HomeMy WebLinkAboutPS 2018-07-16 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Public Safety Committee
FROM: Rachel Bianchi, Communications and Government Relations Manager
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: July 16, 2018
SUBJECT: Project Management, Architect and GCCM Contract Amendments for the
Public Safety Plan
ISSUE
The Council recently approved the modified Public Safety Plan, which included the updated
budgets associated with each of the projects. Because the project budgets have changed from
when the contracts for project management, architecture and GCCM services were signed,
these contracts must be amended to accurately reflect the modified projects. In addition, some
of the contract language was edited in the GCCM contracts to clarify the mutually-intended
message.
BACKGROUND
In November of 2016, the voters in Tukwila approved the City's Public Safety Bond as a part of
the overall Public Safety Plan. Higher than expected construction cost escalation rate as well
as extremely saturated construction market in the greater Seattle area have resulted in the
construction budgets much higher than originally anticipated in the Bond measure. As a result,
Fire Station 54 was removed from the program and Public Works scaled to the original budget
of $30M.
Contracts for project management and architectural services are based proportionally on
constructions costs, so the modified budgets resulted in additional fees for these services.
However, these fees are included in the modified project budgets previously presented to
Council and these amendments are not adding additional costs to the modified Public Safety
Plan.
Below is an overview of the proposed amendments:
Project Management Contract:
Shiels Obletz Johnsen: Increase in fee for project management services by $492,898
as a result of the increase from the original to the modified budget for the entire
Public Safety Plan.
Architects Contracts:
Weinstein A+U: Increase in fees for architecture and engineering services by
$395,537 as a result of the increase from the original to the modified budget for two
fire stations.
DLR Group: Increase in fees for architecture and engineering services by $953,830
as a result of the increase from the original to the modified budget for the
GCCM Contracts:
Lydig Construction: Removes Fire Station 54 from the contract and modified
contract language to better reflect mutually-intended intent.
BNBuilders: Modified contract language to better reflect mutually-intended intent. 9
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
All of the contract amendments were reviewed and approved by the Council's Project
Management Quality Assurance consultant.
RECOMMENDATION
The Public Safety Committee is asked to approve all of the contract amendments. The staff
asks that the contract amendment be moved to the July 23, 2018 Committee of the Whole
meeting for approval and forward to the August 6 Regular Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Shiels Obletz Johnsen Contract Amendment No. 1
Weinstein A+U Contract Amendment No. 1
DLR Group Contract Amendment No. 1
Lydig Construction Contract Amendment No. 1
BNBuilders Contract Amendment No. 1
W.I2018 Info MemoslModified PSP Contracts Update Memo.doc 10
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188
Agreement Number: 16-179
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
Amendment # 1
Between the City of Tukwila and Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc.
That portion of Contract No. 16-179 between the City of Tukwila and Shiels Obletz
Johnsen, Inc. is hereby amended as follows:
Project Designation: The Consultant is retained by the City to perform Property
Management Services in connection with the project titled Public Safety Plan.
Scope of Services: The Consultant agrees to perform the services, identified on
Exhibits "A" attached hereto, including the provision of all labor, materials,
equipment and supplies related to completion of the revised and updated
program scope and budget.
Duration of Agreement; Time of Performance This Agreement shall be in full
force and effect for a period commencing upon execution and ending March 31,
2021, unless sooner terminated under the provisions hereinafter specified. Work
under this Agreement shall commence upon written notice by the City to the
Consultant to proceed. The Consultant shall perfom1 all services and provide all
work product required pursuant to this Agreement no later than March 31, 2021,
unless an extension of such time is granted in writing by the City.
All other provisions of the contract shall remain in full force and effect.
Dated this day of
CITY OF TUKWILA
, 20
CONTRACTOR
Allan Ekberg, Mayor Printed Name: Ken Johnsen, President
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED APPROVED AS TO FORM
Christy O'Flaherty, MMC, City Clerk Office of the City Attorney
CA Revised December 20 I 6 Page 1 of I
11
12
1
3
1
4
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND PLANNING
SERVICES
FOR
TUKWILA FIRE STATIONS 51, 52, AND 54 PROJECT
This First Amendment (the "First Amendment"), effective as of , 2018 (the
-Effective Date"), is entered into by and between CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
("City"), and WEINSTEIN AU, LLC (-Architect"). This First Amendment is an addition to
and modifies the Consultant Agreement for Architectural Design and Planning Services between
the parties dated April 19, 2017 (the -Agreement"). This First Amendment incorporates the
contractual obligations outlined in the Agreement, and modifies the Agreement as stated below.
Unless defined differently herein, all capitalized terms in this First Amendment have the same
meaning as in the Agreement. Now for and in consideration of the mutual promises contained
herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties agree as follows:
Deletion of Fire Station 54. The City is not pursuing the design and construction of Fire
Station 54 through the Agreement. Accordingly, all references to Fire Station 54 in the
Agreement are deleted, and Architect will render no further services, and the City shall make no
further payments, for Fire Station 54. The scheduling of services for Fire Stations 51 and 52
shall remain as described in Exhibit A, Section A.1.4, except that only Fire Station 52 will follow
the completion of the Design Phase of Fire Station 51 ( , the Design and Cnnonirtinn ncp
Station 52 will no longer proceed simultaneously with Fire Station 54).
Compensation. Architect's compensation for the Project shall be increased by a net total
of Three Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-Seven Dollars ($395,537).
Accordingly, Architect's total compensation for the Project will not exceed Two Million Four
Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Four Dollars ($2,485,254), as further
described in the A/E Fee Reconciliation Summary dated July 9, 2018, which is attached as
Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference. All provisions of the Agreement referring to
Architect's compensation, including Exhibit B Article I I, shall be revised accordingly.
The Table of Fees on Page 5 of the Agreement shall be revised to read:
FS 51 Design and Construction
FS 52 Design and Construction
$932,443
$1,166,546
Subtotal $2,098,989
Additional Services, both stations (AS01- $148,051
11, AS13)
Subtotal $148,051
Programming Phase (completed) $155,116
Site Selection (completed) $83,109
Subtotal $238,225
Total Fee $2,485,254
AF,T1755447 DOC;1/05720 000001/ ; 1
15
3. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged and are hereby
ratified and confirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this First Amendment as shown
below.
CITY OF TUKWILA WEINSTEIN AU, LLC
By:
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
Printed Name:
Title:
Attest/Authenticated: Approved as to Form:
City Clerk, Christy O'Flaherty Office of the City Attorney
(AET1755447 DOC; I /05720.00000 I/ 2
16
Exhibit A
Please see the attached A/E Reconciliation Summary, dated July 9,2018
1AF.T1755447.D0C11/05720 000001/ ; 3
17
TUKWILA FIRE STATIONS
Additional Services Summary
7/9/113
ASCII City Council Presentations WAU 83,825
Reimbursables $77
TOTAL $3,902
AS02 Susta inability Memo WAU $3,675
TCA $825
O'Brien $4,203
Swift $300
Mark-up $533
Reimbursables $74
TOTAL $9,609
AS03 Additional Meetings WAU $11,781
TCA $3,218
Swift $1,238
Feature Graphics $950
Mark-up $541
Reimbursables $236
TOTAL $17,962
AS04 Cost Review Support WAU $843
TCA $2,640
Mark-up $264
Reimbursables $17
TOTAL $3,763
AS05 3C Massing + Site WAU $4,750
Reimbursables $95
TOTAL $4,845
AS06 3C City Hall Test Fit WAU $9,500
Reimbursables $90
TOTAL $4,590
11507 Preliminary Site Vetting WAU $5,375
LPD $600
Mark-up $60
Reimbursables $108
TOTAL $6,143
AS08 GC/CM Coordination WAU $33,555
Greenbusch $2,640
Travis FitzmaurIce $825
Robinson $9,530
Mark-up 4800
Reimbursables $671
TOTAL $43,021
115139 Preliminary Signalization WAU $0
WH Pacific $4,735
Mark-up $473
TOTAL $5,208
AS10 FS54 Legacy Trees vVAU $0
SWIFT $1,800
Mark-up $180
TOTAL $1,980
AS11 Addl Civil Site Support WAU $0
LPD $6,470
Mark-up $647
TOTAL $7,117
4S12 6S52 4dditionaISite A nail; 5.15
ASI3 Southcenter Pkwy Redesign WAU $3,300
WHPacific $33,282
Mark-up $3,328
TOTAL $39,911
e r I f‘VI-Nlljt' II 'LL9 yit 9, Li,
:219.
