HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2017-06-26 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETTukwila City Council Agenda
• ❖ COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ❖
Allan Ekberg, Mayor Counci /members: • :- Joe Duffie • :- Verna Seal
David Cline, City Administrator Kathy Hougardy • :- De'Sean Quinn
Dennis Robertson, Council President • :- Kate Kruller • :- Thomas McLeod
Monday, June 26, 2017; 7:00 PM Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. PUBLIC
At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included on this agenda
COMMENTS
(please limit your comments to five minutes per person). To comment
on an item listed on this agenda, please save your comments until the issue is
presented for discussion. (Refer to back of agenda page for additional information.)
3. SPECIAL ISSUES
a. An agreement for Public Safety Plan program management quality
Pg.1
assurance services.
b. Consensus on Public Safety Plan sustainability goals.
Pg.21
c. An ordinance relating to trespass warnings on City property.
Pg.35
d. Police Department body camera program.
Pg.49
e. A fireworks permit submitted by Zakuani and Friends Charity Match to
Pg.91
be used on July 2, 2017 at Starfire Sports.
4. REPORTS
a. Mayor
b. City Council
c. Staff
d. Council Analyst
5. MISCELLANEOUS
6. ADJOURN TO SPECIAL MEETING
❖ SPECIAL MEETING ❖
•:� Ord #2542 Res #1912
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
2. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approval of Minutes: 6/19/17 (Regular)
b. A resolution repealing Resolution No. 1894 and re- adopting the
Pg.73
consolidated permit fee schedule to revise the credit card surcharge
requirements. [Reviewed and forwarded to Consent by the Finance
Committee on 6120117]
c. Authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with Steven M. Goldblatt for
Pg.i
Public Safety Plan program management quality assurance services
in the amount of $250,000.
d. Authorize the approval of a fireworks permit submitted by Zakuani and
Pg.91
Friends Charity Match to be used on July 2, 2017 at Star-fire Sports.
3. NEW BUSINESS
4. ADJOURNMENT
Tukwila City Hall is ADA accessible.
Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice to the
City Clerk's Office (206- 433 -1800 or TukwilaCityClerk @TukwilaWA.gov). This agenda is available at
www.tukwilawa.gov, and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities.
Tukwila Council meetings are audio /video taped (available at www.tukwilawa.aov)
IL
HOW TO TESTIFY
When recognized by the Presiding Officer 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 5 minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens and members of the public, and
may not be able to answer questions or respond during the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Members of the public are given the opportunity to address the Council on items that are NOT included on
the agenda during PUBLIC COMMENTS. Please limit your comments to 5 minutes. If you have a
comment on an Agenda item, please wait until that item comes up for discussion to speak on that topic.
SPECIAL MEETINGS /EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
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 as prescribed by law. Executive Sessions are not open to the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action on 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:
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. Members of the public 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 that time.
6. After the Public Hearing is closed and during the Council meeting, the Council may choose to discuss
the issue among themselves, or defer the discussion to a future Council meeting, without further public
testimony. Council action may only be taken during Regular or Special Meetings.
COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE
No Council meetings are scheduled on the 5th 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 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month at 7:00 p.m. and Special Meetings. Official
Council action in the form of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing of ordinances can
only be taken at Regular or Special Council meetings.
Committee of the Whole Meetings - Councilmembers are elected for a four -year term. The Council
President is elected by the Councilmembers to preside at all Committee of the Whole meetings for a
one -year term. Committee of the Whole meetings are held the 2nd and 4th Mondays at 7:00 p.m.
Issues discussed there are forwarded to Regular or Special Council meetings for official action.
q ii� I i i I il;
---- –Iniflals 1-1-1 --- --- I Ins'MNO.
Aleelhi Oale
06/26/17
F�Y,wi
LH
Cxr1"(;()1ty [Z 01"•aoss?"on 71 "u,01ioll ❑ Resollifion Ej Ordinance El Iiie, I'lubke I le(i6q, ❑ 01her
Council ret'ien"
SlIONSOR Z("'Ouneil [:]V'ineince oVin? [:]T,5' E] 1V5,aR ❑ Police E]PIV E]Cour/
SPONSOR'S Contract with Steven M. Goldblatt through 2021 in an amount not to exceed $250,000 for
Program Management Quality Assurance Services.
m, (".OAV. Nftg. D CDN El Finance Cornni, E] Public Safety
[:]Trani &Infrastructure E] Arts COMITI, E] kirks COMM ❑ Planning Comm.
DAIT"': CONINIFITI-114, CJJAIR�
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADWN.
3.A. &
Spec 2.C.
STAFT SPONSOR', LAUREL HUMPHREY )R161NAL A('&NDA 06/26/17
A61"IND ITFAITH LF, Contract for Public Safety Plan Program Management Quality Assurance Services
Cxr1"(;()1ty [Z 01"•aoss?"on 71 "u,01ioll ❑ Resollifion Ej Ordinance El Iiie, I'lubke I le(i6q, ❑ 01her
Aftq l.)aie 6126117 A P Dale 6120117 A P Oate A 1 g 1)ale Al g Dale V,It Deane .111v Owe
SlIONSOR Z("'Ouneil [:]V'ineince oVin? [:]T,5' E] 1V5,aR ❑ Police E]PIV E]Cour/
SPONSOR'S Contract with Steven M. Goldblatt through 2021 in an amount not to exceed $250,000 for
Program Management Quality Assurance Services.
m, (".OAV. Nftg. D CDN El Finance Cornni, E] Public Safety
[:]Trani &Infrastructure E] Arts COMITI, E] kirks COMM ❑ Planning Comm.
DAIT"': CONINIFITI-114, CJJAIR�
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADWN.
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
1 ',N1)1,'ND1.9 1 ,ju, Rrl( 1 itut l) AMOLIN'r Buw,1.'.TED APITOITIATION RiiQuIRE'D
$ $0 $2501( (up to) through 2021
Fun(] Source: ENDING FUND BALANCE
Co rn, rn e n ts: Budget amendment to Council Professional Services later in 2017
MTG.DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
6/26/17
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
6/26/17
Informational Memorandum dated 6/15/17
Steven M. Goldblatt Statement of Qualifications
. .. . . ................
Contract
Composite score sheet
- - - ------- -
2
TO:
FROM-
CC:
DATE'
SUBJECT:
KC-itv of Tukwila
Aflan Ekberg, •
Committee of the Whale
Laurel Humphrey, Council Analyst
Mayor Ekberg
June 15, 2017
Contract for Public Safety flan program Management Quality Assurance
ISSUE
The City Council requested the services of a Program Management Quality Assurance (PMQA) provider
to report directly to the City Council -.. w , Public Safety Plan.
BACKGROUND
On May 10, 2017, the City issued a Request for Qualifications for a Public Safety Plan Program
Management Quality Assurance provider. Three firms submitted statements of qualifications which were
preliminarily evaluated by staff. All three firms were invited to participate in an in-person interview, which
was conducted on June 1, 20116 and included Council President Dennis Robertson„ Councilembers
Duffie and Quinn, Bob Giberson, Rachel Bianchi,. and Laurel Humphrey. Steven M. Goldblaft was
unanimously selected by the interview panel due to his exemplary experience and understanding of the
PMQA role. Mr. Goldblatt received the highest score at both the proposal review and interview stages.
r •w• °w w. w . • •w_ • • ° •
approved by •
Review and comment on overall project budgets„ schedule, and delivery strategy;
Meet monthly with the Executive Project Management team to assess progress, advise„ and
strategize;
Provide updated monthly written reports to the Council re budget, schedule, and progress of all
projects; and
Mahe quarterly presentations to the Council of the review of budget and schedule status 2017 Q8
to 2618 Q8, then bimonthly if needed.
FINANCIAL
June 7, 2017 milestone schedule prepared by Shiels Obletz Johnsen,
Time period
Hours/mw
w nth
$/period
2017 Q3 thru 2018
At1
$75,000
2018 Q • thru 2019 Q2
25
5,000
45,000
2019 Q3 thru 2020 s
..�wy 1
•0
y110y
2021 Q1 as needed
10
2,000
6,000
Totals
M f b
w M° w •w- 111 • s w^ r mm w r •• _war
RECOMMENDATION
M M rww Iw • • • AXw .w° IAI r
ATTACHMENTS
• Steven M, Goldblatt Statement of Qualifications
• Graft contract
• Composite score sheet
3
El
Request for Qualifications:
Program Management
Quality Assurance Consultant Services
Prepared for:
City of Tukwila
Procurement Services
Prepared By:
Steven M. Goldblatt
24 May 2017
H� G•
Cover Letter I
R&,sum6 . 2
............................ ..
Experience 3
Consultant Philosophy - . . . . . ......... . ---1
Recently Completed Prqiects 4
References 5
N.
23 May 2017
Laurel Humphrey
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd
Tukwila WA 98188
Re: Program Management Quality Assurance Consultant Services RFQ
Enclosed please find my statement of qualifications in response to your RFQ,
I envision the PMQA consultant's role as providing (1) oversight at a high level, adding
independent perspective to the PM's day-to-day work, and (2) keeping the City Council
informed regularly and transparently about the Public Safety Plan's projects.
Over the past quarter century, I have served executive project management teams on more than a
hundred WA public works projects of $15 million to $600+ million in size, Many have programs
similar to the PSP, including city halls (Seattle and Burien), justice centers (Seattle and
Snohomish County), Seattle Fire Station 10, Seattle Police W Precinct, and 911 centers (Seattle
and King County).
As one of the pioneers of alternative public works delivery methods in WA and the passage of
RCW 39.10 in 1994, 1 have served on 64 WA GCCM projects—more than anyone else. GCCM
has been a very successful delivery method for a broad spectrum of public owners, and I
commend its use to the City.
In various capacities the past three decades, I have reported and presented to the Seattle City
Council, King County Council, Seattle School Board, Sound Transit Board, Harborview Board,
and UW Board of Regents,
My dispute resolution background may seem non-traditional for the PMQA role, In my long
public works experience, this is a non-traditional skill set sought by the City Council that makes
me a good fit.
Thank you for your consideration.
Steven M. Goldblatt
Resolve Disputes
900 Lenora St Ste 400
Seattle WA 98121-2736
206-972-8542
resolved",), disputes com
VA
Steven M. Goldblatt
Resolve Disputes
900 Lenora St Ste 400
Seattle WA 98121-2736
(206) 972-8542
• 1986 - date: Principal, Resolve Disputes
• 1982 - 2009: Assoc. Professor of Const. Mgrnt (Chair 1982-91), University of Washington
• 1980 - 1982: Ass't Professor of Const. Mgmt, Purdue University
• 1977 - 1980: In-house attorney, two CA companies
1971 - 1977: Engineer, Los Angeles Dept of Water & Power and Pacific Gas & Electric Co,
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
• Justice Center, City of Seattle (GCCM)
• Fire Station 10, Fire Alarm Ctr, Emergency Operations Ctr, City of Seattle (GCCM)
• Joint Training Facility, City of Seattle Fire Dept, SDOT, SPU
• Police West Precinct/911 Communications Center, City of Seattle
• Snohomish County Jail, Administration Bldg, Parking Garage (GCCNI)
• Kent Pullen Regional Communications and Emergency Coordination Center, Renton
• King County Courthouse Seismic Stabilization, Seattle (GCCM)
• King Street Station Restoration, Seattle DOT (GCCM)
• Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle DOT (GCCM)
• Central Library, Seattle Public Library (GCCM)
MarketFront, Pike Place Market PDA, Seattle (GCCM)
• Safeco Field, Seattle (GCCM)
• Green River Filtration Facility, City of Tacoma, Ravensdale (GCCM)
• Computer Science & Engineering 2, UW Seattle (GCCM)
• Nano Engineering & Sciences, UW Seattle (GCCM)
• Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences Building, WSU Spokane (GCCM)
• Martin Stadium Southside Renovation, WSU Pullman (GCCM)
• International Arrivals Facility, Port of Seattle, Seatac (S600+ million, D/B, just, underway)
Steve is a member of The Dispute Resolution Board Foundation, the American Bar Association and its Forum on
Construction Law, the State Bar of California (inactive), and the Seattle School District's Building Excellence
Programs Oversight Committee (2007-).
Steve was a member of Sound Transit's Citizen Oversight Panel (1997-2003 and its first chair 1997-99), King
County's Commission on Governance (2003-04, as co-chair), and Temple De Hirsch Sinai's board of trustees (1.998 -
2004).
As the Washington State Public Policy Fellow (Summer 1990), Steve proposed to the state legislature procurement
alternatives for public agencies' design and construction services. fie served as a contributing, author to the state's
general conditions for public works (1992) and alternative public works contracting procedures law RCW 39,10
(1994-97), and was a member of the Washington State Public Works Advisory Board (1983-85),
0001114691141el
• 1974 - 1977 JD, Golden Gate University School of Law, San Francisco
• 1967 - 1971 BS, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, UC Berkeley,
RI
N
Since 1982, Steve Goldblatt has mediated and arbitrated many Northwest construction disputes. He has served on
108 public projects in Washington (107) and California (1) as dispute resolution board chair (36), dispute resolution
board member (26), or project neutral (46), In those roles, fie has worked closely with public agency owners and their
executive management teams throughout the life of then- projects to help keep the parties aligned and to anticipate,
minimize, and resolve any disputes.
Steve is associate professor emeritus (1982-2009) and served as chairman (19'82-91) of the Department of
Construction Management and associate dean for external affairs (2002-04) in the College of Built Environments at
the University of Washington. His teaching and research focused on design and construction law. He held adjunct
appointments in the departments of Architecture and Civil Engineering. Previously, he was a faculty member at
Purdue University following nine years' experience in California as an engineer, attorney, and consultant.
Prof. Goldblatt served as president of the Associated Schools of Construction (1989-90) after six years as founding
editor of ASC's Construction Education Chronicle. fie also helped form ASC's contracts and law special interest
group and the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture's law and practice group.
Author of many articles and book chapters, Steve was editor of a book, 1991 Wiley Construction Law Update, and
was responsible for four other pieces of Wiley's former Construction Law Library—the 1989 and 1990 supplements
to both Construction Industry Contracts: Legal Citator and Case Digest and Construction Industry Forms, He served
as a contributing author to the Instructor's Guide for the American Institute of Architects' 1988 Handbook of
Professional Practice.
WM=
In my many years of public works experience, the Council's PMQA consultant's role is rather
unique. I see two primary, complementary responsibilities: (1) providing oversight and expertise
% at a high level, adding independent perspective to the PM's day-to-day work, and (2) keeping the
Council informed regularly and transparently about the Public Safety Plan's projects. 'The PMQA
consultant will be the Council's liaison to the projects' executive PM team and a resource person
for Council input and questions.
