional coordination of the council
• the chair of the law, justice, health and human services committee
• the executive or his designee
• a city of Seattle elected official appointed by the mayor
• three elected officials from other jurisdictions to be appointed by the council
• a representative of the Sound Cities Association
• a representative of a public safety agency, which is police, fire or emergency
medical services
• a nonvoting technical and facilitation consultant selected by the executive.
The proposal submitted by the Executive was similar but not identical to that list. Instead of
one representative of "a public safety agency, which is police, fire or emergency medical
services," the Executive proposed adding three representatives of public safety agencies: a
representative of the elected Sheriff, a police chief, and a fire chief. The Executive has
subsequently withdrawn the suggestion to have a representative of the elected Sheriff on the
committee.
The proposal submitted by the PSAP Directors was also similar to the list contained in the
Council budget proviso, with two differences. The PSAP Directors proposed having 5, rather
than 3, elected city officials on the committee. Under this proposal, these would be in addition
to an SCA representative on the committee. The most significant difference between the PSAP
Directors proposal and the Executive's proposal would be the addition of 2 PSAP directors on
the committee: one from a large agency (NORCOM or Valley Com) and one from a small
agency.
3 Subsequently renamed the "law, justice and emergency management committee."
September 9, 2015 Item 10: E911 Oversight Page 105 of 180
M.
Questions for RPC members include:
• Should the Committee include only elected officials?
• If non - elected officials are on the Committee, should they be voting or non - voting
members?
• If non - elected officials are on the Committee, should membership include PSAP
directors?
• Should there be a technical advisory committee (TAC) established to give guidance to
the Committee and, if so, what should membership on the TAC consist of, and what
level of formality should the TAC have?
Role and Responsibilities of the E911 Oversight Committee
The proposals from the Executive and the PSAP Directors differ significantly as to the role and
responsibilities of the Committee.
Executive Proposal:
Under the Executive's proposal, the "primary objective" of the Committee would be to
"recommend to the King County Executive and Council a strategic plan for the implementation,
governance and operation of the Next Generation 911 (NG911) system in King County." Under
the Executive's proposal, the Committee would also establish bylaws and recommend a future
governance structure, operating rules, and infrastructure for future countywide E911
operations. The Committee would be tasked with developing a 10 -year strategic plan that
would include:
• Vision and Mission Statement for King County E911;
• Guiding principles for the King County E911 system;
• Goals of the King County E911 system;
• Governance for the regional organizational structure;
• Organizational structure and rules for the regional system; and
• COW Packet Materials Page 109
• Implementation steps, to address, at a minimum, the following issues:
• NG911 infrastructure needs and investments
• Staffing and training needs and investments
• Transitional issues
• Recommended sustainable financial plan, built from a baseline budget; and
• Scope, schedule and budget for implementation steps.
The proposal submitted by the Executive focuses on development and implementation of
NG911. It does not provide significant detail on the role of the Committee (and interest of
stakeholders) in oversight of the E911 system, which is a concern given the findings of the
Auditor's Report.
PSAP Directors' Proposal
Under the PSAP Directors' proposal, the purpose of the Committee would be "owning,
operating, maintaining, managing and providing ongoing upgrading, maintenance and
operation of the Enhanced 911 system previously operated by the King County E -911 Program
September 9, 2015 Item 10: E911 Oversight Page 106 of 180
F-W
Office." The proposal includes future formation of a nonprofit corporation that would take over
ownership of the system.
The duties of the Committee would include:
• Providing oversight of the technology, operations, administration and finances of the
King County E -911 Program office
• Completing the above mission and purpose of the Committee
• Providing ongoing evaluation and recommendations for improvement of 911 services
• Developing a strategic plan for Next Generation 911 technology
• Developing timelines and work plans as necessary to carry out its purpose
• Receiving and considering all proper matters in relation to E -911 Program technology,
operations, finance and administration
• Reviewing and analyzing all prior historical documents deemed necessary by the REPSC
including all financial, management, technical and other records of the E -911 Program
Office
• Hiring, monitoring and overseeing the performance of King County E -911 Program
Manager who would serve "at the pleasure of the Committee
• Providing an annual report to the County Executive and King County Council on progress
Under this proposal, the Committee would also "have final authority over annual distributions
to the PSAPs of any and all E -911 taxes collected by King County."
The PSAP Directors' proposed ordinance would also clarify that it would "not in any way
regulate or create oversight of the operations, finances, technology or management of the
current twelve King County PSAPs."
Questions for RPC Members to decide
Both proposals envision the Committee developing a strategic plan for design and
implementation of a regional NG 911 system. Some issues to be resolved between these two
competing proposals are:
• Should the Committee be empowered to hire its own facilitator and set the work plan
for the Committee?
• Should the Committee have a greater role in overseeing the E911 system on an ongoing
basis, particularly given the Auditor's Report findings?
• Should the Committee own and operate the E911 office?
o If so, should a new nonprofit organization be formed for ownership?
o Should the Committee have responsibility for hiring, firing, and oversight of the
employees of the E911 office?
• Should the Committee have final authority over the annual distributions of E911 taxes?
• Should the ordinance clarify that the Committee would not have oversight authority
over the PSAPs?
• To the extent that some of these are still open questions, should they be within the
purview of the Committee to determine?
September 9, 2015 Item 10: E911 Oversight Page 107 of 180
0
Next Steps
As noted above, both the PSAP Directors and the Executive are working on refinements to their
proposals at this time. Additional materials will be provided to PIC members as they become
available. Additionally, more materials on this topic will be a part of the RPC meeting materials,
which were not available at the time of this writing. The RPC members are scheduled to take
action on September 9, 2015.
Attachments
A. Auditor's Report
B. King County Executive's Proposed Ordinance
C. PSAP Directors' Proposed Ordinance
D. PSAP Directors' Talking Points Memo to RPC Members
September 9, 2015 Item 10: E911 Oversight Page 108 of 180
' R,