18
5547,230
53650 31
120..072
Total Basic Fee =
Tonal Extra Services
Total Reimbursable MOM
100% 2% 26% 2%
514,550 0,295 33.071 10.298
27%
9.020
Percent Fee
Total Base Fee b P
cumin 050 COW, rr
18% 25%
592.600 5128 722
TOTAL BASIC SERVICES (Scope per State Fee Schedule Guidelines, Schematic DeSigll Construction BRUM° • Contract CI° se Out
Design Development DocumeMs Negotiation Administration
TFS_MaincentractFeeErtimaleJULYIB xis er IMnted 7/8/1.8
Weinstein A+U
FS51 Fee Calculation
Tukwila Fire Stations
Fee Proposal
July 9, 2016
Baseline Bukting Area
Site Area
Project (MACC) per SD Estimate
NE Base Serwce Per WA Stale Fee Schedule 2015 - Type IP'
ASSurrieS a 15 Month Conszuction Paned
11.933 SF
+I- 55.000 SF
55.950,138
5.61%
Total Fee Seminary 5932,433i
Description
ArenitecturaI
Consultant Budgets
Firm
Weinstein AID 60,641 4,533 73,584 5,050 5283.039
Sauclural Swenson Say Pagel 16,718 1,286 17,361 1,286 $87997
SPecRaations Slat 15.534 1.250 5,533 833 834.500
Mechanical, Plumbing ft Fire Protection Greenhusch 22 732 1.709 23,506 1.709 S92.972
Electrical, Pre Alarm and Ugeting Travis FilaniaurirC 16.380 1,260 17,010 1.260 563.000
Civil (Basta Scope) bPD 1,566 120 1 .526 120 66.022
BASIC PHASE SUBTOTALS 206,216 167.521 133,071 10,298 139,020 10,293 7 230
Reimbursable allowance Fixed Fee (7% of Total Fe AU 5.247
SUBTOTAL IV/14%U Multiplier 10% 20,072
19
Weinstein A +U Tukwila Fire Stations
Fee Proposal
ITEM
EXTRA SERVICES SUMMARY
(Defined by WA State Fee Schedule)
Brief Description Primary Consuttants
Schematic Design Construction
Design Development Documents
Bidding • Contract Negotiation Administration
Close Out TOTAL TOTAL
SUBJECT
TOMARK)
Specialty Consultant- Civil Engineering LlaD 14.P95 1004 14,637 1,084 554,211 $54.21
2 Specialty Consultant- Landscape Swift Company 10,755 1,654 14.016 1.015 $56,284 556.28
3 Specialty Consultant- Detailed Cost EstiMenng The Robinson Cornsam 522,700 $22.700
4 Specialty Consultant - Eire Stahon Specialist Architect TCA Architecture 4.389 3291 514,264 $14,26
b Electrical Extra Services
Paging and Alerting Systenrs Trams Fitrnaunce 2.730 210 2,835 210 510.500 $10,500
6 Arcnnectural Extra Services
Basic Interior Design WAU B.200 $23,400
Complex Birthing CA WAU 100,000 1100,000
Coordination and Documentation of Bid Alternates WAU 5,000 $5,000
Envelope consultant coordinahon WAIT 3.000 $3.000
Extra Meetings WAU 5.000 $5.000
Swift Company $0
10 GC/CM Coordination.
Cid LPD 6.700 $6,700 5E700
Landscape Sven Company 3.743 $3,743 53,74
Architectural WAU 5.000 $5,000
Structural SSF 1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Electrical Tiaras Frtzmaurice 2.500 $2,500 $2.500
Mechanical Greenbusch 3.360 $3.360 $3280
Eire Station Specialist TCA 1,650 $1 550 $1450
Cost Estimating The Robinson Company $0 50
11 Specialty Consultant- Geotethnrcal Engineering Hart Crowser $26.480 52648
WAU EXTRA SERVICE TOTAL 6141400
EXTRA SERVICE PHASE SUBTOTAL 41,076 50267 86,132 2.948 134.779 3.110 $344292
SUBTOTAL APPLICABLE TO MULTIPLIER S203.292
WAU 10% Multiplier 520.339
SUBTOTAL w/WAU Mulliplier 10% I 5355,1311
TPS_marnContractFeeF stimateCULY la yrs 2 of a Printed vane
20
Type 9"
Assumes 815 Month Construdon Period
15.088 SF
*I-60.000 Sr
08.547.872
8.22%
ITotal Fee Summary
Total Basic Fee = $702,635
Total Extra Services = $438,799
Total Reimbursable Allows $25,112
$1,166,546 Baseline Building Area. SF
Site Area
Protect (MACC/leer SD Esfitnate
NE Base Service Per WA State Fee Schedule 20
199 MainContractfieefistimatemo68.xis I Sr 2 Pdnted, 7
Weinstein A+U
F552 Fee Calculation
Tukwila Fire Stations
Fee Proposal
July 9.2018
100%
702 635
2% 2%
4.053
27%
189,711
15% 26% 18% Percent Fee
Total Base Feeb Pha 20.474 0175,858 5182,685 $14,053
TOTAL BASIC SERVICES (Scope per State Fee Schedule Guidelines)
Schematic iDesignn Construction Bidding • Contract Close cm oev
"
Design
Prne
Documents Negotiation Administration
Description
Architectural
Comultant Budgets
Form
Weinstein AlLI 70.962 104,114 108,278 e,329 112.443 e,329 $416955
Structural Swenson Say Fagot 15,385 21270 22,225 1,710 23,080 1,710 $85980
Specifications Put 1.406 1,953 2959 234 1.094 156
Meehan cal, Plumbing & Fire Protection Greenbusch 21.501 29,882 31,056 2,389 32,251 2.389 $119,448
Elecincal, Fire Alarm and 14216195 Travis Fitemaurld 10,780 16.250 16,900 1,300 17,550 1,300 $65200
Civil (Basic Scope) 190 1.519 2,110 2,194 169 2279 169 88.440
BASIC PHASE SUBTOTALS 126,473 175,659 183,622 14,131 168,697 14,053 $702,835
Reimbursable allowance -Reed Fee 12 &Total Fee) WAit 22929
SUBTOTAL We WAU Multiplier 10% 25,112
21
Weinstein A+U
EXTRA SERVICES SUMMARY
(Defined by WA State Fee Schedule)
Schematic Design Construction
Design Developmen Documents
Welding • C""el
Negotiation AdM1111StratiOn Close Out
Tukwila
TOTAL
Fire Stations
Fee Propo at
TOTA
SUBJEC
ITEM Brief Description Primary Consultants TOMARK.