Q6
N-) L 1 ( .F, 1) F, PA R "I'M E NT, S EATT' 1, F"
Steve Goldblatt, DRB Member
Owner: University of Washington
Architecc Miller Hull Partnership
GCCM BNBuilders
Project Budget: $19.5M
Project Start: August 2011
Project Completion: May 2016
00, 91 The UWPD facility includes 29,000 SF of new
space for offices, dispatch, meeting rooms,
locker rooms, holding rooms, K-9 and bike
patrol, storage, and parking for police fleet
vehicles,
1, 00'11'I)XLL, OPLIATIONS BULLI)ING, PUL,LMAN
Steve Goldblatt, Project Neutral
Owner: Washington State Univ,
PM: Hill International
Architect: ALSC Architects
GCCM; Hoffman Construction
Project Budget: S61M
Project Start: November 2012
Project Completion: May 2014
'he Football Operations Building provided a new
4,192 SF home for the Cougar football program
t the W end of Martin Stadium, including a
ieight room, lockers, equipment and training
:)oms for players, position meeting rooms, and
oaches' offices.
Steve Goldblatt, Project Neutral
Owner: Port of Pasco
PM: Strategic CM
Architect: Mead & Flunt
GCCM: Bouten Construction
Project Budget: $42, I M
Project Start: September 2014
Project Completion: January 2017
WESTCANIPUS UTILITY PLANT, SEATFLE
10
Tri-Cities Airport recently completed the
expansion and modernization of its terminal
building. The project doubles the size of the old
terminal to 1 10,000 SF; adding an expanded
boarding concourse and restaurant, increasing
space for security screening, and modernizing
ticketing and baggage areas.
UW's West Campus Utility Plant is a 17,200
SF building containing generators, chillers, and
associated equipment. The building was
recently constructed above the existing campus
utility tunnel, allowing direct access to the
tunnel for distribution of electrical cabling and
process chilled water piping.
S
(2,16CA DIA 1'JJ`Ii%4NTARY 1101FIRTI"IA Ill F � STI t I 1^
MIDDLE' S010OLS, SEA'I"1'1,,,E
Steve Goldblatt, DRB Chair
Owner: Seattle School District
PM: Shiels Obletz Johnsen
Architect: Mahlurn Architects
GCCM: Lydig Construction
Project Budget: $116.8M
Project Start: August 2013
Project Completion: July 2017
References
its nearly-completed project includes the
agrarnrning, design, and construction of
o new Seattle public schools on one large
-: Cascadia Elementary School, serving up
660 students, and Robert Eagle Staff
iddle School, accommodating 850 students.
urals, painted by local Native-Arnerican
ist Andrew Morrison are preserved.
I. Pike Place Market Preservation & Development Authority: Ben Franz-
Knight, Executive Director, ben((r, pikeplacemarkct-org, (206) 774-5232
Client for 8 years. DRB chair on two projects- $70+ million, 3-year
renovation and the recently completed $70+ million MarketFront
mixed-use development,
Seattle School District: Richard Best, Director of Capital Projects and
Planning, rlbest@,)seattleschools.org, (206) 252-0644
Client for 20 years. DRB chair on 6 projects: Ballard HS, District
HQ, W Seattle HS; GCCM Garfield HS, Olympic Hills ES, Cascadia
ES/Robert Eagle Staff MS. Project neutral on 7 projects: Lincoln HS,
Whittier ES, Cooper ES, Stanford ES, Greenwood ES, Coe ES,
GCCM Loyal Heights ES. Ten-year member of the District's $500
million and $700 million capital levies' oversight committee;
currently vice chair.
University of Washington: Steve Tatge, Executive Director of Major
Capital Projects, statge@uw.edu, (206) 221-4231
• Client for 35 years. Advisor to the President, EVP, and VP for
Capital Projects during my 27-year faculty career. DRB chair on
Kelly Ethnic Cultural Ctr and 4 GCCM projects: Denny Hall, Nano
Eng'g, Fluke Hall, Computer Science & Eng'g 2. DRB member on 15
projects, including GCCM UW Hospital Ph 2, UWPD,.Health
Sciences roofing, UW Bothell Discovery Hall, Odegaard Library,
Microbiology Labs; D/B WCUP.
4. Washington State Dept of Enterprise Services: Bob Bourg, Claims &
Disputes Manager, bob.bourg@des.wa.gov, (360) 239-4010
Client for 25 years. Co-author of State's public works contract general
conditions (1992). Project neutral on 6 community college projects at
Highline, Green River (2), Everett, Skagit Valley, S Puget Sound.
11
CITY OF TUKWILA
f)
CONSULTANT SERVICES
PROPOSER NAME- Steven M. Goldblatt
EIN#: 27-2067413
ADDRESS: 900 Lenora St.Ste.400 Seattle WA, 98121-2736
COMPANYCONTACT: Steven M. Goldb,latt
EMAIL ADDRESS: resolve@dis2utes. com
DN
W.-Ift uV AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: Nw 'Wml, lls, U 07w,
THIS PAGE MUST BE SIGNED BY A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO ACT FOR THE COMPANY IN
HIS/HER OWN NAME.
Page 6 of 7
12
yJt�A City of Tukwila Contract Number-
6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN PROGRAM MANAGEMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE
SERVICES
4 i 0 0-
0 0
13
5. Ownership and Use of Documents. All documents, drawings, specifications and other
materials produced by the Consultant in connection with the services rendered under this
Agreement shall be the property of the City whether the project for which they are made is
executed or not, The Consultant shall be permitted to retain copies, including reproducible
copies, of drawings and specifications for information, reference and use in connection with
the Consultant's endeavors. The Consultant shall not be responsible for any use of the said
documents, drawings, specifications or other materials by the City on any project other than
the project specified in this Agreement.
6. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall, in performing the services contemplated by
this Agreement, faithfully observe and comply with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances
and regulations, applicable to the services rendered under this Agreement.
7. Indemnification. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages,
losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or
omissions of the Consultant in performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages
caused by the sole negligence of the City.
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW
4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or
damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant
and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant's liability
hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. It is further specifically
and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the Consultant's
waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this
indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of
this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
8. Insurance. The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement,
insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from
or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents,
representatives, or employees. Consultant's maintenance of insurance as required by the
agreement shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Consultant to the coverage provided
by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in
equity.
A. Minimum Amounts and Scope of Insurance. Consultant shall obtain insurance of the
types and with the limits described below:
1. Business Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence,
$2,000,000 general aggregate, The City shall be named as an insured under the
Consultant's business liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed
for the City.
B. Other Insurance Provision. The Consultant's business liability insurance, policy is to
contain, or be endorsed to contain that it shall be primary insurance with respect to the
City. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City
shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be contributed or combined
with it,
C. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M.
Best rating of not less than ANN,
D. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and a
copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the
additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Consultant
before commencement of the work. Certificates of coverage and endorsements as
CA revised : 1-2013
14
arm
required by this section shall be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of execution
of this Agreement.
E. Notice of Cancellation. The Consultant shall provide the City with written notice of any
policy cancellation, within two business days of their receipt of such notice.
F, Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the Consultant to maintain the
insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of contract, upon which the City
may, after giving five business days' notice to the Consultant to correct the breach,
immediately terminate the contract or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance
and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be
repaid to the City on demand, or at the sole discretion of the City, offset against funds due
the Consultant from the City,
• Independent Contractor. The Consultant and the City agree that the Consultant is an
independent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and
employee between the parties hereto. Neither the Consultant nor any employee of the
Consultant shall be entitled to any benefits accorded City employees by virtue of the services
provided under this Agreement, The City shall not be responsible for withholding • otherwise
deducting federal income tax or social security or for contributing to the state industrial
insurance program, otherwise assuming the duties • an employer with respect to the
Consultant, • any employee • the Consultant,
10. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or
retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the
Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any
company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any
fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon
or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warrant,
the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability, or in its discretion to deduct
from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
11. Discrimination Prohibited. The Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it under
this Agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, creed, color, national
origin, age, veteran status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, political
affiliation or the presence of any disability in the selection and retention of employees or
procurement of materials or supplies.
12. Assignment. The Consultant shall not sublet or assign any of the services covered by this
Agreement without the express written consent of the City.
11 Non-Waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation
provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision.
14, Termination.
A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by giving ten (10) days
written notice to the Consultant.
B. In the event of the death of a member, partner or officer of the Consultant, or any of its
supervisory personnel assigned to the project, the surviving members of the Consultant
hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this Agreement, if requested to do
so by the City. This section shall not be a bar to renegotiations of this Agreement between
surviving members of the Consultant and the City, if the City so chooses.
CA revised : 1-2013
15
15. Applicable Law; Venue; Attorney's Fees. This Agreement shall be subject to, and the
Consultant shall at all times comply with, all applicable federal, state and local laws,
regulations, and rules, including the provisions of the City of Tukwila Municipal Code and
ordinances of the City of Tukwila. In the event any suit, arbitration, or other proceeding is
instituted to enforce any term of this Agreement, the parties specifically understand and agree
that venue shall be properly laid in King County, Washington. The prevailing party in any such
action shall be entitled to its attorney's fees and costs of suit. Venue for any action arising
from or related to this Agreement shall be exclusively in King County Superior Court.
16. Severability and Survival. If any term, condition or provision of this Agreement is declared
void or unenforceable or limited in its application or effect, such event shall not affect any other
provisions hereof and all other provisions shall remain fully enforceable. The provisions of this
Agreement, which by their sense and context are reasonably intended to survive the
completion, expiration or cancellation of this Agreement, shall survive termination of this
Agreement.
City Clerk
City of Tukwila
law'MONUT
Notices to Consultant shall be sent to the following address:
1& Entire Anreement; Modification. This Agreement, together with attachments or addenda,
represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the City and the Consultant and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements written or oral. No
amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be of any force or effect unless it is in
writing and signed by the parties.
CA revised : 1-2013
16
9: D s. w - mo
CITY OF TUKWILA CONSULTANT
Allan Ekberg, Mayor Steven M. Goldblatt
Attest/Authenticated" Approved as to Form:
City Clerk, Christy O'Flaherty Office of the City Attorney
CA revised : 1-2013 Page 5
17
in:
Exhibit A — Scope of Services
• Review and comment on overall project budgets, schedule, and delivery strategy;
• Meet monthly with the Executive Project Management team to assess progress, advise,
• Provide updated monthly written reports to the Council re budget, schedule, and
progress, of all projects; and
• Make quarterly presentations to the Council • the review of budget and schedule
At a $200 hourly rate, the following budget allocation is based on SOJ's 7 June 2017 milestone
schedule:
T i rn e p e r io d
2017 Q 018 Q31
25
$5,OOiO
$75,000
2018 •4 thru 2019 Q2
1
25
5,000
45,000
2019 Q3 t�hru 2020 Q1
30
6,000
54,000
2020 Q2 thru 2020 Q4
25
5,000
45,000
2021 • as needed
10
2,0000
•,000
This projection budgets $25,000 to a contingency for extra presentations, meetings, and/or
reports as needed.
19
City of Tukwila Public Safety Plan
M-7-3ag, M.
20
Preliminary Proposal
Interview
Total Average
Rank
Average
Average
Steven J. Goldblatt
383
..... ---- —
22.9
61.6
1
Hill
32.3
153
47.6
2
Vanir
29
16.9
45.9
3
20
---_/u6ials
filmamm
A( &NDA 1'I'FN1'JTHA;� Sustainability Goals for Fire Stations
017 ElCover,
SPONSOR'S The Council is asked to provide direction through consensus on sustainability goals for the
construction of three fire stations.
E]Tr,ans, &Infrastructurc E] Arts (",ornrn. 0 ]larks ('0111111, EJ Planning CWTMI
SP()NS0R/An,wN- Mayor's Office
O)MM11"'FF Unanimous; Forward to Committee of the Whole for Consensus
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
Fund Source.
MTG.DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
MTG.DATE
ATTACHMENTS
06/26/17
Informational Memorandum dated 05/31/17
Weinstein A+U Sustainability Memo
Minutes from the Public Safety Committee meeting of 5/15/17 & 6/19/17
22
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
TO: Public Safety Committee
FROM: Rachel Bianchi, Communications and Government Relations Manager
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: May 31, 2017
SUBJECT: Sustainability Goals for Fire Station Construction
ISSUE
With the ass,istance of Weinstein A+U, the Committee had an initial discussion on May
15, 2017 regarding potential! sustainability goals associated with the construction of
three new fire station. Staff is seeking direction from the Committee as to next steps.
BACKGROUND
The Weinstein A+U memo provided a comprehensive look at various routes the City
could take regarding sustainability in design and construction of the fire station program.
The memo covered potential certification programs such as LEED, examples of project�s
in neighboring jurisdictions that were certified, and alternatives to certification, The
memo also included a recommendation section that indicated that funding will be a
driver in the "intensity of the, City's sustainability goals,
Per the discussion in committee • May 15, 2017, it was acknowledged that the costs •
certification, alone can be in the $100,000 range, depending on which certification one is
seeking, and that doesn't include the hard costs associated with constructing to that
certification. Pursuing certification — such as LEED gold status — is one route for the
City
• consider to achieve its sustainability go. ls, However, staff is mindful as to, the
budget implications associated with this choice.
The Pacific Northwest is known for its strong building, energy and other codes that
positively affect sustain abil ity-related issues. The City has a "do noth I no" option th
would still produce buildings that are mindful of energy and water use and �ave
relatively low impacts • the environment.
However, the City also has the opportunity to find a more sustainably middle ground
that is conscious of cost but also forward -thinking in long-term investments that could
save natural and financial resources. For inst�ance, focus on energy efficiency would
have a positive impact on the long-term maintenance and operations budget of each
building, while also saving environmental impacts associated with operating an
inefficient HVAC system.