Specialty Consultant -Cant Engineenng LPD 67 10.990 19,750 1,519 20.509 1519 $75980 575,96
2 Specialty Consultant - Landscaoe Swift Company 20.079 22,954 1.780 13.799 $72,379 $72,379
3 Specialty Consultant -Detailed Cost Estimating The Robinson Compans 10.520 12.200 $22,700 $23,700
4 Specialty ConSultant - Fire Station Specialist Architect TCA Architecture 3.394 4,714 4,902 377 5,091 377 $16556 555,955
5 Electrical Extra Services:
Paging and Alerting Systems Travis Stzmaunce 900 1,250 1,300 100 1,550 100 $5,000 55.000
6 Architectural Extra Servrces
Basic Interior Design WAU 10,000 10,000 8,000 528,000
Cornplex Build.ng CA WAU 100,000 S100.000
SEPA Checklist Coordrnahon and Documentation WAU 5.000 1,000 56.000
Envelope consultani coordination WAU 500 1,000 1,600 53,000
Extra meet:rigs WAU 3.000 3,000 2,000 $1.000
10 GC/CM Coordination:
Civil LPD 7.035 57,035 $7,035
Landscape Swift Company 4,753 $4,763 54,783
Architectural WAU 1.000 5,000 5.000 11.000 S15,000
Structural SSF 1.500 51.500 51.500
Electrical Travis FilZmaurice 2.500 $2.500 52.500
Mechanical Steenbok& 6.000 56.000 56000
Fire Station Specialist TCA 1.650 $1,650 51.650
Cost Estimating The Robinson Camden) 3.350 3.950 7,300 $7,300 57,300
11 Specialty Consultant -Geotechnical Engineering Hart Crowser 526.4130 536,480
12 Specialty Consultant - Roadway and Skrinallzation Design VVH Pacific 4,958 TED TBD $4,968 $4,966
WALIEXTRA SERVICE TOTAL 5156,000
EXTRA SERVICE PHASE SUBTOTAL $413090
SUBTOTAL APPLICABLE TO MULTIPLIER $257,090
WAU 10% Multiplier $25509
SUBTOTAL w/WAU Mpleollet 10% 5438,791
TES_MainContrattFeeEsti
P4nte4, 7 Of
22
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND PLANNING
SERVICES
FOR
TUKWILA JUSTICE CENTER PROJECT
This First Amendment (the -First Amendment"), effective as of , 2018 (the
"Effective Date") is entered into by and between CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
("City") and DLR GROUP, INC. ("Architect"). This First Amendment is an addition to and
modifies the Consultant Agreement for Architectural Design and Planning Services between the
parties dated , 201 (the "Agreement"). This First Amendment incorporates the
contractual obligations outlined in the Agreement, and modifies the Agreement as stated below.
Unless defined differently herein, all capitalized terms in this First Amendment have the same
meaning as in the Agreement. Now for and in consideration of the mutual promises contained
herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties agree as follows:
Compensation. Architect's compensation for the Project shall be increased by a net total
of Nine Hundred Fifty-Three Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Dollars ($953,830). Accordingly,
Architect's total compensation for the Project will not exceed Three Million Ninety-Nine
Thousand Nine Hundred Fourteen Dollars (53,099,14), as further described in the Design
Services Proposal — Additional Services #1 dated July 2, 2018, which is attached as Exhibit A
and incorporated by this reference. All provisions of the Agreement referring to Architect's
compensation, including Exhibit A Article II, shall be revised accordingly.
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged and are hereby
ratified and confirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this First Amendment as shown
below.
CITY OF TUKWILA DLR GROUP, INC.
By:
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
Printed Name:
Title:
Attest/Authenticated: Approved as to Form:
City Clerk, Christy O'Flaherty Office of the City Attorney
[AETI 755489 D0LI/05720 000002/ ; 1
23
Exhibit A
Please see the attached Design Services Proposal — Additional Services #1 dated July 2, 2018
(AET1755489 DOC I/05720 000002/ ; 2
24
DLR Group
Architecture Engineering Planning Interiors
51 University Street, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98101
July 2,2018
Justine Kim
Shiels Obletz Johnsen
101 Yesler Way Suite 606
Seattle, WA 98104
justinek@sojsea.com
Project Name: City of Tukwila Justice Center
DLR Group Project No.: 73-17158-00
Re: Design Services Proposal — Additional Services #1
Dear Justine:
This letter will serve as our proposal for Additional Professional Services for the
City of Tukwila Justice Center in Tukwila, WA. The initial scope of services was
based on the bond proposal scope of $14.6 million dollars maximum allowable
construction cost (MACC) and 45,500 square feet. The MACC provided in the
request for proposals equals a cost of $321/sf. The MACC was used in calculations
in the Washington State Fee Schedule matrix to determine the initial design
services fee.
At the outset of the project, DLR Group provided a cost estimate of regional and
national police facilities indicating the assumed cost per square foot in the bond
was inadequate for the current construction climate. During program verification,
the team worked with City of Tukwila to determine the programs and department
needs for this facility. This information was provided to our cost estimator to verify
the criteria, and confirmed the facility budget needs to be similar to other facilities'
MACC. The costs have also been confirmed with the Schematic Design estimates
performed by the GC/CM, BNBuilders, and Roen Associates.
The MACC is directly used in the fee proposal matrix in the Washington State Fee
Schedule. This additional service indicates the adjustment to the design fees
associated with this change in budget. This was anticipated by the design team,
and reassessing this fee following the estimate was required for our feasibility.
These factors may be addressed in subsequent additional services should they be
confirmed in our investigations. These include but are not limited to the following:
Hazardous ground contamination
Soil conditions requiring more intensive structural systems
On-site stormwater detention requirements
Poor soil requirements that require significant cut and fill
Seattle and locations worldwide
25
Justine Kim
July 2,2018
Page 2
The schematic design estimate has indicated costs for building conditions we have
evaluated and shall include in the final design. These items include but are not
limited to the following:
Building program components for a 47,200 SF facility
Site conditions based on selected site of Tukwila International Boulevard
and S 150t h Street
Site security (fencing)
Covered parking structure (no structured parking)
Site demolition of buildings and structures on the selected site
Site development of the selected site
18 month construction schedule from March 2019 through Fall 2020.
The total Direct Construction Cost (DCC) for these components is $23,225,308 in
lieu of $14.6 million from the bond measure. Inputting this factor into the
Washington State Fee Schedule modifies the design services fee as follows:
Basic Services per State of Washington Fee Guidelines July 2015 Version on a project scope of
S28,121,549 (MACG) Schedule 'A'
Base ME fee including interiors $ 2,248,830
Additional Services per State of Washington Fee Guidelines
[COMPLETE] Space Programming and Pre-Design Service $150,000
Interior Furnishings, FF&E, U.S. Communities Program $ 54,000
Design & purchasing schedule only - purchasing and installation by Owner
Cost Estimating Services (PD, SD, DD phases, CD GC/CM reconciliation) 8 49,250
Additional On Site CA Phase Representation $ 69,000
(Basic Services includes Bi-monthly. Addition Services would result in weekly)
Renderings & Models Included
Security Electronics Systems and Detention Equipment $ 40,000
Participation in commissioning program managed by others $ 40,000
Civil Engineering Consultant; on site & off site $120,000
Landscape Consultant $100,000
GC/CM Coordination $ 40,000
26
Justine Kim
July 2,2018
Page 3
I) Acoustical Design $ 35,000
As-built record drawings $ 24,000
Value analysis $ 24,000
Subtotal Additional Services $ 745,250
DLR Group Reimbursable Costs, Design Printing, Mailing. $ 71,409
Note: Expenses will be billed in lump sum billing
13) DLR Group Consultant Markup (10%) 34,425
Note: DLR Group does not require markup on
DLR Group integrated design team
Services by Others, not included in DLR Group contract scope unless designated otherwise
Independent Commissioning program (Owner's consultant)
LEED Certification fee and documentation (Owner project cost)
Site Survey (Owner project cost)
Geotechnical survey, design letter and inspections (Owner project cost)
Testing and balancing (Owner project cost)
Hazardous Materials study & abatement (Owner project cost)
Traffic Consultant (Owner project cost)
Building Envelope Design (Owner project cost)
Revised Total Design Services
Previous Total Design Services
Total Additional Service 01
Additional Services Scope:
The additional service for the City of Tukwila Justice Center project described
above and inclusive of all direct labor costs, indirect labor costs, and other direct
costs incurred by DLR Group and our consultants, is a lump sum amount of nine
hundred fifty three thousand eight hundred thirty dollars ($953,830).
$3,099,914
$ 2,146,084
$ 953,830
The fee is derived based on the current Washington State Guidelines for
Determining Architect/ Engineer Fees for Public Works Building Projects. As we
proceed through Design Development, additional services may be required for site
development noted above once the assumptions are proven relevant to the design.
During Predesign, SOJ requested additional scope to the cost estimator's services
(Roen Associates) and noted an additional service would be warranted.
27
Justine Kim
July 2,2018
Page 4
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this proposal for additional services, and
we look forward to our continued partnership with City of Tukwila.
Sincerely,
DLR Group
ca-• t (
Erica Loynd
Senior Associate
End: Cost Estimate dated 4/27/2018
cc:
Erica Loynd
Ethan Bernau
File
28
Schematic Design Cost Estimate BNBuilders
Estimate
Adjusted
Estimate
Existing Building Demolition $ 498,910 $ Excluded
Hazmat (Allowance) $ 500,000 $ Excluded
Justice Center Building $ 17,086,906 $ 17,086,906
Unsuitable Soils (Allowance) $ 500,000 $ - Excluded
Contaminated Soils (Allowance) $ 275,000 $ Excluded
Sitework $ 5,666,497 $ 5,666,497
Right-of-Way Improvements $ 471,905 $ 471,905
Direct Construction Cost (DCC) $ 24,999,218 $ 23,225,308
Design/Estimating Contingency $ 2,224,519 $ 2,224,519
Escalation $ 1,931,898 $ 1,931,898
Negotiated Support Services $ 1,762,449 $ Excluded
Trade Package Bonds $ 437,335 $ Excluded
MACC Contingency $ 739,824 $ 739,824
Maximum Allowable Construction Cost (MACC) $ 32,095,243 $ 28,121,549
29
BNB
BNBuilrleri
PROJECT JUSTICE CENTER
OWNER CITY OF TUKWILA
ARCHITECT OLE GROUP
Pre-Design Budget Comparision
RECONCILED - FINAL
ESTIMATE TYPE SD
ISSUE DATE' 4126.02010
DESCRIPTION ITEM
571.010 I I 403 050 305 S (5.5211
I S 35.993,103 I Total Contract Costs ITCD)
5004% 5 3,599.310 WSST Veasnrreglon 05008 04150 tax (Tukvalal
(02-0047 Abatement (Allawanee) 500,000 Allowance 500,000 50 . 5 500 000 )
14,997,475 Direct Cost 07,1ST Vol 5 24201 SI 7.090.806 92,005.431 $ 17,209 357 I 2 2, aaa 0 122.451 Justice Center 8,016119
5 1,030764 Allowance 005.500 (012 35.70E) 5 500 ON ; (1.138,780 § Unsuitable Sells IAIINWl0IolJ
5400,06T 409.691 3 . (409.691) Reduce Allowance wtAllowance Unsurtabla Sails (Reduction)
(5225.000) S 275 000 (225.2(2 j)0_ 5 • Cemamlnated Soils (Allowance)
Sitexvork
S 500,000 Allowance --a 5 270,050
0 5,280.036 Deed Cost 177.091 NT , 1 32 81 05.044.497 5298,442 5 4,818. III I ; 1461 844) 5 1040.711)
Ri9C00(WaY0(0200WM00(0 . Nose Inc uded 25,020 sr § 18 20 $471 905 5471, 0 391 505 391.505 5 4e0,4000
$O 2 - w/SGC P. EPS See SOO & NSS Hard Bid OCR 3 Suppon Services
r6740 0 595 674) 5 .
PreweaDD Redact., 0 Cewe BEI 5 I 595 674 From Dna 10 N/A
- S --
lama' 00.10..100 cOsts (Dcc) I 5 24,522 252 5 I t s 24.990.2 13 1 470.004 I 5 24.187.43/ 5 1334410)1 5 (IT Till]
0101510 I EsbinaWip Contingency S 3125,626 Detail Summaries SUB PLAN S 2.224.519 (SOO TO?) 5 3.144057 5 15.741 3
1314,077) 5 1"17"54J p„ „ ,,ax, 2343302 From Line 9 SOB PLAN 1 931,598 15432 0641 5 2 049 865
0 1270,539 Dom Line 10 EST DETAIL 0 1,742.449 5485,910 S 1.776 000 1 490.481 5 13.551 N,,,ocno .0,,E0081,,,„, 0.4054
None Nwed SUB PLAN 9 437 335 5437,335 5 440 725 440,725 5 3 380 5 .
Trade 7005092 E°°25 0E" Sob Ran°
5 957.405 Dern line 12 2 50% 1 739.824 05217 ,58.D 5 785.950 5 1107,4454 5 50,130 MACC Conbn9encyl%(DCC • Des a Esc + Tiol
i aximarn Alloanol, COINONOIIOII Cool (MACC) I 5 32.245.784 5 - 1 1 32.096.245 S (150,5414 5 12,345 374 0 142 500 I 243,131
ontractors Fee (% of MADLY. 50 %) S 1067.519 Detail Summanes 5 00% 5 1.604.7E2 (562857) 5— 1.015 41s (40.200) L 14.657
0 000.091 102408090 1 1023,700 DER eine 0 (AS-BID) 5 580.891 ($1.248,809) Specified General Conditions ‘SGC)
5 737 664 737.664 41.580 Addl MACC VoIo S 696,084 5696,084 SODS for MACC Value' $1455,
' Included wiFee $O DC/CM Performance 8 Payment Bond
540 Insarences eselcdedeoNee 50
10010444wiree 50 000 Taxes
5 240.000 1 010000)
Preconseeceo, SeDicac 1 050000 Dem Add An Lost Owner (Bid) Value 240000 0510 000)
54581110 I
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GN1P 1
S pot 057 / Component GOP
$ 39,592 413 Total xv/INSaT
45 500
30,730678 1 0353,7351
5 82073 47.200 1,700
VARIANCE TO
COST COST TARGET
OVER I(UNDER)
EWEN
ASSOCIATES -
DELTA TO ENS
OVER I WOOER/
COST
ONEE-SO
VARIANCE TO
COST TARGET
OVER MINDER/
.210,500 0 1776,123d 3 35,500,348 5 1425,7551 Is 349.368
3.521,6981 $ (77,0121 $ 3.558.535 (i 5 442.470) 5 u 937
384,304
39.122.963 S (449031)
47.200 1.745
30
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
FOR
TUKWILA FIRE STATIONS 51, 52, AND 54
This First Amendment (the "First Amendment") effective as of , 2018 (the
"Effective Date"), is entered into by and between CITY OF TUKWILA ("Owner"), and
LYDIG CONSTRUCTION ("Contractor"). This First Amendment is an addition to and
modifies the ALA Document A133-2009 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and
Construction Manager for the Tukwila Fire Stations 51, 52, and 54, dated , 20 , and
the AIA Document A201-2007 General Conditions of the Contract for Construction
(collectively, the "Agreement"). This First Amendment incorporates the contractual obligations
outlined in the Agreement, and modifies the Agreement as stated below. Unless defined
differently herein, all capitalized terms in this First Amendment have the same meaning as in the
Agreement. Now for and in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree
as follows:
I. Deletion of Fire Station 54 from the Project. The Project, as defined in AIA Document
A133 and in Section 1.1.4 of AIA Document A201 is revised to exclude any work related to Fire
Station 54. For the sake of clarity, this means Fire Station 54 will no longer be part of the
Project and the Contractor will provide no Work for Fire Station 54.