RECOMMENDATION
Due to the budget implications associated with certification, and acknowledgement of
the City's long-term desire to steward the environment and community, staff
recommends the City choose the [after option of a sustainable middle ground. By
providing Weinstein A+U with specific direction as to identifying sustainable features
that will produce long-term financial and environmental savings, the City can have a 23
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
meaningful impact over the life • these buildings. This direction will require Weinstien
A+U and sub consultants to have a sustainabil'ity charrette and assess project
sustainability elements at Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction
Documents and project completion stages. Project fees outside of construction costs
associated with this sustainability efforts range from $40,000 - $60,000. The Council is
being ask�ed to provide consensus on the above approach at the June 26, 2017
Committee of the Whole meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Weinstein A+U Sustainability Memo
W2017 Wo MemoslSustainabi�li4y Merno 2 FINAL.doc
24
EVALUATING THIRD PARTY GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION FOR TUKW[LA FIRE STATIONS
MAY 9,2017
Submitted bv Weinstein A+U/m collaboration with O'Brien and Company
Introduction
According to the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, published in2DlS, the City of Tukwila desires tmbee
community that prioritizes livability for its residents and responsible environmental stewardship for
the benefit of future generations. |m the execution of the Public Safety Program, the City now has a
unique opportunity to embody those priorities (naset of buildings that will continue to serve Tukwila
for the next 50 years or more. The design team for the new Tukwila Fire Stations, led by architecture
firm Weinstein A+U,is delighted to assist the City in crafting new buildings that embody the culture of
the City, im addition tooptimizing the operations of the Tukwila Fire Department.
The design team recognizes that the City already has many critical goals directly related to
sustainability, such as low building operating costs, the use of materials that will continue to perform
and be attractive for the \ifespam of the buildings, and promoting the health of the city's waterways. 8y
choosing to fund high-performance buildings, not only will Tukwila support a healthier environment
for all and save money over the life of the buildings, but it will also provide resilient, restorative
fac0ities for its fixst-reuponders.Abuilding that operates with minimal energy input will have an
enhanced ability to function in the event of a natural disaster or fuel shortage, running much longer
than a conventional building when forced to use a back-up generator. Buildings that incorporate
quality daylighting strategies and high indoor air quality standards have been demonstrated to
improve both the physical and menta:l health of their occupants, increasing worker productivity and
reducing the number of sick days taken by employees. LastIy, cities that are growing at a rate such as
Tukwila's have an opportunity to infliuence the quality of that growth by setting a good example with
their public facilities. High-performance public buildings can be advertised as saving tax-payers
money in the long term, but they can also further educate constituents about the varied benefits of
sustainable design, inspiring consumers - and by extension, private developers - to value sustainable
strategies in all types ofconstruction.
Given the many benefits of choosing to pursue high sustainability goals for new public buildings, the
purpose of this memo is to help the TukwiIa City Council understand how Green Building Certification
could help achieve those goals on their new fire stations, as well as adding further value to these
projects.
Why consider third party certification?
Third party certification ofa green building features provides three main benefits:
accountability, public recognition, and better building performance. Accountability means that
am owner can use third party certification tm hold the design and construction team toestablished
standards, and receive verification that those standards were met by an impartial outside entity. This
leads to a transparency and comparability that allows public owners to Communicate to constituents
and stakeholders that they are providing abuilding o6a certain standard, which can be compared to
projects provided by other public entities using the same certification system.
The most direct value for owners from using a third-party certification is driving better building
performance. Many certification programs are comprehensive, requiring projects toaddressmu|tip|e
environmental issues to a certain level in order to earn certification. This acts as a driver for owners
and project teams toidentify ways to improve all aspects of environmental sustaimnbinty addressed in
acert#icmtion program. Third party certification also provides an additional, impartial metric for
evaluating individual strategies for a project, allowing teams rm determine which strategies will best
achieve given performance threshold within a project budge%.
Alternatives to certification
Third-party certification has an additional cost to the project and can sometimes require projects to
implement strategies that are not the best fit. There are other tools an owner can use to achieve the
accountability and building performance that third-party certifications provide. These tools can also
be used in conjunction with a third-party certification to assure a successful certification; however,
they do not provide the same ability to promote a project's achievements, or to understand how the
project is performing compared to similar projects.
Some examples of these tools are:
• Contracting methods: Integrated Project Delivery, Design/Build with performance guarantee
• Decision-making tools: Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Energy 8emuhrmarking
• Verification tools: Monitoring-based commissioning, building envelope commissioning,
Energy Star Portfolio Manager
Regional Precedents
Since third-party certifications for green building began to show up in the market in the late 19�0s,
rnany government entities of all sizes have looked to these outside resources to help set consistent,
impartial standards for achieving environmental, climate, and performance goals for the assets they
build and manage. According to the US Green Building Council's Public Policy Library, there are
currently 2l5 government policies im the US requiring some sort of green buWding certification for
public buildings (searched D5/0312QY7)' These stretch from the federal level to small and large cities
and are in the East, South, Midwest, Southwest, and Western parts of the country. The following
section highlights some of those policies relevant to the Pacific Northwest region.
Federal, State, and Local MunicipuCertification Requirements
Federal Executive Order 13423, adopted in 2007, requires federal agencies to meet high-performance
and sustainable building goals. Those goals have been translated into federal guidelines by the
General Services Administration, who has endorsed both LEED and a version of Green Globes as tools
for agencies bo prove compliance with the guidelines.
Since 2OQ5, Washington State has required that all major facility projects mf public agencies receiving
funding ina state capital budget, o�r projects financed through a financing contract, bedesigned,
constructed, and certified hoat least the LEED Silver standard. QCW 39�.3S.O4O also neqmiresthese
projects to conduct a life-cycle cost analysis to evaluate energy efficiency options.
King County's 2013 update to the Green Building and Sustainable Development Ordinance requires all
eligible new construction projects to strive for LEED Platinum certification or, for non LEED-eligible
projects, the highest level of certification available on an internal sustainable infrastructure scorecard
or other approved third-party certification. Other approved programs include Built Green, Evergreen
Sustainable Development Standard, Salmon Safe, and Living Building Challenge.
City of Seattle's Sustainable Buildings and Sites Policy for municipal facilities requires new
construction and major renovations 5,000 square feet or greater to meet LEED Gold, as well as key
performance requirements for energy and water efficiency, waste diversion, and bicycle facilities.
SeattIe also has several private-sector incentive programs in place that provide fast track permitting,
additional FAR, and additional height.
The cities of Kirkland, Shoreline, Lynnwood, Bothell, Newcastle, and Redmond all have private-sector
incentive programs for green building (fast-track permitting is the most common), but no policy
requirements for municipal buildings. Issaquah has, Resolution 20D4-11^ which requires LEED Silver or
Built-green 4-star. Non-applicable building types must refer to those systems for applicable green
building practices but do not have to pursue certification.
Certification Status for Fire Stations Locally and Notionally
LEEDis by far the most common certification program used by agencies and municipalities for fire
stations and related facilities. There are over 30QLBE[)certified fire facilities internationally and
another, 3OAregistered. Seventeen Vf the certified projects are in Washington, primarily inSeattle,
Olympia, Vancouver, and Issaquah also have certified fire stations, Green Globes has a handful of
certified fire stations across the US, none in Washington, Overall Green Globes has certified G3
buildings in Washington mf all types, many owned by federal agencies,
Example projects
° Seattle Fire Station 2O,comn|eted in3Ol4,im the highest rated LEED Platinum Fire Station certified.
It is 9,400 sf with space for two apparatus and features a solar PV array, green stormwater
infrastructure, durable low-maintenance materials, and high-eff iciency glazing for daylight, sound
control, and energy efficiency. |m20l8it earned the FlE.Rj]. Honor and Seattle Design Excellence
Awards.
° City of Eagan Public Safety Center in Minnesota was the first Green Globes certified fire station in
2011. The 38,000 sf building combined two previous fire stations into one centralized location
and also serves asa training center and dorm for volunteer fire fighters, |t features aground
source heat pump, day|ighting and LED lights, and recycled materials.
^ City of Olympia Fire Station 4 was also completed in2O11 and earned LEED Gold. It is 13,370 sf,
including some administrative space, and features aggressive insulation, heat exchangers, and a
highly efficient HVAC system along with functional daylighting design. This project won the
NationaI Fire Chief Station Style First Place award,
When evaluating use of a third-party certification program, it is important to consider that there are a
variety of options, including the most common system, Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED)by the U5 Green Building Council. Some address green building across multiple
categories and some focus om one aspect ufsusLa|nabU|ty that may align bestvv|thanowner's goals.
Comprehensive Environmental Sustoinobility Certifications
LEED
• Most widely recognized and accepted program; used by most municipal, county, and state
policies for green building.
• Est|mnatedS85,088to$l25,QOOinadministrativecostsandcertiMcationkeesperbmi|ding.
Some efficiencies for projects designed and built at the same time by the same teams.
• The latest version, LGED v4, has a number of new credits that can drive better building
performance, such as those for integrative process, whole building life-cyc�e assessment,
green stormm/ater infrastructure, and advanced commissioning,
• LEED certification for similar buildings are likely to be one level lower in Version 4 than it
would have been in the previous version, e.g. LEED v3 Gold building = LEED v4 Silver building
Green Globes
• Criteria substantially similar to LEED, except no prerequisites and includes the ability to
determine which credit categories are applicable.
• Uses surveys and on-site verification to ease documentation requirements. Access to verifier
via phone and e-mail during design.
• Estimated $60,000 - $804000 in administration, verification, and certification fees.
Living Building Challenge (LBC), LBCPe1 �,orNst Zero Certification
°
Ali features of the program are required for LBC certification, and the features from three of six
categories are required for Petal certification. Net Zero certification is available for buildings
that produce 1O596uf the energy they use oman annual basis.
°
Requirements are high, e,g. net zero energy or net zero water, which results in a high
performing building.
°
Performance verified after one year of continuous operations,
°
$15,000 - $25,000 in certification fees. Additional administrative costs could exceed LEED
costs.
Certifications Specific toon Environmental Attribute
Salmon Safe
• Unique local program focused on regional issues of storm water management, water quality,
habitat, and landscape management.
• Requires recertification every five years tomaintain recognition. Requirements customized in
agreement between certifier and organization receiving certification. On-site verification.
• Fees variable and grants sometimes available. Less cost than LEED and Green Globes.
Energy Star
° National, federal benchmarking program for building energy and water efficiency,
° Based om one year of performance data, verified bvanengineer,
° Nm certification fees. Costs for verification negotiated with verifier.
WELL Building Standard
°
New standard focused on health and wellbeing, Developed and run bv for-profit °8°
corporation with support from the US Green Building Council (also manages LEE[)and
International Living Future Institute (also managesLBC).
° Compatible with UBQ and L0C, with a segment mfoverlapping requirements.
* $25,000 in certifications fees, Administrative costs still unknown.
w ,mo,. wx"�v'
/o 4 ^zxmm ^ z^
W.
IE
Recommendations
Since the values Vfthe City mf Tukwila and the functional needs of the Tukwila Fire Department are
both supported by the construction of high-performance fire stations, the design team strongly
suggests that the City incorporate sustainability goals into it's Public Safety Program. The intensity of
those goals and the decision, how (or if) to certify those buildings will be largely determined bvthe
available funding,
In order to meet those goals, regardless of whether a third-party certification system is used:
• Set specific measurable objectives for building performance and develop owner's project
requirements (DPR) early in the design phase.
• Establish a fair method of verifying results to hold the project team accountable for achieving the
project goals and requirements.
• Engage commissioning professionals for both building systems and building envelope
commissioning. Consider ongoing, nnonitndng -based commissioning.
• Use Energy Star Portfolio Manager to benchmark and track building performance,. Consider
Energy Star building certification.
|n considering whether to use a third-party certification system:
° Understand how your project goals and desired sustainability strategies align with what the
system measures. Projects that follow the steps above and craft a strong approach togreen
building often are very easy to certify, requiring limited adjustments or additions to what was
already planned,
° Articulate what makes a certification valuable to this project so it is clear what the process should
achieve - additional accountabiIity, tools for public recognition and reporting, a higher level of
building performance, etc.
° Decide as early as possible if you will proceed with a certification to allow the project team to
iimtegrate the standards im the system into the design from the beginning. This minimizes possible
additional costs for redesigning and backtracking tocollect information.
Timeline
While it is most efficient for a design team hohave established mustainabilit* goals howork with when
going into the programming phase for a new building, we understand that the City of Tukwila'5
priorities for it's new fire stations are still evolving. Before moving forward into the schematic design
phase of the first station |n August 2G17,the programmatic needs and desires of both the fire
department and city will need to be, reconciled with the budgets that have been established for all
three stations, Given that there is likely to be some modification of either budget or building scope
that comes out of that reconciliation process, we recommend adding a desired level of sustainability
performance to that decision matrix.
In order to facilitate those decisions, the design team will strive to organize our final building
programs andsubmequent cost analysis into a set ofoptions that will help the City choose which level
of spending best aligns with it's highest priorities. For the City's part, it will be crucial to understand
and finalize their priorities im the coming weeks so that a final decision on scope and budget can be
made efficiently during the budget reconciliation period, which is currently scheduled for July 2017,
4 o1e"W" swm
,951
Public Sotety Committee Minutes........... ........ ............... ...... May 15, 2017
and reporting wilt fall on the construction contractor and construction management team on
the projects.
• I 9A - -
A 11PIA, I'll,
not go far enough to attain the goal • local and DBE hiring, and that "good faith effort" is not
specific or enforceable. He asked staff to ' rovide more
associated with implementation of a formal community workforce agreement. Since local/DBE
hire is a Council priority, the Council should make the decision about whether to direct
resources to it. He restated an interest in finding a template agreement that could work in
Tukwila. Councilmember McLeod asked how a 10-mile radius was decided for the local hire
DilOt i• lici. Staff res •oncled that a 10-mile radius is a oo•d a lo r- •- Soui
from other jurisdictions. CN er Duffie spoke in favor • the proposal as a starting
point for the City. The Committee did not reach a conclusion and requested that this topic
return at a future meeting. RETURN TO COMMITTEE.
C. Discussion on Public Safet
y Plan Sustainability Goals
Staff is seeking direction from the Committee on sustainability goals and strategies with regard
to the Public Safety Plan buildings program. The architect hired to design the three fire stations,
Weinstein A+U, prepared information for the Committee on various options relating to
sustainability goals including third party certification, energy benchmarking, life-cycle cost
analysis, verification tools, and more. Weinstein A+L) strongly recommends that the City
incorporate sustainability goals into its buildings but decision making around this will be
determined by available funding. They recommend that sustainability goals be factored into
decision-making around the same time as programmatic features, since choices made in both
areas will impact budget availability. Staff will work with Chair McLeod on direction for next
steps, for engaging the Committee and Council on this topic. RETURN TO COMMITTEE.
E. 2017 111 Quarter Police Department Report
Chief Villa updated the Committee on items of interest from the 111 quarter of 2017, including
staffing, recognitions, community outreach, significant operation's, and events. The Committee
requested a future update on the Police Department Strategic Plan. INFORMATION ONLY.
111, MISCELLANEOUS
Adjourned 6:5'6 p.m.