2. A133, Section 2.3.11.2. Section 2.3.11.2 of AIA Document A133 is modified as shown
below, with the deleted language interlineated (intectineated) and the additional language
underlined:
§ 2.3.11.2 Any delay in thc scheduled date for Physical Completi n and Final Completion
: • •
and service to equipment placed in usc at Substantial Completion, and will interfere with
the ability of the Owner to close its project office and r assign Owner staff, thus causing
the Owner to incur unwarranted expense. The parties recognize that the cost to Owner of
any Stieil delay to Substantial Completion or Physical Completion is difficult to
determine, and therefore, the parties have negotiated and agreed that in the event that
Construction Manager does not achieve Substantial Completion or Physical Completion
or Final Completion of any phase the Project of any Fire Station (as defined in A201
,S1.1.4) by the dates specified in the Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment, the Owner
shall have the right to elect among the foil wing remedies: 1) continue to allow the
Construction Manager to work toward Substantial Completion or Physical Completion
and Final Completion, provided that for each day of delay, Construction Manager shall
pay to the Owner as liquidated damages, the sum of $2,000 per day until Owner
determines that the relevant completion has occurred; . •
and bring action, including without limitation for breach f contract seeking actual
damages The liquidated damages sum shall apply separately to each Fire Station phase
so that if, for example, both Fire Station 51 and Fire Station 52 two phases are delayed,
the liquidated damages would be $4,000 per day for each day both Fire Stations phases
are delayed. The parties agree that the liquidated damages amount is a reasonable
estimate of actual damages and not a penalty.
{A FT1753794.DOC,3/05720.000001/
31
A201, Section 3.9. Section 3.9 of AIA Document A201 and its subparts are modified as
shown below, with the additional language underlined:
§ 3.9 SUPERINTENDENT AND PROJECT MANAGER
§ 3.9.1 The Contractor shall employ a competent superintendent and project manager and
necessary assistants who shall be in attendance at the Project site during performance of
the Work. The superintendent and project manager shall represent the Contractor, and
communications given to the superintendent or project manager shall be as binding as if
given to the Contractor. As provided in the Agreement, Contractor's superintendent and
project manager shall be identified in the Guaranteed Maximum Price
Amendment. Contractor shall not substitute the superintendent or project manager
without the consent of the Owner for such substitution as provided in the Agreement.
§ 3.9.2 The Contractor, as soon as practicable after award of the Contract, shall furnish in
writing to the Owner through the Architect the name and qualifications of a proposed
superintendent and project manager. The Architect may reply within 14 days to the
Contractor in writing stating (1) whether the Owner or the Architect has reasonable
objection to the proposed superintendent or project manager or (2) that the Architect
requires additional time to review. Failure of the Architect to reply within the 14 day
period shall constitute notice of no reasonable objection.
§ 3.9.3 The Contractor shall not employ a proposed superintendent or project manager to
whom the Owner or Architect has made reasonable and timely objection. The Contractor
shall not change the superintendent or project manager without the Owner's consent,
which shall not unreasonably be withheld or delayed.
A201, Section 6.1.3. Section 6.1.3 of MA Document A201 is modified as shown below,
with the deleted language interlineated (interlineated) and the additional language underlined:
§ 6.1.3 The Contractor shall be responsible for coordinating, receiving delivery, and
installing all Owner pre-purchased items as if the Contract r were the riginal purchaser
where such items have been identified in the Contract Documents.
A20 I, Section 11.3.7 Waivers of Subrogation. Section 11.3.7 of AIA Document A201 is
modified as shown below, with the deleted language interlineated (interlineated) and the
additional language underlined the additional language underlined:
§ 11.3.7 WAIVERS OF SUBROGATION
If permitted by the Owner's and Contractor's insurance companies, without penalties, the
The Owner and Contractor waive all rights against (1) each other and any of their
subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, agents and employees, each of the other, and (2) the
Architect, Architect's consultants, separate contractors described in Article 6, if any, and
any of their subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, agents and employees, for damages
caused by fire or other causes of loss to the extent of actual recovery of any insurance
proceeds under any property insurance obtained pursuant to this Section 11.3 or other
property insurance applicable to the Work, except such rights as they have to proceeds of
such insurance held by the Owner in good faith. The Owner or Contractor, as appropriate,
(AET I 753794 DOC;3/0572() 00000U ; 2
32
shall require of the Architect, Architect's consultants, separate contractors described in
Article 6, if any, and the subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, agents and employees of any
of them, by appropriate agreements, written where legally required for validity, similar
waivers each in favor of other parties enumerated herein. The policies shall provide such
waivers of subrogation by endorsement or otherwise. A waiver of subrogation shall be
effective as to a person or entity even though that person or entity would otherwise have a
duty of indemnification, contractual or otherwise, did not pay the insurance premium
directly or indirectly, and whether or not the person or entity had an insurable interest in
the property damaged.
6. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged and are hereby
ratified and confirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this First Amendment as of the
dates shown below.
CITY OF TUKWILA LYDIG CONSTRUCTION
OWNER (Signature) CONSTRUCTION MANAGER (Signature)
(Printed name and title) (Printed name and title)
AET1753794 DOC,3/05720.000001/ 3
33
34
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
FOR
TUKWILA JUSTICE CENTER
This First Amendment (the "First Amendment"), effective as of , 2018 (the
"Effective Date"), is entered into by and between CITY OF TUKWILA ("Owner") and
BNBUILDERS, INC. ("Contractor"). This First Amendment is an addition to and modifies the
ATA Document A133-2009 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Construction
Manager for the Tukwila Justice Center, dated , 20 , and the AIA Document A201-
2007 General Conditions of the Contract for Construction (collectively, the -Agreement"). This
First Amendment incorporates the contractual obligations outlined in the Agreement, and
modifies the Agreement as stated below. Unless defined differently herein, all capitalized terms
in this First Amendment have the same meaning as in the Agreement. Now for and in
consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
I. A133, Section 2.3.1L2. Section 2.3.11.2 of AIA Document A133 is modified as shown
below, with the deleted language interlineated (inter-lineated) and the additional language
underlined:
§ 2.3.11.2 Any delay in the scheduled date for Physical Completi n and Final Completion . .
and service to equipment placed in use at Substantial Completion, and will interfere with
the Owner to incur unwarranted expense. The parties recognize that the cost to Owner of
any sueh delay to Substantial Completion or Physical Completion is difficult to
determine, and therefore, the parties have negotiated and agreed that in the event that
Construction Manager does not achieve Substantial Completion or Physical Completion
or Final Completion of any phase the Project by the dates specified in the Guaranteed
Maximum Price Amendment, the Owner shall have the right to elect among the following
remedies: 1) continue to allow the Construction Manager to work toward Substantial
Completion or Physical Completion and Final Completion, provided that for each day of
delay, Construction Manager shall pay to the Owner as liquidated damages, the sum of
$2,000 per day until Owner determines that the relevant completion has occurred; and 2)
terminate this Agreement and bring action, including without limitation for breach of
contract seeking actual damages. The liquidated damages sum shall apply separately to
each phase so that if, for example, two phases are delayed, the liquidated damages would
991 :t -• • - . t: The parties agree that the
liquidated damages amount is a reasonable estimate of actual damages and not a penalty.
2. A201. Section 3.9. Section 3.9 of AIA Document A201 and its subparts are modified as
shown below, with the additional language underlined:
§ 3.9 SUPERINTENDENT AND PROJECT MANAGER
§ 3.9.1 The Contractor shall employ a competent superintendent and project manager and
necessary assistants who shall be in attendance at the Project site during performance of
the Work. The superintendent and project manager shall represent the Contractor, and
1AET1754853 DOC.1/05720 000002/ ; 1
35
communications given to the superintendent or project manager shall be as binding as if
given to the Contractor. As provided in the Agreement, Contractor's superintendent and
project manager shall be identified in the Guaranteed Maximum Price
Amendment. Contractor shall not substitute the superintendent or project manager
without the consent of the Owner for such substitution as provided in the Agreement.
§ 3.9.2 The Contractor, as soon as practicable after award of the Contract, shall furnish in
writing to the Owner through the Architect the name and qualifications of a proposed
superintendent and project manager. The Architect may reply within 14 days to the
Contractor in writing stating (1) whether the Owner or the Architect has reasonable
objection to the proposed superintendent or project manager or (2) that the Architect
requires additional time to review. Failure of the Architect to reply within the 14 day
period shall constitute notice of no reasonable objection.
§ 3.9.3 The Contractor shall not employ a proposed superintendent or project manager to
whom the Owner or Architect has made reasonable and timely objection. The Contractor
shall not change the superintendent or project manager without the Owner's consent,
which shall not unreasonably be withheld or delayed.
A201, Section 6.1.3. Section 6.1.3 of AIA Document A201 is modified as shown below,
with the deleted language interlineated (interlineated) and the additional language underlined:
§ 6.1.3 The Contractor shall be responsible for coordinating, receiving delivery, and
installing all Owner pre-purchased items as if the Contract r were the original purchaser
where such items have been identified in the Contract Documents.
A201, Section 11.3.7 Waivers of Subrogation. Section 11.3.7 of AIA Document A201 is
modified as shown below, with the deleted language interlineated (interlineated) and the
additional language underlined the additional language underlined:
§ 11.3.7 WAIVERS OF SUBROGATION
The Owner and Contractor waive all rights against (1) each other and any of their
subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, agents and employees, each of the other, and (2) the
Architect, Architect's consultants, separate contractors described in Article 6, if any, and
any of their subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, agents and employees, for damages
caused by fire or other causes of loss to the extent of actual recovery of any insurance
proceeds under any property insurance obtained pursuant to this Section 11.3 or other
property insurance applicable to the Work, except such rights as they have to proceeds of
such insurance held by the Owner in good faith. The Owner or Contractor, as appropriate,
shall require of the Architect, Architect's consultants, separate contractors described in
Article 6, if any, and the subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, agents and employees of any
of them, by appropriate agreements, written where legally required for validity, similar
waivers each in favor of other parties enumerated herein. The policies shall provide such
waivers of subrogation by endorsement or otherwise. A waiver of subrogation shall be
effective as to a person or entity even though that person or entity would otherwise have a
duty of indemnification, contractual or otherwise, did not pay the insurance premium
directly or indirectly, and whether or not the person or entity had an insurable interest in
(AET1754853 DOC,I/05720 000002/ 2
36
the property damaged.
5. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged and are hereby
ratified and confirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this First Amendment as of the
dates shown below.
CITY OF TUKWILA BNBUILDERS, INC.
OWNER (Signature) CONSTRUCTION MANAGER (Signature)
(Printed name and title) (Printed name and title)
I AETI 754853 DOC;1/05720.000002/ 3
37
38
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Public Safety Committee
FROM: Laurel Humphrey, Council Analyst
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: July 10, 2018
SUBJECT: Washington State Marijuana Tax Income
Issue Summary
A June 1, 2018 Seattle Times editorial by United States Attorney Annette L. Hayes
advocated for cities and counties to receive a larger share of legal marijuana sales tax
to be used for law enforcement. At the June 25, 2018 Committee of the Whole,
Councilmember Robertson asked for Council consensus to direct the Mayor to write a
letter to legislators asking for support in this effort.
The City Council referred the topic to the Public Safety Committee and asked that the
City's state lobbyist be asked for advice. Councilmember McLeod also stated that he
would be attending an upcoming Association of Washington Cities conference session
on cannabis and would report back.
In 2017, Washington State collected $319 million in legal marijuana income and license
fees, which is $113 million more than those collected from alcohol. In 2018, the State
has collected over $120 million in marijuana excise tax, which is 37% on retail sales.
The total amount available for distribution to cities and towns is $6 million, $1.8 million
of which is distributed to jurisdictions that generate the tax. The remaining is distributed
on a per capita basis, with counties receiving a larger share, although jurisdictions that
prohibit retail sales are ineligible. The City of Tukwila collected $4,700 in 2017 and
$12,861.76 so far in 2018.
The City's state lobbyist, Jennifer Ziegler, considered this question and recommends
sending a letter to Governor Inslee supporting legislation similar to that enacted in
Colorado last year, attached to this memo. That legislation is summarized as follows:
Summary
The bill creates the gray and black market marijuana enforcement grant program (grant
program) in the division of local government in the department of local affairs (division).
The grant program awards grants to local governments to reimburse the local
governments, in part or in full, for law enforcement and prosecution costs associated
with gray and black marijuana markets. A rural local government has priority in receiving
grants. The general assembly may appropriate money from the marijuana tax cash fund
or the proposition AA refund account to the division for the grant program. The bill
appropriates $5,945,392 from the marijuana tax cash fund to the division to fund the
grant program. The division shall adopt policies and procedures for the administration of
the grant program, including rules related to the application process and the grant 39
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
award criteria. The division shall include information regarding the effectiveness of the
grant program in its SMART presentation beginning in November 2019.
ATTACHMENTS
June 1,2018 Seattle Times Editorial: "Washington is Breaking Promise to Keep
Illegal Pot in Check," by Annette L. Hayes
Colorado House Bill 17-1221
Association of Washington Cities June 2018 Conference Presentation: Cannabis in
WA — Where are we now?
40
FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 2018 I gljeSeatttentle,9 I News A19
OPINION
Washington is breaking promise
to keep illegal pot in check
ByANNETTE L. HAYES
Special to The Times
When Washington voters decid-
ed in 2012 to allow the sale of recre-
atbnal marijuana, they were clear
about one of the things they want-
ed: tot Ice the criminal element out
of marijuana.
After all, the initiative sponsors
stated in the voter's pamphlet that
legalization would take marijuana
profits "out of the hands of violent
organized crime."
State leaders got the message. In
January2013, Gov. Jaylnslee an-
nounced, "Ifs very important for us to
give the federal government confi-
dence that we're doing everything
possible to achieve the goals ofthis
initiative, which is to reduce the
criminal association with marijuana."
Unfortunately, the state is not
doing enough to keep its promise to
voters. The net result is urban,
suburban and rural Washington
neighborhoods being blighted by
houses turned into illegal marijua-
na grows, often by organized crtnrThi-
nal groups.
Many of these grows are funded
by money coming from overseas
and take advantage of the state's
ineffective enforcement of marijua-
na laws. Since marijuana sells for
considerably more in states where it
remains illegal, these groups are
shipping their product out of state,
making millions of dollars in illegal
and untaxed profits.
As the chief federal law enforce-
ment officer for Western Washing-
ton,! see the evidence piling up.
Just a couple of weeks ago, federal,
state and local law enforcement
officials executed search warrants
at 17 locations in the Puget Sound
region, and seized nearly 4,000
marijuana plants. To fund these
grow operations, almost $600,000
in wire transfers were sent from
China and laundered through a
complex web of bank accounts and
lines of credit.
Last November, in Grays Harbor
County and in King County, hun- -
dreds of law enforcement officials
worked together on an investiga-
tion involving 50 locations, more
than 32,000 marijuana plants and
44 individuals — many Chinese
nationals—who grew and trans-
ported illegal marijuana.
In each case, the evidence dem-
onstrates that hundreds of thou-
sands of dollars is coming in from
overseas to purchase homes for
cash. These homes are used to grow
unregulated marijuana creating
serious fire hazards, making neigh-
bors fear reprisal from growers and
leaving behind toxic properties that
blight our communities. As one
local law enforcement officer put it,
the impact in his rural county has
been a "loss of a sense of security."
These are not isolated examples.
Sheriffs and police chiefs across
Western Washington have told me
about similar illegal marijuana
grows, while local prosecutors have
described cases stacked up in their
offices because of a lack of resourc-
es to prosecute them effectively.