4NCommittee Chair Approval
Minutes by L N
31
Public Safety Committee Minutes ................................................................................................ ............................... June 19, 2017
C. Contract: AXON Enterprise. Inc. for Police Department Body /Vehicle Camera Program
Staff is seeking Council approval of a five -year contract with AXON Enterprise, Inc. in the
amount of $550,000.00 for anew body and vehicle camera system and new Taser devices. The
current in -car video system has not performed well. Officers currently do not wear body
cameras, although the department conducted two pilot programs in 2016 that were successful.
Body cameras can increase public and officer safety, enhance recall, and increase transparency
and accountability. Data suggests they lead to fewer confrontations, complaints, and use of
force along with reduced litigation and investigation costs. The Department has approved a
comprehensive policy that goes above and beyond the law regarding privacy considerations.
For example, if an officer is inside a home and the resident requests that the camera be turned
off, the officer can comply depending on the situation. The proposed contract will cost
$153,352.00 the first year for capital and equipment purchase costs, and $98,892.00 for the
following four years. Costs will be paid from existing budget including drug seizure funds. If
approved, the contract will include 29 new vehicle video systems, 50 body cameras for all
uniformed personnel, and 50 new Tasers. Councilmember Duffie inquired about the
consequences of forgettingto turn the camera on, and staff replied thatthere is an investigation
and disciplinary process for all violations of departmental policies. If a camera is lost or stolen
it can be disabled remotely. Chair McLeod asked for assurance that the Department of
Technology and Innovation is supportive of the new system and staff replied that it is especially
considering the dysfunctionality of the current equipment. Councilmember Quinn commented
that early buy -in from the Guild is a benefit and asked if the proposal is in alignment with 21St
Century Policing principles, which staff confirmed. Chief Villa noted that the contract itself was
not included in the packet which was an oversight. Copies were distributed to the Committee
members for review, and they agreed that the item could move forward to the Committee of
the Whole as scheduled. If any concerns are identified by a Committee member the schedule is
subject to change. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL PENDING CONTRACT REVIEW. FORWARD TO
JUNE 26, 2017 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.
D. Public Safety Plan Sustainability Goals
Staff is seeking Council consensus on appropriate sustainability goals associated with
construction of the three new fire stations. The Committee previously heard a presentation on
comprehensive information about certification programs such as LEED, examples of certified
projects, and alternatives to certification. Funding is an important driver in the City's pursuit of
sustainability goals due to the costs associated with pursuing certification such as LEED and
Salmon Safe. Because there are strong building, energy and other codes in the region, the
buildings will naturally have energy and water saving sustainability features regardless of
additional policy direction. Staff recommends that the City not pursue formal certification but
instead to provide direction toward identifying sustainability features that will produce long-
term financial and environmental savings over the life of the buildings. Staff also recommends
that the architects and subconsultants facilitate a sustainability charrette to identify these
elements. Chair McLeod asked what is lost by not pursuing certification, and staff replied that
it isjust the recognition, which is usually more suited to more public buildings such as City Halls.
Also, because modern buildings already incorporate many sustainability features, certification
programs are becoming less meaningful. Committee members spoke in favor of sustainability
principles but also in keeping costs down as much as possible considering the construction
32
Public Safety Committee Minutes ................................................................................................ ............................... June 19, 2017
market. They agreed with the staff recommendation. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO
JUNE 26, 2017 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.
III. MISCELLANEOUS
Staff reminded the Committee of the special meeting scheduled for Monday, June 26, 2017 at 5:30
p.m. to review and discuss the Facets fire station location study.
Adjourned 6.19 p.m.
Committee Chair Approval
Minutes by LH
33
34
511
...... . ITIi"AINO.
3.C.
S'I',\I,'I; SP()NSoi : RICK MITCHaELL/KRAIG BOYD
10RI(;INAL A(,WN'1)A DXH,': 6/26/17
_Md'NI)A 111, I I Trespass Ordinance for City Property
— --F-
Disao'Sion E] Ablion ❑ Resolulion E Ordinance F� Wei,, bvanl F-1 ) lublic I learin,' F'� 01ber
2' ()
,11a�Dalt,06'126'117 W�gDale Ahj� Dar A71ofa/e 7117117 Owe I/? Dale Afag Date
- ------------- -- . ................ .. -,", . ... .. .............. -,", ................ ......... .............m_
01." 1 1 nance —IT' ZPolice 11PIV/ EIC'wld
SPONSOR E]Coun,il E]A4q),or E]HR OD(J) Ell'ire 1 3 EIMZ—V
S11()NS0R'S Several complaints received regarding criminal behavior in the city parks and on city
property. Currently the Trespass ordinance for city property is enforceable by civil
infraction only. The intent is to create greater enforcement tools to guarantee the rights of
all citizens to use city property as intended by design. The Council is being asked to
consider and approve the ordinance.
M"A"trAx"Im ]w 0 co.\v imtg. E] (J')N Comm E] Finatice Comm. F)ublic Safety
����
����
���
viii
3.C.
S'I',\I,'I; SP()NSoi : RICK MITCHaELL/KRAIG BOYD
10RI(;INAL A(,WN'1)A DXH,': 6/26/17
_Md'NI)A 111, I I Trespass Ordinance for City Property
— --F-
Disao'Sion E] Ablion ❑ Resolulion E Ordinance F� Wei,, bvanl F-1 ) lublic I learin,' F'� 01ber
2' ()
,11a�Dalt,06'126'117 W�gDale Ahj� Dar A71ofa/e 7117117 Owe I/? Dale Afag Date
- ------------- -- . ................ .. -,", . ... .. .............. -,", ................ ......... .............m_
01." 1 1 nance —IT' ZPolice 11PIV/ EIC'wld
SPONSOR E]Coun,il E]A4q),or E]HR OD(J) Ell'ire 1 3 EIMZ—V
S11()NS0R'S Several complaints received regarding criminal behavior in the city parks and on city
property. Currently the Trespass ordinance for city property is enforceable by civil
infraction only. The intent is to create greater enforcement tools to guarantee the rights of
all citizens to use city property as intended by design. The Council is being asked to
consider and approve the ordinance.
M"A"trAx"Im ]w 0 co.\v imtg. E] (J')N Comm E] Finatice Comm. F)ublic Safety
ED']Iran: &Infrastructure ❑ its Comm. F Parks COMM. Planning COMM.
i),vi,r": 6/19/17 C TITHCHAIR: MILE OD
'ONINII -1 1
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SP()NS()R/AI),\HN. Police Department
Unanimous Approvall; Forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
I �".\A I I °'N 1) FYU R I . 1Z FQ U I R 1 -1 1) AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE
I, REC-ORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
6/26/17
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
6/26/17
Informational Memorandum dated 6/5/17
ordinance in draft form
Minutes from the Public Safety Committee Meeting of 6/19/17
7/17/17
35
36
Mt of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
a7jNZE=
FROM: Mike Villa, Chief of Police
Rick Mitchell, A/Deputy Chief of Police
BY: Kraig Boyd, Sergeant Community Police Team
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE; June 5, 2017
SUBJECT: Criminal Trespass Ordinance for City Property.
ISSUE
The Council is being asked to consider and approve a Trespass Ordinance for City Property,
BACKGROUND
The Tukwila Police Department has received several complaints regarding criminal behavior in
the city parks and on city property. Currently the Trespass ordinance for city property is
enforceable by civil infraction only. Surrounding agencies have trespass ordinances on city
property that include a means for appeal and are enforceable as a misdemeanor after a warning
is given, and violated.
DISCUSSION
The result of reduced penalties for constant criminal trespass violations is constant violation of
park rules due to reduced enforcement options. Neighbors, citizens, and patron of our city
parks and property have expressed safety and health concerns, as well as the exposure to
criminal, or dangerous behavior. The ability to appropriately address persons not abiding by
the rules of the parks as well as other city property, backed by criminal enforcement would
reduce criminal behavior and on city property, and increase safe usage of the parks by citizens.
Concerns have been raised that this ordinance would unfairly target the homeless. The intent of
the ordinance is to ensure that city property is clean and safe for all users. The intent is to
create greater enforcement tools to guarantee the rights of all citizens to use city property as
intended by design. Use of the property is open to all if the rules of the property are observed
and followed. It is not the intent of this ordinance to deny access to any individual or group.
The ordinance has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney,
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council is being asked to forward the Trespass Ordinance to the June 26, 2017 Committee
of the Whole meeting and subsequent, July 17, 2017 Regular meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance
37
DRAFT
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that members of the public have legitima -
interests and rights regarding the use and enjoyment of City owned or operat
property, as well as certain rights protected by the United States Constitution and
go o o • d t
Washintn State Cnstitutin an laws, incluing, but n o t limit ed t • ,, the ri • ht t o pe titi
ihe government, the right to assembly, and the right to access sources of infoirmati il
or
and
WHEREAS, there is a demonstrated need for the City to adopt a legally sound
I
process for being able to exclude from City property individuals whose behavior is
dangerous, unsafe, illegal, or unreasonably disruptive to other users; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to provide a specific method for the issuance of
trespass warnings to such individuals, including placing limitations on trespass warnings
and providing procedures for such individuals to promptly appeal the issuance of
trespass warnings; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is enacted as an exercise of the City's authority to
protect and preserve, the public healthi, safety and welfare, while recognizing the rights
of indduals to engage in legitimate activities that may occur on City property;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 8.23 • the Tukwila Municipal Code Established. A chapter
of the Tukwila Municipal Code entitled "Trespass Warnings on City Property," to be
codified as Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 8.23, is hereby established to read
as follows:
W Word Processing lOrd ina n ces\Trespa ss warnings on City property 4-11-17
RBT:bjs Page 1 of 7
W
CHAPTER 8.23
TRESPASS WARNINGS ON CITY PROPERTY
Sections:
821010 Purpose, Authority, and Applicability
8.23.020 Definitions
8.23,0 30 Trespass Warnings on City Property
Section 2. Regulations Established. TMC Section 8.23.010, "Purpose, Authority,
and Applicability," is hereby established to read as follows:
A, The purpose of this chapter is to adopt a legally sound process for being able IT
exclude from City owned or operated property individuals whose behavior is dangerou
unsafe, illegal, or unreasonably disruptive to other users. It is further the purpose of th
chapter to provide for a specific method to allow for the issuance of trespass warnin.
to such individuals, including placing limitations on trespass warnings and providi
procedures for such individuals to promptly appeal the issuance of trespass warnings
order to protect their right to engage in legitimate activities protected • the state a
federal constitutions. I
1 . Threatening another person by communicating either directly or indirectly
to another person the intent to cause bodily injury in the future to the person threatened
or to any other person; or
8 0
1 • i -
MIIM 01411MIM
4. Assaulting staff or other patrons', or
5. Sexual misconduct or harassment (e.g., indecent exposure, offensive
touching, sexual acts).
C. Behavior that is "unreasonably disruptive to other users" is behavior that is not
constitutionally protected and' that, in consideration of the nature, scope, use and
purpose of the property in question, unreasonably interferes with others' use and
enjoyment of said property. Examples of behavior that may unreasonably interfere with
others' use and enjoyment of City property include, but are not limited to, any of the
following:
1. Use of unreasonably hostile or aggressive language or gestures; or
2. Unreasonably loud vocal expression or unreasonably boisterous physical
behavior; or
3. Using electronic or other communication d,-
• w disruptive to others; or
4. Unreasonably interfering with the free passage of staff or patrons in or on
City property; or
5. Behavior that is unreasonably inconsistent with the use for which the City
property was designed and intended to be used (e.g., bathing, shaving, or washing
clothes in a public bathroom ♦ skateboarding in a public parking area or plaza).
D, Any constitutionally protected action or speech is excluded from the prohibited
behavior listed in this section.
Section 4. Regulations Established. TIVIC Section 8.23.0 0, "Trespass
Warnings on City Property," is hereby established to read as follows:
8.23.0 30 Trespass Warnings on City Property
A. Officers of the Tukwila Police Department shall be empowered to issue a
trespass warning to any individual who the officer has probable cause to believe has
violated any City ordinance, state statute, or government rule or regulation relating to or
prohibiting conduct that is dangerous, illegal, or unreasonably disruptive to other users
of City property, as defined in TIVIC Section 8.23.020, while such individual is on or
within any City property, as more specifically set forth in TIVIC Section 8.23.010.C.
W� Word Processing\Ordinances\Trespass warnings on Cfty property 4-11-17
RBTbjs Page 3 of 7
41
C. The offender need not be charged, tried, or convicted of any crime • infraction
in order for the trespass warning to be issued or be effective. The warning may be
based upon observation by a police officer or a City or other government employee or
may be based upon a civilian report that would ordinarily be relied upon by police
officers in the determination of probable cause.
"M
V W W
♦• so
M
I A, person receiving a trespass warning for an expulsion of 7 days, or
longer, may file an appeal to have the trespass warning rescinded or the duration of the
dxpulsion shortened.
2. The appeal must be in writing, provide the appellant's current address, and
Oall be accompanied by a copy of the trespass warning that is being appealed.
3. The written notice of appeal must be sent to the: City Administrator and
postmarked no later than 7 calendar days after the issuance of the trespass warning.
W: Word ProcessingtOrdinancesMespass warnings on City property 4-11-17
RBT:bjs Page 4 of 7
FIX
4. The trespass warning shall remain in effect during the pendency of any
?• ministrative or judicial proceeding.
0
The City Administrator or his or her designee (hereinafter "Hearing Official")
am
IIIIINIIIIIIINIIII! III I I • III III III, I I
- oil:
• wl
c. Issue a ruling upholding, rescinding, or shortening the duration of the
expulsion set forth in the trespass warning no later than 5 business days after the
hearing.
2. The Hearing Official may cons,ider a sworn report or a declaration under
penalty of perjury as authorized by RCW 9A.72.085, written by the officer who issued
the trespass warning • by the person upon whose observation the trespass warning
was based, without further evidentiary foundation, as prima facie evidence that the
offender committed the violation as described. This evidence creates a rebuttable
presumption that the violation occurred and the burden thereafter rests with the
appellant to overcome the presumption. Such sworn reports or declarations may be
considered either in addition to or in lieu of the live testimony of the officer who issued
the trespass warning or by the person upon whose observation the trespass warning
was based.
3, The Hearing Official shall consider the trespass warning and may consid-"
,?ny written
• oral sworn testimony • the appellant • witnesses, as well as pictorial
,temonstrative evidence offered by the appellant that the Hearing Official conside
relevant and trustworthy. The Hearing Official may consider information that would n
admissible under the evidence rules in a court o I w-
4. The Hearing Official may issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses
and the production • documents, and shall administer individual oaths to witnesses.
The Hearing Official shall not issue a subpoena for the attendance of a witness at the
request of the appellant unless the request is accompanied by the fee required by RCW
5.56.010 for a witness in district court. The appellant shall be responsible for serving
any subpoena issued at the appellant's request.
5. If, after the hearing, the Hearing Official is persuaded on a "more probable
than not" basis that the violation did o�ccur, the trespass warning shall be upheld, For
good cause, or upon a satisfactory showing by appellant that he or she understands his
or her violation and will not repeat the violation, the Hearing! Official may shorten the
duration of the expulsion set forth in the trespass warning. If, however, the violation is
not proved on a "more probable than not" basis, then the Hearing Official shall rescind
the expulsion. If the Hearing Official rescinds a trespass warning, the trespass warning
shall not be considered a prior expulsion for purposes of this this chapter. For purposes
W; Word Processing\OrdinancesMespass warnings on City property 4-11-17
RBTbjs Page 5 of 7
43
of this section, "good cause" to rescind, shorten • modify a trespass warning shall be
found where:
a. The alleged offender demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Hearing
Official or his/her designee that his or her conduct was intended to be expressive
conduct protected by the First Amendment; or
b. The offender was not given prior warning that the conduct in question
was subject to a trespass warning; or
c. The trespass warning was based solely upon the statement of a third
N, rty, was not observed personally by the issuing officer or a city or other government
employee, would not ordinarily be relied upon by police officers in the determination of
probable cause, and the alleged offender claims that he or she did not commit the
action for which he • she was warned; or
d. In the judgment of the Hearing Official, the circumstances warrant a
modification or rescission of the trespass warning. The Hearing Official shall rescind the
trespass warning if, considering all the circumstances, he or she finds that reasonable
minN s could differ on the question of whether the conduct in question was unreasonably
disruptive to others on the same City property at that time.
6. The decision of the Hearing Official is final.
F E.
N. and who accordingly has had the right to a hearing regarding the trespass warning
may be arrested for trespassing and is guilty of a misdemeanor, whiich shall be
punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not to exceed •0
days.
M. The Chief • Police or his/her designee may upon request authorize
individual who has received a trespass warning in accordance with this chapter to e,nt
City property to exercise his or her First Amendment rights • to conduct governme
business, if there is no other reasonable alternative location to exercise such rights
conduct such business. Such authorization Must be in writing and specify the durati
of the authorization and any conditions thereof,
r 1 11111111 1 1 1
Section 5. Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the
City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary
corrections to this ordinance, including the correction • clerical errors; references to
other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, • regiulations,- or ordinance numbering
and section/subsection numbering.
Section 6. 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 • its application to any other person • situation,
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance • 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 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at
a Regular Meeting thereof this --- day of ,-' 2017.
FTAI I FA 6a l='
Christy OI'Flaherty, MMC, City Clerk Allan Ekberg, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY* Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published,
Effective Date:
Rachel B. Turpin, City Attorney Ordinance Number:
W Word Processing\OrdinancesNTrespass warnings on Cfty property 4-111-17
R13Ttis Page 7 of 7
45
FA F.
ho
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
• . f 1 •
Citv Council Public Safetv Committee
Meeting Minutes
June 19, 2017 - 5:00 p.m. - Hazelnut Conference Room, City Hall
Councilmembers: Thomas McLeod, Chair; Joe Duffie, De'Sean Quinn
Staff: Bob Giberson, Rick Mitchell, Kraig Boyd, Jay Wittwer, Vicky Carlsen, Sherry
Wright, Rachel Bianchi, Laurel Humphrey, Mike Villa, Joseph Todd
Guest: Chris Neubeck, AXON Enterprise, Inc.
CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair McLeod called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
I. ANNOUNCEMENT
II. BUSINESSAGENDA
A. Fire Station 51 Location FAQ
Staff presented a Frequently Asked Questions document summarizing why the location for
Station 51 has already been identified in the Public Safety Plan in response to a request
previously made by the Public Safety Committee. The location for Station 51 will be at the
intersection of Southcenter Parkway and South 1801h Street pursuant to a 2009 Development
Agreement with Segale Properties, LLC as part of the plan to annex and develop the Tukwila
South area. Committee members indicated that the document satisfies the request and staff
will make it available to other Councilmembers and the public. DISCUSSION ONLY.
B. Ordinance: Trespass Warnings on City Property
Staff is seeking Council approval of an ordinance that would adopt a new chapter of the Tukwila
Municipal Code to define prohibited behavior on City property and establish a process for
enforcement. The ordinance would applyto all City property including buildings, open spaces,
and parks. The current trespass ordinance is enforceable by civil infraction only and has not
been effective in curbing the daily violations that occur in City parks and other properties. The
ordinance is not intended to target the homeless, but will apply to any individual or group
engaged illegal behavior. The City and the Police Department have procedures in place when
homelessness is suspected, including outreach and resource assistance, and this new code
would not change that. Councilmember Quinn expressed the need to update park signage
along with a comprehensive communication rollout so that the community is aware of the
changes. He also mentioned the cost impact of increased misdemeanor charges. Staff
indicated there would also be likely cost savings due to decreased property damage in parks
and other areas. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JUNE 26, 2017 COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE.
EYA
Ml
Alee)/iq Dale
NTw-ed Lq
Mayor',( awieW
C "ount-il retiew
06/26/17
RM
new body and in car video cameras, as well as Conductive Energy Devices (Tasers). The
department representatives have researched and completed 2 pilot programs in 2016-17
07/17/17
RM
with the program and purchase.
-
0 GOAV� Mtg- 7 CDN Cloinni D Finance Coma). Z Public Safery ("0111111.
F-11'rans &1nfrastruCt.L1rC E]Arrs COITML E] llark,, COMM. ❑ Nanning Comm.
i)xri,*,: 6/19/17 commn,rt1;i,, a i,\m: MCLEOD
RE, COMME,NDAT IONS:
SI10N,S0R/AI),%IIN. Police Department
Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
AmOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$550,000.00 $550,000.00 $
3.D.
S,r,\i,,i; Si)(),,Nsoit� RICK MITCHELL 06/26/17
A(&'NIM Body Camera Program for the Police Department
Z I)Is"11.1'sion Z Nlohon El Kefolulion El Ordinance E] Bid,, beard llubh, I Inai iq ❑ 01bo,
�'%
Al Date 0,;126'/17 AJ 0ale 07117117 .%hr F)ale 1lq ]Hale Af�g )ale Alts 1)ate Ala„ L) al e
. .....
.
S110NSOR :6,01,on'll W a .. ... .....
E] E]1/1� E]D(J) E]Viiiance E] Vice E]'13' E]P&R Zlloli,,e E]PIV E]Cewrl
The police department would like to request approval and authorization for the purchase of
new body and in car video cameras, as well as Conductive Energy Devices (Tasers). The
department representatives have researched and completed 2 pilot programs in 2016-17
utilizing the equipment they wish to purchase. They would like to provide details
concerning the pilot program and the equipment, and receive approval to move forward
with the program and purchase.
-
0 GOAV� Mtg- 7 CDN Cloinni D Finance Coma). Z Public Safery ("0111111.
F-11'rans &1nfrastruCt.L1rC E]Arrs COITML E] llark,, COMM. ❑ Nanning Comm.
i)xri,*,: 6/19/17 commn,rt1;i,, a i,\m: MCLEOD
RE, COMME,NDAT IONS:
SI10N,S0R/AI),%IIN. Police Department
Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
AmOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$550,000.00 $550,000.00 $
Fund Source:
Commen,ts:
MTG.DATEj RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
6/26/17
MTG.DATE
ATTACHMENTS
6/26/17
Informational Memorandum dated 6/14/17
Power Point Presentation
Minutes from the Public Safety Committee meeting of 6/19/17
7/17/17
-
I I
IN
50
C4Y of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
FROM: Mike Villa, Chief of Police
BY, Rick Mitchell, Acting Deputy Chief of Police
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: June 14, 2017
SUBJECT: Tukwila Police Department Body Camera, Program
ISSWE
The city would like to equip its officers with body cameras and improved in car cameras,
BACKGROUND
The Police Department has been researching the use of Body Worn Cameras, as well as th,,;
replacement of our current in car camera video system. The department conducted 2 pilot
programs in 2016 using new equipment and technology. The purpose of the pilot program is
tue to our department's need for better video equipment capabiility and performance.
The police department currently uses an in-car video camera system only, and officers are not
equipped with body worn cameras. The in-car camera system currently utilized has not
performed well, and has not met the needs of the department. This camera system has had
operational and performance issues through the years. This equipment and technology is also
becoming outdated.
Officers are also equipped with Conductive Electricity Devices (CED's), commonly called a
Taser, to control combative suspects in certain incidents and situations, and prevent officer and
suspect injuries, The CED's were also issued years ago, and many need to be replaced or
upgraded to ensure all department commissioned personnel have a properly performing device.
In March of 2016, the department started researching this issue to meet our need for better
performing equipment, as well as better video coverage, of incidents and callsi. We started our
first pilot program with the body cameras from May to July 2016. We then started a second pilot
program utilizing in car cameras and body cameras from December 201• to present. The end of
the second p ot program is near, and the department would like to purchase the equipment
used, and continue our body worn camera program.
DISCISSIOA
The purpose of the body cameras is for increased public safety, officer safety, enhanced reical'
#f incidents and scenes, and increased transparency and accountability from the police
Iepartment.
There has been ongoing discussion concerning privacy and• r disclosure issues
surrounding body camera programs. The department has developed and adopted a
51
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
0 0 0 .0 0 6
There is no other company that can provide these three pieces of integrated equipment.
Additionally, the contract with Axon provides cloudi storage and retrieval of all of our video. This
is a sole source and is not required to go out for an RFP.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The department currently spends approximately $60,000 per year • average • our current
video system and CED/Taser replacement. $50,OOiO for the current video system replacement
and repairs, and $10,000 per year for CED replacement, If the purchase is approved, the new
system will involve 29 new vehicle video systems, 50 body cameras for all uniformed personnel,
and 50 new CED's (Tasers) for an additional $40,0100 per year.
The total cost of the program will be $550,000.00 over the 5-year agreement. $153,352.00i the
first year due to capital and equipment purchase costs, and $98,892.00 for the following 4
years.
R ro re III UOT, IM W1. P-11PRINII
RECOMMENDATION
The Council is being asked to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with AXON Enterprise Inc.
for the outfitting of department personnel and vehicles with a new video system, and new CED
devices (Tasers). Secondly, the Council is being asked to authorize the Police Department to
use a combination of existing funds and seizure funds totaling $153,352 in 2017 and $98,892 in
2018 to fund the acquisition.
ATTACHMENTS
Power point presentation.
WA2017 Info MernosOody Cams,doc
52
TUKWILA POLICE
DEPARTMENT
BODY/ VEHICLE CAMERA PROGRAM
PURCHASE APPROVAL
• Request council approval for purchase and signing of contract with
AXON Enterprises to outfit all vehicles and uniformed officers with
video cameras.
• As part of the agreement, this purchase will also provide the
department with 50 new Conductive Electrical Devices (CED's),
commonly known as Tasers.
BODY CAMERA PROGRAMS INCREASE IN US
• Controversial incidents /shootings, public demand for information /answers.
• Increased scrutiny /accountability for police agencies.
• Our need for better equipment capability, lower liability, lower complaints,
and uses of force.
• Many states currently debating /drafting legislation requiring LE agencies to
wear them. It is inevitable that this will likely be required equipment by law
enforcement in the near future.
• Our department's problems with current system's performance /capability,
as compared to the cost for that system.
• Over 300 law enforcement agencies nationwide already use them.
Purpose of the Cameras
• Public Safety.
• Officer Safety.
• Reconstruction and recall of incidents and scenes.
• Details of any incident from several vantage points from the officers
and vehicles on scene.
• Transparency /Accountability.
• Additional ability to identify performance and /or training issues.
• Job satisfaction.
Research/ Case Studies on Impacts
Rialto, CA-
• Complaints against officers dropped 88 percent.
• Use of Force by officers dropped 59 percent.
• Significant decrease in civil and criminal cases.
Orlando, FL-
• Complaints against officers dropped 65 percent
• Use of Force by officers dropped 53 percent
• Significant decrease in civil and criminal cases
Benefits to having the cameras
• Lowers violence /confrontations against police officers .
• Lower amounts of complaints, frivolous complaints.
• Increased guilty pleas on criminal investigations ( reduced
prosecution and defense resource /labor hours).
• Lower time spent on Internal Investigations.
• Lower litigations, and costs.
• Lowers medical costs, L and I claims. (less confrontations)
• Less impact on Fleet and TS (resources and labor hours).
Tukwila PD Pilot Program — 2016
• Established Policy - national best practice, model policy from IACP,
DOJ, other agencies. Reached agreement with unions.
• 5 officers wore body cameras May —July 2016.
• 5 officers, 5 vehicles (dash cameras) — December 2016 present, one of
the first in WA state, piloting this specific equipment.
• Both pilots were very successful.
• Minimal issues problems installation, gathering video, through
reproduction.
• Officer /department feedback positive.
Comparison- Axon Body Cameras versus
current system.
• Better /smaller technology
• Improved coverage on incidents from all vantage points
• Significantly better video quality.
• Significantly improved storage, reproduction, and delivery. (discs versus
link, cloud storage, etc.)
• 3 pieces of equipment, body cam, vehicle, taser (CED),Iatest technology.
• Upgrades on all equipment every 2.5 years, with the latest technology.
• Cloud based, no additional technology infrastructure costs.
• Current system, one TS employee spent 50 -70 percent of his time.
Privacy / Public Disclosure
• WA HB 2362, Public Disclosure requirements /protections.
• Department policy already established when officers can and cannot
record.
• Department policy also dictates when officers are required to record.
• WA 2 party consent state (may record when in official duty or in
investigative purpose).
• Records manager will determine what is produced based on
applicable state and federal law.
• Body Camera Policy reviewed /approved by the City Attorney.
Current system video quality
Axon in car video system quality
Axon video body camera quality
Investment /Costs
• Capital costs
• Licensing and storage costs
• Public Disclosure Requests (labor /resources)
• We currently spend approximately $60,000 per year for our current system (20-
25 in car camera systems, CED/Taser replacement)
• $100,000 per year average for 50 officers cameras, 29 in car cameras, 50 new
CED's (Tasers).
• 153,352.00 first year capital cost includes equipment purchase. Department will
use seizure funds to cover capital costs, 2018 cost increase ($40,000.00)
• 98,892.00 for the following 4 years.
• Possible amendment request of 40,000 per year to future budget cycles.