Why should Washingtonians
care? First and foremost, because
they voted to take the criminal
element out of marijuana. Last
year, Washington took in $319
million in marijuana taxes. The
state must set aside an increased
share of those funds specifically to
address the illegal-marijuana mar-,
ketplace. The funds currently set
aside simply are not enough.
Sending additional funds to
affected counties and municipali-
ties would make a significant differ-
ence in the number of prosecutors
and investigators able to address
this problem. In contrast, Oregon
specifically sets aside 15 percent of
its marijuana tax receipts for law
enforcement. Washington does not
even come dose.
Washingtonians also should care
because no matter your view of
marijuana, allowing illegal grows to
flourish and millions of dollars in
illegal funds to flood into our com-
munities is a recipe for more crime.
Organized criminal groups will do
what it takes to protect millions of
dollars in ill-gotten gains. This
means an increase in corruption,
violence and illegal firearms. In
some neighborhoods, violent at-
tempts to rip off illegal grow houses
are a real problem.
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Ses-
sions has made dear that combat-
ing marijuana-related crime is the
job of each U.S. Attorney based on
local circumstances. Those of us in
federal law enforcement in Western
Washington are committed to
doing our part, but we need the
state to step up and take the lead as
it promised it would.
It was the state's decision to set
up a regulated marijuana market-
place, and thus it is the state's re-
sponsibility to enforce its laws,
including against those who set up
illegal and unregulated grows.
Showing that a regulated market-
place can successfully address the
harms associated with marijuana—
whether related to organized crimi-
nal groups, underage use, sub-
stance abuse or otherwise—is
essential to the safety and well-be-
ing of all of us. Now is the time for
Washington to get this important
decision right.
U.S. Attorney Annette L
Hayes is a career federal
prosecutor who has
served as U.S. Attorney
for the Western District
of Washington since
2014. During more than
20 years with the U.S.
Attorney's Office, she has been involved in
prosecuting a range of cases, including
cybererime, intellectual-property, child-
exploitation, violent-crime cases and
large-scale intonational drug traf eking
matters.
41
42
---40.•••••
HOUSE BELL 17-1221
BY REPRESENTATIVE(S) Willett and Pabon, Carver, Arndt, Becker K.,
Garnett;
also SENATOR(S) Aguilar and Cooke, Baumgardner, Coram, Crowder,
Gardner, Hill, Holbert, Kagan, Kefalas, Kerr, Lambert, Lundberg,
Martinez Humenik, Merrifield, Neville T., Priola, Scott, Smallwood, Tate,
Todd, Williams A., Grantham.
CONCERNING GRAY AND BLACK MARKET MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT
EFFORTS, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, MAKING AN
APPROPRIATION.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
SECTION 1. Legislative declaration. (1) The general assembly
finds and declares that:
Through citizen-initiated measures, Colorado provided its
citizens protections for the cultivation and use of medical marijuana in
2000 and recreational marijuana in 2012;
One of the reasons behind these citizen-initiated measures was
to erode the black market for marijuana in Colorado;
Capital letters indicate new material added to existing statutes; dashes through words indicate
deletions from existing statutes and such material not part of act 43
The constitutional provisions for both medical marijuana and
recreational marijuana provide protections for personal marijuana
cultivation, but are silent on the question of where marijuana plants may be
grown or processed for medical or recreational use;
Although the authority for marijuana cultivation for both
medical and recreational marijuana is generally limited to six plants per
person, there are some provisions that can allow individuals to grow more
plants. Both the medical marijuana and recreational constitutional
provisions allow a citizen to assist another citizen in the cultivation of
marijuana.
The assist provisions have created a situation in which
individuals are cultivating large quantities of marijuana in residential
properties;
(0 These large-scale cultivation sites in residential properties create
a public safety issue and are a public nuisance. A site in a residential
property can overburden the property's electrical system, resulting in
excessive power use and creating a fire hazard that puts first responders at
risk. A site can also cause water damage and mold in the residential
property. A site in a residential property can produce a noxious smell that
limits the ability of others who live in the area to enjoy the quiet of their
homes. Often the site is a rental home, and the renters cause significant
damage to the home by retrofitting the home to be used as a large-scale
cultivation site. When a residential property is used for a large-scale
cultivation site, it often lowers the property value of the property and thus
the property value of the rest of the neighborhood. Finally, a site in a
residential property can serve as a target for criminal activity, creating an
untenable public safety hazard.
Large-scale, multi-national crime organizations have exploited
Colorado laws, rented multiple residential properties for large-scale
cultivation sites, and caused an influx of human trafficking and large
amounts of weapons as well as the potential for violent crimes in residential
neighborhoods;
These large-scale cultivation sites in residential properties have
been used to divert marijuana out of state and to children; and
PAGE 2-HOUSE BILL 17-1221
44
(i) In awarding grants under the gray and black market marijuana
enforcement grant program, the department of local affairs shall give
priority to local governments in rural areas that have limited law
enforcement resources.
(2) Therefore, the general assembly determines that it is necessary
to impose reasonable limits on residential marijuana cultivation that do not
encroach on the protections afforded Colorado citizens in the Colorado
constitution.
SECTION 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-18-406, add (3.5)
as follows:
18-18-406. Offenses relating to marijuana and marijuana
concentrate - definition. (3.5) A PERSON IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
AUTHORITY TO ASSIST ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL GRANTED IN SECTION 14 (2)(b)
OR SECTION 16 (3)(e) OF ARTICLE XVIII OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND
IS SUBJECT TO THE OFFENSES AND PENALTIES OF SUBSECTION (3) OF THIS
SECTION IF THE PERSON POSSESSES ANY MARIJUANA PLANT HE OR SHE IS
GROWING ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL, UNLESS HE OR SHE IS THE
PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR THE INDIVIDUAL AND IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 25-1.5-106.
SECTION 3. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add 24-32-119 as
follows:
24-32-119. Gray and black market marijuana enforcement
grant program - report - definition. (1) (a) THE GRAY AND BLACK
MARKET MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT GRANT PROGRAM IS CREATED N THE
DIVISION. THE DIVISION SHALL AWARD GRANTS TO LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND DISTRICT A ITORNEYS TO COVER, IN PART OR
IN FULL, INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
UNLICENSED MARIJUANA CULTIVATION OR DISTRIBUTION OPERATIONS
CONDUCTED IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW.
(b) THE DIVISION SHALL:
(I) SOLICIT AND REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS FROM LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND DISTRICT ATTORNEYS; AND
PAGE 3-HOUSE BILL 17-1221
45
(II) SELECT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS TO RECEIVE GRANTS TO COVER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF UNLICENSED MARIJUANA
CULTIVATION OR DISTRIBUTION OPERATIONS CONDUCTED IN VIOLATION OF
STATE LAW.
(c) GRANTS AWARDED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION (1) SHALL
BE PRIORITIZED TO:
PROVIDE NECESSARY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND DISTRICT ATTORNEYS IN RURAL AREAS TO
ADDRESS UNLICENSED MARIJUANA CULTIVATION OR DISTRIBUTION
OPERATIONS CONDUCTED IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW;
SUPPORT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS IN INVESTIGATING AND PROSECUTING LARGE-SCALE
UNLICENSED MARIJUANA CULTIVATION OR DISTRIBUTION OPERATIONS
CONDUCTED IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW;
PROVIDE NECESSARY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENTAGENCIES AND DISTRICT ATTORNEYS IN THE INVESTIGATION
AND PROSECUTION OF ORGANIZED CRIME INVOLVED IN UNLICENSED
MARIJUANA CULTIVATION OR DISTRIBUTION OPERATIONS CONDUCTED IN
VIOLATION OF STATE LAW; OR
PROVIDE NECESSARY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND DISTRICT ATTORNEYS IN THE INVESTIGATION
AND PROSECUTION OF UNLICENSED MARIJUANA CULTIVATION OR
DISTRIBUTION OPERATIONS THAT DIVERT MARIJUANA OUTSIDE OF
COLORADO.