AXON /Evidence.com Program Costs
PC
Hardware /Software /Services Price
74003 Axon FLEETw /Signal (2 camera) $ -
74001 AXON Body 2 $ 399.00
Evidence.com 6 -Bay Dock -All cameras $ 1,495.00
6 Bay Dock TAP $ 216.00
Officer Safety License (1 Year) $ 1,188.00
Unlimited License (1 Year) $ 948.00
Professional License (1 Year) $ 468.00
Standard License (1 Year) $ 300.00
Basic License (1 Year) $ 180.00
FLEET Unlimited License (1 Year) $ 1,188.00
RMS Integration License (User /Year) $ 180.00
85055 Axon Full Services (PS) $ 15,000.00
Taser CEW X26P or X2 KIT
**All quotes are based on the agency making
the purchase of the actual cameras and
associated licenses. The mock quotations
built with this tool are not legally binding.
Officer S et Program
u t §t
Amount
29
50
19,950,00
10
$ 14,950.00
10
in #udod
50
$ 59,400.00
A
5
2,340.00
15
2,700,00
29
$ 34,452.00
A
0
$
1
$ 15.000,00
50
Included
2017
$ 153,352.00
2018
$ 98.8_2.00
2019
$ 98,892,00
202
8,8 2, =
2021
$ 98,892,00
Total
$ 548,920;00
Cameras & docks purchased in YR 1
Camera Warranty for length of contract
TAP Camera Upgrade at 2.5 & 5yrs
TAP Dock Upgrade at 2.5 & 5yrs
Unlimited AXON Device Storage
20 GB /Licenses Non -Axon storage
Docking Station Warranty 5 yr coverage
All Pro -level Access to E.com
CEWs, Holsters, Batteries& Warranties
Included in the agreement
• Unlimited replacement warranty for any equipment failure on all
three devices.
• Upgrades every 2.5 years with latest /newer technology.
• Local support, AXON technical support in Seattle
• Current system support, Houston.
SUMMARY
• Better quality equipment, newest technology.
• Better performing technology and equipment.
• Better storage and reproduction ability.
• Minimal increase in investment /costs.
Types of Body Worn Cameras
• Glasses
• Mounted on uniform shirt or pockets
Vehicle /Equipment Demo
Public Safety Committee Minutes ................................................................................................ ............................... June 19, 2017
C. Contract: AXON Enterprise. Inc. for Police Department Body /Vehicle Camera Program
Staff is seeking Council approval of a five -year contract with AXON Enterprise, Inc. in the
amount of $550,000.00 for anew body and vehicle camera system and new Taser devices. The
current in -car video system has not performed well. Officers currently do not wear body
cameras, although the department conducted two pilot programs in 2016 that were successful.
Body cameras can increase public and officer safety, enhance recall, and increase transparency
and accountability. Data suggests they lead to fewer confrontations, complaints, and use of
force along with reduced litigation and investigation costs. The Department has approved a
comprehensive policy that goes above and beyond the law regarding privacy considerations.
For example, if an officer is inside a home and the resident requests that the camera be turned
off, the officer can comply depending on the situation. The proposed contract will cost
$153,352.00 the first year for capital and equipment purchase costs, and $98,892.00 for the
following four years. Costs will be paid from existing budget including drug seizure funds. If
approved, the contract will include 29 new vehicle video systems, 50 body cameras for all
uniformed personnel, and 50 new Tasers. Councilmember Duffie inquired about the
consequences of forgettingto turn the camera on, and staff replied thatthere is an investigation
and disciplinary process for all violations of departmental policies. If a camera is lost or stolen
it can be disabled remotely. Chair McLeod asked for assurance that the Department of
Technology and Innovation is supportive of the new system and staff replied that it is especially
considering the dysfunctionality of the current equipment. Councilmember Quinn commented
that early buy -in from the Guild is a benefit and asked if the proposal is in alignment with 21St
Century Policing principles, which staff confirmed. Chief Villa noted that the contract itself was
not included in the packet which was an oversight. Copies were distributed to the Committee
members for review, and they agreed that the item could move forward to the Committee of
the Whole as scheduled. If any concerns are identified by a Committee member the schedule is
subject to change. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL PENDING CONTRACT REVIEW. FORWARD TO
JUNE 26, 2017 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.
D. Public Safety Plan Sustainability Goals
Staff is seeking Council consensus on appropriate sustainability goals associated with
construction of the three new fire stations. The Committee previously heard a presentation on
comprehensive information about certification programs such as LEED, examples of certified
projects, and alternatives to certification. Funding is an important driver in the City's pursuit of
sustainability goals due to the costs associated with pursuing certification such as LEED and
Salmon Safe. Because there are strong building, energy and other codes in the region, the
buildings will naturally have energy and water saving sustainability features regardless of
additional policy direction. Staff recommends that the City not pursue formal certification but
instead to provide direction toward identifying sustainability features that will produce long-
term financial and environmental savings over the life of the buildings. Staff also recommends
that the architects and subconsultants facilitate a sustainability charrette to identify these
elements. Chair McLeod asked what is lost by not pursuing certification, and staff replied that
it isjust the recognition, which is usually more suited to more public buildings such as City Halls.
Also, because modern buildings already incorporate many sustainability features, certification
programs are becoming less meaningful. Committee members spoke in favor of sustainability
principles but also in keeping costs down as much as possible considering the construction
71
72
--------- .-l- I ITEm No.
,Vlee Liq Date
Pnpaivd L?;,
'V a) ekti "f
reneir
06/26/17
MG
R I 'A' I I I) 1i), El co w", mtg, 0 CD NComm I'Mincc C'onlrn. ❑ Ilublic Safety Con-irn.
0,111-ans Mrifrastructure [:] Arts Comm. ❑ 11arks Comm. El Manning COMM.
ixvn,"',',� 6/20/17 CONIMITIT'14. Cl 1AIR: SEAL
11 R
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG.DATE
6/26/17
...,---RECORD, OF COUNCIL ACTION
Spec 2.B.
73
S'I'AFF SP()NS0it. NORA GIERLOFF
0 lu A 6FNf),\D\'rr': 6/26/17
j�(;kNI)A 1"FFMITH.1, Remove Credit Card Surcharge Waiver for Online Permits
D Direw-sion 7I A10fion E Resolution El Ordim,.mee Ej Biel .A;varel E] Heevinl.g I El 01ber
1)am 1% 1(9 1),& M,�jDale6126117 z%f(g A It 1)ate e'Vd�g Oale Alni� Owe
,A 11 Dam
SIV)NSOIt ❑coumil' E:]A4qj,or E]IIR ED(J) El,inanee OVire E] TV ❑P&R E]Police []PIF" E]Courl
SI1()NS()R'S The Council is being asked to remove the credit card surcharge waiver for onliIne permit
I'16 I.1Vtl' submittals in 2017 from the 2017-18 perm,it fee resolution. This has proven to require
excessive staff time and cost to implement in relation to the benefit for applicants.
Removing the waiver will allow us to begin online permitting more quickly and efficiently.
R I 'A' I I I) 1i), El co w", mtg, 0 CD NComm I'Mincc C'onlrn. ❑ Ilublic Safety Con-irn.
0,111-ans Mrifrastructure [:] Arts Comm. ❑ 11arks Comm. El Manning COMM.
ixvn,"',',� 6/20/17 CONIMITIT'14. Cl 1AIR: SEAL
RECOMMEN5—ATIONS:
SP()NS'()R/AI).\I1N- Department of Community Development
C()MNIFI'Yj`F Unanimous Approval; Forward to Special Meeting Consent 6/26/17
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
11,1';�:IIFNI)f I'URF 1kFQ)U1RV1) AmOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG.DATE
6/26/17
...,---RECORD, OF COUNCIL ACTION
MTG.DATE
6/26/17
ATTACHMENTS
Informational Memorandum dated 6/7/17
Resolution
Minutes from Finance Committee meeting of 6/20/17
73
74
City If Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
TO: Finance Committee
•........ Jack Pace, DCD Direct]
BY: Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: June 7, 2017
SUBJECT: Modification to Credit Card Surcharge
ISSUE
Waiving the credit card surcharge for online permit applications in 2017 has created practical
difficulties with launching eTrakit online payments.
BACKGROUND
The City's costs for processing credit card payment for permit applications have been increasing
steadily over the years. This trend is expected to sharply increase over the next few years as we
begin to allow online permit applications.
In 2017 to offset this cost the City began charging a 3% surcharge on permit fees paid by credit
card. The current fee resolution includes a waiver of this fee for online permit applications in
2017 to provide an incentive for the public to use the online system,
DISCUSSIOIN
Configuring the waiver for payments received online has proved to be difficult and would require
a 'work-aroiund" by staff to associate the waiver with each permit processed online. While it is
possible to configure the system this way, it would require significant staff time and delay
implementatiM n of online permit payments. It would then require additional time at the end of the
to remove the waiver from the system.
Staff recommends removing the fee waiver from the resolution to allow the launch of eTrakit
online permitting within the next month. No other changes to the resolution are proposed in the
attached draft.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Removing the fee waiver will slightly increase City revenues and allow us to offset credit card
fees.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council is being asked to approve the revised resolution and consider this item at the Ju
26'h Special Meeting Consent Agenda. I-
ATTACHMENT
Draft Building/Electrical/Plumbing�/MechanicaI Permit Fee Resolution
75
76
0
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1894 in 2016, establishing t
City's current consolidated construction! fee schedule; and
WHEREAS, the fee schedule included a waiver of the 3% credit card surcharge f
online, permitting transactions in 2017 to incentivize use of the online applicati
process-, and
WHEREAS, staff has determined that programming this waiver into the TRAK-i
permit processing program and then removing it at the end of the year would requi
excessive staff time and delay implementation of online permitting; and
WHEREAS, staff time would be better spent preparing eTRAK-iT for use by t
public;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWIL
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Repealer. Resolution No. 1894 is hereby repealed.
Section 2. For 2017 and 2018, the Technology Fee shall be set at 5% of the
applicable permit fee.
WAWord Processing\Resolutions\Consolidated permit fee schedule-credit card surcharge 6-9-17
NG:bjs Page 1 of 11
77
PERMIT DESCRIPTION
... ... ....... . ..
FEE .. .......
Type A (Short-Term Non - profit)
$ 50.00 +Technology Fee
Type B (Short-Term Profit)
$100.00 + Technology Fee
Type C
$250.00 application base fee, Technology Fee, plus
(Infrastructure and Grading on Private Property
four components based on construction value:
and City Right-of-Way and Disturbance of City
1) Plan Review
Right-of-Way)
2) Construction Inspection
Technology
3) Pavement Mitigation
4) Grading Plan Review
Fees
See Public Works Bulletin A I for fee schedule.
Type D (Long-Term)
$,100,00 + Technology Fee
. ............. ..
Type E (Potential Disturbance of
$100.00 + Technology Fee
Cit y Right-of-Wa y)
- — - - - ..............
$626
Type F (Blanket Permits)
$250.00 processing fee, plus $5,000.00 cash deposit,
Impact Fee Appeals:
withdraw $100,00 per instance for inspection
Franchise - Telecommunications
$5,000.00 administrative fee
Franchise - Cable
. . . . ................. . .........................................
$5,000.00 plus 5% of total revenue
... . . ...................... . .. . . . . . ......
Street Vacation
$1,200.00
Latecomer's Agreements
$500.00 processing fee, plus 17% administrative fee,
-T
Pj-Us $500.00 segregation fee
Flood Zone Control Permit
$50,00 + Technology Fee
....... . . ............... . . . . . . . . . . ..........................
Section 4. Land use permit and procesising fees will be Charged according to t
following schedule:
LAND USE FEE SCHEDULE
All peer review fees will be passed through to the applicant per TMC Section 18.50.200.
WAVVord Pro cessing\Resolutio ns\Consolida led permit fee schedute-credit card surcharge 6-9-17
NG:bjs Page 2 of 11
W-P
Plus
2017
2018
Hearing
Ptus
Decision Type
Fee
Fee
Examine ,
Technology
Fees
Fee (TF)
Appeal
Type 1, 2 and 4 Decisions $614 $626
SEPA MDNS Appeal $614 $626
Appeal of Sign Code Decision
$614
- — - - - ..............
$626
Impact Fee Appeals:
Fire
$614
$626
mm-
Parks
$614
$626
Transportation
$614
$626
WAVVord Pro cessing\Resolutio ns\Consolida led permit fee schedute-credit card surcharge 6-9-17
NG:bjs Page 2 of 11
W-P
Plus
21 M g Plus
Decision Type Fee Examiner Technolog
Fees Fee (TF)
Sign Permit (TMC Chapter 1'9)
Permanent
•
Temporary
Pole/Banner Initial Application
Special E v e n t
Pole/Bainner Annual Renewal
New Billboard
Master Sign Program—Admin
. . . . .......
Master Sign Program—BAR
TUC Zone'Modifications .
---- - - - ------- - -- - . ...... ....... . .......... . . . ........... . . ... . . . ......... ... . ... . .. ... . .......... . .. .............. . ....... .. .... - . ... ......
Modification to TUC Corridor Standards
(TMC Section 18.28. 130. C)
Modification to TUC Open Space Regulations
(TMC Section 18.28,250 D. 4, d)
Transit Reduction to Parking Requirements
(TMC Section 18,28.260.B�5.b)
Design Review (TMC Sectio 8., 60.030)
Administrative
Public H aring
Major Modification
Minor Modification
..... ....... . ........ . . . ..................... ...
Parking Variances and SpeciallPermissions
Administrative Parking Variance
(Ty ♦e 2—TMC Section 18.56. 140)
Parking Variance
3—LMC Section 18. 56o 14
___IType
Kaffou # Wslumls-
kesidential Parking Reduction
(TMC Section 18.56.065)
mom
Parking Lot Restriping
(TMC Section 18.56.12Q) . ... . ....
WAWordI Processing \Resol utions\Co nso lid ated permit fee schedute-credit card surcharge 6-9-17
NG!bjs Page 3 of 11
We,
WAWord Processing lResol utions\Consolidated permit fee schedule-credit card surcharge 6-9-17
NG:bjs Page 4 of 11
.8
Plus
Decision Type
2017
Fee
2018
F,ee
Hearing
Examiner
Plus
Technology
Fees
Fee TF
Variances, Special Permissions and Site Plan Review
Variances $2,940 $2,998 + HE + TF
(TMC Section 18.72)
Environmentally Sensitive Areas biiavon,
$1,556
$1,587
+ TF
Buffer Reduction (TMC Chapter 18.45)
Reduced fee for LDR homeowners, no
$614
$626
associated short plat
I
Reasonable Use Exception
_
$3,111
$3,173
+ HE
+ TF
'MC Section 11. 45:_1 80
. . ................ . ....... ......
Exception from Single Family Design Standard
$614
$626
+ TF
(TMC Section 18,50.050)
Special Permission Cargo Container
$614
$626
+ TF
(TMC Section 18.50.060)
Landscape Perimeter Averaging
$614
$626
+ TF
(TMC Section 18.5.2.060
Tree and Landscape Modification: Permit and
$109
. . ....... . .
$111
+ TF
Exceptions (TMC Chap ter 18:.54__
Lot Creation and Consolidation
Boundary Line Adjustment
$1,744
$1,,779
+ TF
(TMC Chapter 17.08)
. . ....
Lot Consolidation
$648
$661
+ TF
____(TMQ Chapter 17.08)
Short Plat (2-4 lots)
$3,971
$4,050
+ TF
TMC Chapter 17,12)
Short Plat (5-9 lots)
$4,520
$4,610
+ TF
TMq Chapter 17.12
Subdivision:
Preliminary Plat (10+ lots)
$5,187
$5,290
+HE
+ TF
(TMC Section 17,14.020)
.
Final Plat (10+ lots)
. ....
$3,111
$3,173
+ TF
TMC Section 17,12.030)
. . . .......................
Binding Site Improvement Plan 3 71
$ 9
$4,050
TF
(TMC Chapter1L1J6
. . . . . . ............. . . -1
Planned Residential Development:
Administrative (TMC Section 18.46. 110)
$2,260
$2,306
+ TF
Public Hearing (TMC Section 18.46. 110)
$5,187
$5,290
+ TF
Minor Modification (TMC Section 18.46.130)
$614
$626
+ TIF
Major Modification (TMC Section 18 , 46 130)
$2,522
$2,573
+ TF
WAWord Processing lResol utions\Consolidated permit fee schedule-credit card surcharge 6-9-17
NG:bjs Page 4 of 11
.8
Permit Exemption Letter, Shoreline
$253
$258
Plus
+ TF
Shoreline Permit Revision
2017
2018
Hearing
+ TF
Decision Type
Fee
Fee
Examiner
CP',us
Te
C . 1�_R5
.TM L8
L ..
Fees
e TF
Fee
Wireless COMMUnICation Facility (TMC Chapter 18.58,050)
Minor (Type 1)
$614
$626
Type 1
+ TF
Administrative (Type 2)
$1,744
$1,779
Type 11
+ TF
Major or Height Waiver (Type 3) $3,487 $3,557 +HE + TF
SEPA and Environmental
Checklist
$1,778
$1,813
$1,543
.......... ..
TF
SEPA EIS
$3,111
$3,173
$4,036
+ TF
SERA Planned Action
$614
$626
+ TF
SEPA Addendum
$614
$626
+ TF
+ TF
SEPA Exemption Letter
$362
$369
TSO Special Permission Use
+ TF
Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay
$5,187
$5,290
+ TF
(TMC 18.45,160 )
Shoreline Permits
Substantial Development Permit: (TMC Chapter
18.44)
.... . .. . ..................... .
........ . .. . ...
Project value: $5,000-$10,000
$1,229
$1,254
+ TF
$10,001 - $50,000
$2,874
$2,932
.....................
+ TF
................. ........
$50,001 - $500,000
$4,585
$4,677
+ TF
More than $500,000
$5,813
$5,929
+ TF
Permit Exemption Letter, Shoreline
$253
$258
+ TF
Shoreline Permit Revision
$636
$649
+ TF
Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline
$4,036
$4,117
+ HE
+ TF
C . 1�_R5
.TM L8
L ..
Shoreline Tree Permit $109 $111' + TF
(TMC Chapter 18.44) . ...................
Shoreline Environment Redesignation $3,111 $3,173 + TF
Noise Variance (TMC Section 8.22.120)
Type 1
$504
$514
+ TF
Type 11
$680
$694
+ TF
Type 111
$1,513
$1,543
+HE
+ TF
Use Permits
Conditional Use Permit
$4,036
$4,117 + HE
+ TF
(TMC Section 18.64.020)
Unclassified Use Permit
$5,187
$5,290
+ TF
(TMC Chapter 18. 66
TSO Special Permission Use
$1,008
$1,028 + HE
+ TF
Section 18.41.060)
MWord Processing) Resolutions\Consolidated permit fee schedule-credit card surcharge 6-9-17
NG:bjs Page 5 of 11
RI
Section 5. Building permit fees will be charged according to the following
schedule:
BUILDING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
......................
Total Valuation
. .. ......... __ . . . . .......... . . . ... ........... . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................
Building Pe,rmit Fees
$6U0 + Technology Fee
$501 to $2,000
Decision Type
thereof, to and including $2,000, + Technology Fee
$2,001 to $25,000
.... . ................... ..... ....... ...............
a
.... . ...........
-
$25,001 to $50,000
oil*
Comprehensive Plan Changes (TMC Chapter 18,84)
Rezone (Map Change)
- ----- -Comprehensive Plan Amendment
.......... . ...... ........ . ... .. .....
Zoning Code Text Amendment
$100,001 to $500,000
w of $41111 Tore IN =s#
.......... . ......
Miscellaneous Services and Charges,
Development Agreement
Code Interpretation (TMC Section 18 90 01W
�1 Mm.
...................
$40 of 000 0#6
Zoning Verification Letter
0 ONE affy
I Legal Lot Verification
Preapplication Meeting
Mailing Fee to Generate Labels, per
Public Notice Mailing Fee per address for each
mailing
Section 5. Building permit fees will be charged according to the following
schedule:
BUILDING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
......................
Total Valuation
. .. ......... __ . . . . .......... . . . ... ........... . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................
Building Pe,rmit Fees
$6U0 + Technology Fee
$501 to $2,000
$66.30 for the first $500, plus $4.39 for each additional $1 O�0, or fraction
thereof, to and including $2,000, + Technology Fee
$2,001 to $25,000
.... . ................... ..... ....... ...............
a
.... . ...........
-
$25,001 to $50,000
oil*
$50,001 to $100,000
111111111415 PH 0=1 W111
$100,001 to $500,000
w of $41111 Tore IN =s#
.......... . ......
$500 ,001 to $1,000,000
...................
$40 of 000 0#6
0 ONE affy
oil WOMMIj
WAWord Processing\Resolutions\Consolidated permit fee schedule•credit card surcharge 6-9-17
NG bjs Page 6 of 11
M.
A. Non-Structural Plan Review Fee. A non-structural plan review fee shall be
paid at the time of submitting plans and specifications for review, The non-structural
plan review fee shall be 65% of the calculated permit fee as set forth in the permit fee
schedule. The non-structural plan review fee specified herein is a separate fee from the
permit fee and is in addition to the permit fee.
B. Structural Plan Review Fee. Where a structural plan review is deemed
necessary, a structural plan review fee shall be charged. The structural plan review fee
shall be 35% of the calculated non-structural plan review fee.
Section 6. Mechanical
permit fees will be charged according to the following
schedule:
MECHANICAL
PERMIT FEE, SCHEDULE
at of
- -- . ... . . ................ - - ----------- - - - - ... ........
Work (Total
Mechanical Permit Fee
Contract �kr4MClllnt� .
. ................ ........... ... . ...
............... ..........
$33.15 for issuance of each permit (base fee) + Technology Fee
......... .
$250 or less
$66.30 + Technology Fee
$251 to $500
......... ...... .. ... . .. ....... .. . ... . ..... . .......... . ............... . ....... . ........ . .... ............ ---- - - - - - -
$66,30 for first $2501, plus $7.99 for each $100 or fraction thereof, to
........... .. . ..... . . ------ .. . ............................. _...___
and including $500, + Technology Fee
------- -------- - ---- . ........... ------
$501 to $1,000
$86.29 for the first $500, plus $8.87 for each $100 or fraction thereof, to
and including $1,000, + Technology Fee . .... ....... - .... ... ...... . ........... . . .......................... . ... .
$1,001 to $5,000
$130.66 for the first $1,000, plus $9.8,4 for each $1,000 or fraction
thereof, to and including $5,000, + Technology Fee . . .......... . .............
$5,001 to $50,000
$170.03 for the first $5,000, plus $10.25 for each $1,000 or fraction
thereof, to and including $50,,000, + Technology Fee
$50,001 to $250,000
$651.98 for the first $50,000, plus $8,57 for each $1,000 or fraction
thereof, to and including $250,000, + Technology Fee
.................... ................................................ .......... .. ..................
$250,001 to $1,000,000
$2,365.58 for the first $250,000, plus $7.55 for each $1,000 or fraction
thereof, to and including $1,000,000, + Technology Fee
. - ---
$1,000,001 and u
for the first $1,000,000, plus $6.83 for each $1,000 or
8,0265 8
fraction, thereof, +. Technology ,. Fee"..",,"","",- - ..... .. .. . . .. . ...................................................
WAWord Processing\ResolutionskConsolidated permit fee schedule-credit card surcharge 6-9-17
NGibjs Page 7 of 11
F-W
Section 7. Plumbing permit fees will be charged
according to the following
schedule:
PLUMBING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
---- ------------- - --- -- ------- - - - -------- - -- - --
Permit Issuance-issuance of each permit (base fee)
- 111--111111111".."I" ......... . 111 I .............. . ..... .
e
............................
Unit Fee Schedule (in addition to base fee above:
- ' ' " ' ""' ""' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " - ' ' ' ' " ' " ''
,'""""', . ....... . .... ..
[--For one plumbing fixture (a fixture is a sink, toilet, bathtub, etc.)
— - ----------- '''-"" - - -- -------- ---------- -----------
$66,30 + Technology Fee
- ------- --- - --- ---- - ---- ---- ------------------- --- ...... ........ ...
For each additional fixture
$14.28 + Technology Fee
For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer
..
—--`l'-".'- -- - -- --
-
$25.30 + Technology Fee
------------ - - ----------------
Rain water system - per drain (inside building)
....... ..................... . . ........ . ......... . . ...... . ............. ...... . ... . . .. . . ..... . .........
$14.28 + Technology Fee
. . ........ . .... . ....... .
For each water heater and/or vent
$14.28 + Technology Fee
7'-' . ......... ---'"" . . .... . ........ . ..... . . ...... . ............ .... . ............ .......... . .....
For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor, including its
. . ............................... ..................................... -""-"' ................ ...
$28.56 + Technology Fee
�jq ..k c .e..g.rea
...trqp and vent, excep r kitchen p se interce tors
y ....... . ..... .......... pi .. ......... ..................... ..
... ......... . .......... -.1- .. I ............................. . .......... .............
For each grease interceptor for commercial kitchens
$29M + Technology Fee
-------- - ----
For repair or alteration of water piping and/or water ireii-ing-
$14,28 + Technology Fee
equipment„ each occurrence
_____!Nu - ---------- - ---
For each repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each
$14.28 + Technology Fee
fixture
...........
or each medical gas piping system serving one to five
................................... ................................... ................ ..
$83.64 + Technology Fee
inlets/outlets for a
s �Ts�qqi��as . ............................
For each additional medical gas inlets /outlets
$16�52 + Technology Fee
"------ - --------------- -" — - - - - ----- ---------
For each lawns system on any one (1) meter including
$29.68 + Technology Fee
backflow protection devices therefor. . .... ............... . . . ..................
' 'i "a
... . ..............................................
For atmospheric -type vacuum breakers not Included in w n
sprinkler backflow protection:
1 to 5 ........$14.00 + Technology Fee
Over 5.......$14.00 for first 5 plus $3.25 for each additional
+ Technoko�y Fee ........ ..
- - — ------------------------
For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric type
vacuum breakers,:
2-inch diameter and smaller.,,.... $29.10 + Technology Fee
Over 2-inch diameter:.......... 5+ lo .... ....,$32.2Techn
... ..... ................. ... . .... . 0qyl
. ........ . .. ................................... ......................... . . . . . . . . ...... ............. . .
WAWord ProcessinglResolutionslConsolidated permit fee schedule-credit card surcharge 6-9-17
NG:bjs Page 8 of 11
RE
Section 9. Electrical permit fees will be charged according to the following
schedule:
ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
1. NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS
............... ........ . .......... ... . . . . ..... - __............................ --------------------- . . . ....... .........
New single-family dwellings (including a garage) $155.91 + Technology Fee
- - - ------- . ........
Garages, pools, spas and outbuildings $83.54 + Technology Fee
.......... ......... . ..................... ... .. ......... .. .... . - -- -----
Low voltage systems $61.05 + Technology Fee
. ......... .... . .. . . . ........................ - ........ - ----------- -
2. SINGLE-FAMILY REMODEL AND SERVICE CHANGES
..... ...... . .......... --------------- ----------- ..........
Service change or alter..
lteration—no added/altered circuits $83�54 + Technology Fee
.. _'_.....1 � . - . ........... . .... ...__ . . ..... . ........ . ............. . ........ ................ .... . . . . ..... . . ...................... . . .......
ervice change $83.54 with added/altered circuits, plus $12.00 for $8154 + Technology Fee
each added,,circuit_(rn@ximum permit fee $156.00)
d '"" -""– permit ____ — - - - ------- ------ ---------
ircuits added /altered without service change (includes up to $55.69 + Technology Fee
"C' i ' r ' c u, -------- _._ ---- - ------ ------
Circuits 55.69 added/altered without service change (more than $55.69 + Technology Fee
5 circuits); $7.65 for each added circuit (maximum permit fee $100.00
_.+._ Technology Fee
--------------______ ---- 11-11111- ----------------------
Meter/mast repair $69.62 + Technology Fee
. . . . . . ..... . ....... ............... . ..... . . .......................................
Low voltage systems $61.05 + Technology Fee
. ... . . ............ . . . .......... ............. .................. . ........................... ............
3. MULTI-FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL (including low voltage)
Valuatlan of
Work (Total Permit Fee
Contract Amount
$250 or less $66.30 + Technology Fee
. . . ....... . .. .........
$251 - $1,000 $66.30 for the first $250 plus $4.39 for each $100 or fraction thereof, to and
- - — ----------------- including $1,000, + Technology Fee
$1,0,01 - $5,000 $98.94 for the first $1,000 plus $22.03 for each $1,000 or fraction thereof, to
and including $5,000, + Technology Fee
$5,001 - $50,000 $186,97 for the first $5,000 plus $18.05 for each $1,000 or fraction thereof, to
and including $50,000, + TtctIqo1M Fee
$50,001 - $250,000 $998.73 for the first $50,000 plus $13.16 for each $1,000 or fraction thereof, to
and including $,250,000, + Technolo y Fee
$250,001 -W$1, 0_6 _000 $3,638.54 for the first $250,000 plus $9.33 for each $1,000 or fraction thereof,
to and including $1,000,000, + Technology Fee
Over $1,000,000 $10,649.51 plus 0.5% of cost over $1,000,000, + Technology Fee
WAWord Processing\Resolutions\Consolidated permit fee schedule-credit card surcharge 6-9-17
NG:bjs Page 9 of 11
M.