(2) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MAY ANNUALLY APPROPRIATE MONEY
FROM THE MARIJUANA TAX CASH FUND CREATED IN SECTION 39-28.8-501
OR THE PROPOSITION AA REFUND ACCOUNT CREATED IN SECTION
39-28.8-604 (1) TO THE DIVISION TO MAKE THE GRANTS DESCRIBED IN
SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION AND FOR THE DIVISION'S REASONABLE
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES RELATED TO THE GRANTS. ANY UNEXPENDED
AND UNENCUMBERED MONEY FROM AN APPROPRIATION MADE PURSUANT TO
THIS SUBSECTION (2) REMAINS AVAILABLE FOR EXPENDITURE BY THE
PAGE 4-HOUSE BILL 17-1221
46
DIVISION IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR WITHOUT FURTHER APPROPRIATION.
THE DIVISION SHALL ADOPT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT
ARE NECESSARY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE GRANT PROGRAM,
INCLUDING THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND THE GRANT AWARD CRITERIA.
(a) ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 2019, AND ON OR BEFORE
NOVEMBER 1 EACH YEAR THEREAFTER, THE DIVISION SHALL INCLUDE AN
UPDATE REGARDING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GRANT PROGRAM IN ITS
REPORT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE APPLICABLE COMMITTEES OF REFERENCE
IN THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS REQUIRED BY THE
"STATE MEASUREMENT FOR ACCOUNTABLE, RESPONSIVE, AND
TRANSPARENT (SMART) GOVERNMENT ACT", PART 2 OF ARTICLE 7 OF
TITLE 2.
(b) NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION 24-1-136 (11)(a)(1), THE REPORTS
REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (4)(a) OF THIS SECTION CONTINUE INDEFINITELY.
AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "RURAL AREA" MEANS:
A COUNTY WITH A POPULATION OF LESS THAN TWO HUNDRED
THOUSAND PEOPLE, ACCORDING TO THE MOST RECENTLY AVAILABLE
POPULATION STATISTICS OF THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF THE CENSUS;
OR
A MUNICIPALITY WITH A POPULATION OF LESS THAN THIRTY
THOUSAND PEOPLE, ACCORDING TO THE MOST RECENTLY AVAILABLE
POPULATION STATISTICS OF THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF THE CENSUS,
THAT IS LOCATED TEN MILES OR MORE FROM A MUNICIPALITY WITH A
POPULATION OF MORE THAN FIFTY THOUSAND PEOPLE.
SECTION 4. Appropriation. (1) For the 2017-18 state fiscal year,
$5,945,392 is appropriated to the department of local affairs. This
appropriation is from the marijuana tax cash fund created in section
39-28.8-501(1), C.R.S. To implement this act, the department may use this
appropriation as follows:
(a) $5,919,036 for use by the division of local government for the
gray and black market marijuana enforcement grant program, which
amount is based on an assumption that the division will require an
PAGE 5-HOUSE BILL 17-1221
47
additional 1.3 FTE;
$21,603 for the purchase of information technology services;
and
$4,753 for the purchase of legal services.
For the 2017-18 state fiscal year, $21,603 is appropriated to the
office of the governor for use by the office of information technology. This
appropriation is from reappropriated funds received from the department
of local affairs under subsection (1)(b) of this section. To implement this
act, the office may use this appropriation to provide information technology
services for the department of local affairs.
For the 2017-18 state fiscal year, $4,753 is appropriated to the
department of law. This appropriation is from reappropriated funds
received from the department of local affairs under subsection (1)(c) of this
section. To implement this act, the department of law may use this
appropriation to provide legal services for the department of local affairs.
SECTION 5. Effective date - applicability. This act takes effect
July 1,2017, and section 2 of this act applies to offenses committed on or
after said date.
PAGE 6-HOUSE BILL 17-1221
48
Kevin J. Grantham
PRESIDENT OF
THE SENATE
Marilyn Edd
CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Effie Ameen
SECRETARY OF
THE SENATE
1764(06
APPROVED 1' P q o\
SECTION 6. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,
determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.
Crisanta Duran
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
John . Hickenlooper
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF COL6RADO
PAGE 7-HOUSE BILL 17-1221
49
50
1
Cannabis in WA: Where are we now?
Logan Bahr, Government Relations Advocate, AWC
Shannon McClelland, Government Relations Analyst, AWC
Dave Zabell, City Manager, Pasco
Pat Johnson, Mayor, Buckley
Legal cannabis milestones in WA
•2012 – Initiative 502 passed with 55.7% support
•2013 – Cole Memo released on federal enforcement priority
•2014 – Recreational retail sales begin
•2015 – Excise tax changed from taxing each part of the industry to a
single, higher tax on retail sales (legislation)
•2016 – Recreational and medical markets merge (legislation)
•2017 – Advertising restrictions on signage and billboards (legislation)
•2018 – Federal Cole Memo rescinded via Sessions Memo
51
2
Cannabis across the US
What does the state system look like?
•Legal cannabis possession and use for adults 21 years and older
•Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) regulates the cannabis industry
•Three-tired system of licensing, regulation, and taxation:
producer (grower), processor (prepares for retail), retailer
•Retailers cannot be a producer or processor, but a business may be
licensed as both a producer and processor
52
3
What does the state system look like?
•Recreational and medical cannabis are regulated under the same
rules, except home grows allowed for medical cooperatives:
•Located at the home of a medical coop member
•Maximum of four patients as members
•Maximum of 60 plants
•None of the cannabis grown can be sold to others
•Cities can prohibit medical marijuana cooperatives
What is the city role in the system?
•Can prohibit the cannabis industry via
bans/moratoria
•Can restrict cannabis business location via zoning
•Local governments can reduce buffer from LCB
license minimum of 1,000 ft. to 100 ft.
•Can file objections to LCB on potential licenses
•LCB must give “substantial weight to objections”
per RCW 69.50.331(10)
•Local law enforcement of DUIs and other crimes
53
4
How have cities
responded?
How do the revenues from taxes get distributed?
•The state’s cannabis excise tax is 37% on recreational retail
sales (medical is exempt)
•$119m so far in FY18
•FY 2017: $314.8m (average monthly revenue was $26.2m)
•Cities and counties will receive $15m per year for FY18 and
FY19….unless you have a ban/moratoria in place.
54
5
Preemption attempts against local governments
•Lawsuits – Most recent: Emerald Enterprises v. Clark County
•AGO opinion (2014)
1.Initiative 502 . . . does not preempt counties, cities, and towns from banning such
businesses
2.Local ordinances that do not expressly ban…but make such operation impractical are
valid if they properly exercise the local jurisdiction’s police power.
•Bills in 2018
•Preemption on regulating medical co-ops (HB 2471) – Failed
•Preemption on all local authority to ban (HB 2336) – Failed
Home delivery coming soon?
•LCB released home grow report in late 2017. Recommended:
•Tightly regulated by state, shared enforcement with locals & state
•State standards with local authority
•Continued prohibition
•Bills in 2018
•Home grow for recreational (HB 2559) – Failed
•Home delivery for medical (HB 2574) – Failed
55
6
Recent developments in cannabis
•Recent article by US Attorney Annette L. Hayes
•Greater scrutiny on the illicit market
•Conversations continue with Gov’s Office, AGO,
and LE partners
•WSP proviso
•Colorado model
•Oregon model
•Stay tuned!
A tale of two cities
Pat Johnson
Mayor, City of Buckley
Dave Zabell
City Manager, City of Pasco
56
7
Questions?
Logan Bahr
Government Relations Advocate
loganb@awcnet.org
Shannon McClelland
Government Relations Analyst
Shannonm@awcnet.org
AWC
360-753-4137
wacities.org
57