Section 10. Other inspections and fees will be charged according
to the following
schedule:
OTHER INSPECTIONS AND FEES
.... . .... ------ . .............................................. . . .. . . . . ..... .......... ............. ... . .......... . ... ... .........
Inspections outside of normal business hours (three hour minimum charge)
........... . .. .............. .
$102,00/hour
Re-inspection fee
$67.83/hour
... . ........
Inspection whicKrio fee is specifically indicated—investigations or safety
$67.83/hour
ectlons ...... .... --------- - -- ------
Additional plan review required by changes, additions, or revisions to approved
$6,7,83/hour
,plans (miinimum charqe one-half hour) ..... ......
. .....
W6rk_c6m mencing before permit issuance shall be subject to an investigation fee
100% of the permit fee
equal to 100% .the permit fee. ----------- ---- - - .. .. ...... ......... .... ........ . ..... . .. ....... .. .
Plan review fee—Mechanical, Plumbing, Fuel Gas Piping and Electrical: The fee
for review shall be 25% of the total calculated permit fee. The plan review fee is a
separate fee from the permit fee and is required when plans are required in order
to document, comPlian,ce with the code.
. .
-red ''
. . . .... . .......................... __ .............................. ............
W6rk—cov" 6 wAt" h o ut ins pecti on or work not ready at the time of inspection may
be charged _q_re -inspeqtuqq' fee of $66�.50.
..........
.. .. .......................... ............................ .. .......................................
Expired permit finial - includes two inspections
— ---------------------------------------- --- ------ -- ------- --------- -- . ...........
$133.00
............ ... . . ...... . . ...... .... . . . . ........... ....
Expired permit final - each additional inspection
...........
$67.83
. . ..
Minor residential remodel plan review and permit (projects up to $20,000)
. . . . ...... . ...................... . ...... ............... . ............................ . ........................ . - - .. .........
$26,66
. . . .....
Section 11. Credit Card Surcharge. If payment is made by credit card, a
processing fee of 3% will be added to the total order. N4-proc4a�44g-feewi#be-,G�
WAWord Processing\ResolutionslConsolidated permit fee schedule- credit card surcharge 6-9-17
NGbjs Page 10 of 11
W.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL • THE CITY • TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a
Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2017
ATTEST/AUTH ENTI CATE D:
Christy Oflaherty, MMIC, City Clerk
F."I aw 6*100 a OWN141 106121010
I
I I
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Resolution Number-
WAWord Processing\Res,otutionsl Consolidated permit fee schedule-credit card surcharge 6-9-17
NG:bjs Page 11 of 11
m.
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
City Council Finance Committee
June 20,2017- 5:30 p.m. - Hazelnut Conference Room, City Hall
Councilmembers: Thomas McLeod, Acting Chair; Joe Duffie, Dennis Robertson (Absent: Verna Seal,
Kathy Hougardy
Staff: Jay Wittwer, Nora Gierloff, Vicky Carlsen, Laurel Humphrey
CALL TO ORDER: Acting Chair McLeod called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m:
I. PRESENTATIONS
II. BUSINESSAGENDA
A. Resolution: Credit Card Surcharge Requirements
Staff is seeking Council approval of a resolution that would adopt a revised consolidated permit
fee schedule to remove a waiver of the credit card surcharge fee for online permit applications.
The City began charging a 3% surcharge on permit fees,paid by credit card to offset the costs to
the City. It was thought that,waivingthis fee for online applications would incentivize use of the
system, but in reality staff has discovered it takes significant staff time to manually waive the
fee. This has caused a delay to the rollout of the online permit application system. The
resolution proposes to update the consolidated permit fee schedule to remove the waiver and
allow the launch of eTrakit online permitting within the next month. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
FORWARD TO JUNE 26, 2017 REGULAR CONSENT AGENDA.
B. Aoril,2017 Year- to -DAte Financial Update
Staff presented a summary of the April 2017 year -to -date departmental expenditures. General
fund expenditures totaled $18.9 million, below the allocated budget of $20.0 million. Variances
include the Recreation, Fire,; and Park departments due to spending changes or staffing and
overtime levels. Councilmember Robertson requested additional analysis of under -
expenditures to identify those that may recur. Staff will follow up at the next Finance
Committee meeting. DISCUSSION ONLY.
C. 2017 1st Quarter Cash and Investment Report
Staff presented the 1st Quarter Cash and Investment Report for 2017, including information on
the City's portfolio components, performance, policy compliance and liquidity analysis, fund
cash and investment balances, and investment environment. At March 31, 2017, the portfolio
totaled $93.266 million comprising $78.660 million in cash and cash equivalents and $14.606
million in longer term investments. DISCUSSION ONLY.
:•
Ell
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
nilials
Aleeliq Dale Pre .paced bly jWqyor's review Council review
06/26/17 DT
, � ffig I&I a T4 F-.'% I &�'
ITEM NO.
3.E. &
Spec 2.D.
91
STAFF SN-AsoR: DON TOMAso, FIRE MARSHAL
ORICINAL A(',FNDA DATFI: 06/26/17
A( ,,I N DA ITFINI Trrl.r. Fireworks Permit for July 2, 2017 at Starfire Sports.
Z DiJ'cusxion
Alg Dale 6126117
Z Motion
Al/ Daie 6126117
E]Resolution
Atg Date
F-1 Ordinance
'lfl DaI,
❑ Bidllwurel
All g Dale
❑ Public Hearing
m/ g
Dale
❑ 0119er
M/ g Dale
SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor E].1 IR ❑ DCD ❑ Finance Z Fire ❑ IT ❑ P&R [:] Police [:] PJV
SPONSOR'S Authorize the approval of a fireworks permit submitted by Zakuani and Friends Charity
Su�'NIM'uZy Match to be used on July 2, 2017 at Starfire Sports. The fireworks will consist of GERBS
which are a proximity firework. This is identical to what is used at Century Link Field for
the Sounders home games. This request came in on Thursday, June 22, within the legally
required 10-day period for submitting a Fireworks permit application, but past the agenda
deadline; some documentation will be provided at the meeting.
Ri�'Xirwl"11) BY F-1 cow mtg. ❑ CA&P Cmte ❑ 1-,'&S Cmte ❑ rransportation Cmte
F-1 Utilities Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: COMM11,11111, CI 1AIR:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/At)NIIN. Fire Marshal Office, Fire Department
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
Exi,iNDITURF Rj;QUIRFD AMOUNT' BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0 $0 $0
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
06/26/17
Permit documentation
91
92
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
I 10- 1 ;[$10 iv, TIN I ISILly.11
TO* Public Safety Committee
FROK Chief Wittwer
BY: Don Tomaso, Fire Marshal
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: June 22, 2017
SUBJECT. Zakuani & Friends Charity Fireworks Permit
ISSUE
The Zakuani & Friends Charity has applied for a fireworks permit for the July 2, 2017 charity
soccer match.
BACKGROUND
The Zakuani & Friends Charity has -r -• a fireworks permit pursuant to RCW 70i.77 and
TIVIC 8,12.020(3). They will be using proximity type fireworks called "GERBS" these specialty
fireworks emit a shower of sparks that quiickly extinguish before they fall to the ground or turf.
The Sounders S2 used the same style of GERBS at Starfire Sports Complex for the 2016
Season,
DISCUSSION
�(r mrPHAA
4je Zak s «- - I
&I j gj C�jIIJ4 ijill �e Wjig 141 jjretj*j�j
jj " IP-
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None
RECO
Staff recommends that the application be approved and placed on the June 26, 2017
Committee of the Whole and Special Meeting Consent Agenda to follow that same evening.
ATTACHMENTS
Memo to Chief Wittwer dated June 22, 2017
Washington State Public Fireworks Display Permit Packet
93
DATE: June 22, 2017
I to] we]
FROM- Don Tomiaso, Fire Marshal
SUBJECT: Zakuani &Friends Charity ffiatch Fireworks Permit Application
The Zakuani & Friends Charity has applied for a firework's permit to util'ize proximity
fireworks called GERBS for their Charity Match • July 2, 2017 at Starfire Sports
stadium.
GERR S emit a shower of sparks into the air that extinguish before failing to the ground
or turf and are commonly used at sporting and concert events.
The company preforming the show is Advanced Entertainment Technologies, DBA
Image Engineering, The firm has supplied the required application and certificate of
insurance as required by RCW 70.77 and TIVIC 8.12, and provided the current copy of
the pyro technician's l�icense.
I conducted additional research on Image Engineering. They conduct special effeicts for
a variety of public sporting and concert venues across the country, and have multiple
offices in severa,l major cities, such has Seattle, Los Angles and Baltimore, They have
provided p technical services to The Wiz Man, LA Galaxy Radio Show, Kevin Hart —
Let Me Explain Tour, Baltimore Ravens and the 2016 S2 Season for S2 at Starfire
Sports Complex,
I have scheduled this fireworks permit for the June 26th Council meeting for discussion
9nd approval.
95
X-9
Upcoming Meetings & Events
June/July 2017
-It tlaw j
-C!'UCN Yj
30th
(4onfouri"
> Transportation Puble Safety
> Pubirc sat'ety
Fla e4tapaaaeaa4-
& Infras,,rRicture Plan SaIng
Dond I'marxial
Crate, Advisory ( ' 'rate,
Oversight
("errre,
5:30 P%t 6i 00 - 7 30 1w
Cnite'„
Cancefled
(Hazelnut tflafehruf
4:00 , 5 30
Corij4renve, Cou/crence
tIItr:ehjnI
Room) Room)
Crjq(�,rence
Special Public
Room)
Safety Crate.,
5:30 PAI
(Ilez:ehirtt
("Onlerence Room,)
Cgty Crwlicil
cornrmuee 01
the Whole NI( g ,
7:431'1 P,,A
(Cotourt
Chambers)
C 0,%kl to be
, nitnediately
"oHowcd by a
Special mccung
3rd (Monday)
1 4th (Tuesday)
Stilt (Wednesday)
61h (Thursday)
. ...... . ......
7th (Friday)
8th (Saturday)
Civil Service
Independence Day
> Finance Crate,
r Fqtuty &
KaH00MI
Coninusilon,
Observed
5 "30 1,,%1
Social Risfice
Itelp bulild a
5 0tO PM
City offices A doe
(I-la--eInat
Conimr.ssion,
playground at
01ionan Resqur4es
Tukwila
(,onfereorce
.5 15 i'm
Cascade View
(. oql rcnce Roorn)
Conaratruity Center
Room)
(Hei-ehno
Cott ninunity park
closed
Conference
8, 0,1) ANI _ -4.00 Pki
Room)
(142 / 13 7"' A ve.S)
;w Public Safety
Farnily 4th at Fort
1--or volunfeer
Ctme,
Dent Park
opportunittes visit"
5 30 pm
Park opens at
9 00 AM
Cejq&rent e Rooni)
Acts vines bej!rn at
4 00 Pm
(Fireworks start at
Ciry("ouncd
0 Jvfsj/A RP)
Regular Mtp,
Activities,
7 00 i,kt
enterta"unent, tbod
(Councd
vendors and funt
Chaniher.v
For Inewe
inibi-mahoi? call
206-70'8-2822.
This event is
F'R E F"
...... . ..
Parks and
. .....
Recreation is seeking
150 volunteers
to help construct
the playground and
refresh
Cascade View
Community Park
on Saturday, July
8, 20,17
Register
to volunteer at LALWW.jykVtLIawa.qovtkab*qm
_ .
. .............
,0 Arts Commission: 3rd Wed„ 5 00 Pm,'rukwjla Conitatinity Center Contact Tracy Galloway at 206-767-2305
;' Civil Service Coin missiow Ist, Men '5�00 PM, [hanan Resources Cont Room Comaci.Sara, t' alder cat 206-431-2187.
;,Cornfnunitv Development and Neighborhoods Committee: 2nd & 4th Mon , 5,30 PM, Ha7elnut Coal' Room
(Community Oriented Policing CitizensAdv. Board)-, 2nd Thurs , 0 30 nwtt, Duwaroish Confierence Room.
Contact Ciro Paronan tit 206- 4.31_21.41*.
F;.quity & Social Justice Commission. ist 'rhurs . 5,15 I,so, llazehtut Corif Roorn Contact rvfia Navatro at 206-454-7564
;w-Finance Committee: Ist & 3rd Toes , 5 30 PM, flazeinut Corif Rootry
+r Library Advisory Board-, (,otitaciSiitiiinonl,rshe'eit2O6-7()7-2312,
Park Commission:
4th Thurs., G - -.30 t,si. Council Chambers at City liall Contact
H'vnetla Btivens at 206-431-3670.
"publieSafetvCorninittee- Ist& 3rd Mon, 530 t,%ijlazrlmuCorif Rocan.
Trwnspcortation and InfrastructureCorninittee: 2nd & 4th Toes- i 30 1,M, Foster Con f Roorn
DramogeProgram. (C ") 131cP erMr'atrcl fixr l3uker P3lro*. 'earn- t4crtcart e'cl lrrrlrr <ma ^eaareaat I rr jc ^t. (L5) 8 ° date cmrr . �f C lrrJrasarrrc ar rar arPC$
Services Coninnetee meenng,
;e Tiakwila I listorical Society. 3i'dThurs, TOO tvtj'trkw da heritage & Cultural Center, 14475 59"' Aventle S
('01110CI I.ollisC' Jones-Brown at 206-244-4478,
r'fukwila Intl. Bhrd, Action Cinte: 2nd Tues 7 00 Psi, Valley View Sewer Dwrict, Contact (7hiefl'ifla at 206-433-1815.
97
Tentative Agenda Schedule
MONTH
MEETING 1 -
MEETING 2
MEETING 3
MEETING 4
REGULAR
C.O.W.
REGULAR
C.O.W.
June
5
12
19
26
Secs agenda packet
cover she for this week's
agenda:
June 26,2017 Committee
of the Whole Meeting
and Special Meeting.
July
3
10
17
24
542g.c1al Presentations:
Unfinished Business.-
Special Presentations:
- An ordinance
Puget Sound
- Night Out Against
Energy Green
relating to trespass
Crirne Poster
Direct program.
warnings on City
Winners.
property.
-5-p-mial -ISSUC,01-
- Police Department
Public Hearing:
- Discussion and
body carnera
- Development
review of fire
program.
agreernent/ordinanc
station location
e for Mary's Place.
Study.
Special Meeting to
f,01107V the Connnittee
of the Whole Meeting.
b5-F-P