HomeMy WebLinkAboutFS 2012-06-05 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila
Distribution:
D. Quinn
Finance and Safety
D. Robertson
K. Kruller
Committee
V. Seal
Mayor Haggerton
D. Cline
O De'Sean Quinn, Chair
P. McCarthy
O Dennis Robertson
C.0'Raherty
S. Kerslake
O Kate Kruller
K. Matej
M. Villa
N. Olivas
T. Gallaway
D. Speck
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2012
CONFERENCE ROOM #3, 5:15 PM
Item Recommended Action Page
1. PRESENTATION(S)
2. BUSINESS AGENDA
a. An Interlocal Agreement for animal control services. a. Forward to 6/11 C.O.W. Pg.1
Peggy McCarthy, Finance Director and 6/18 Regular Mtg.
b. Quarterly Police update. b. Information only. Pg.117
Mike Vi/ /a, Po /ice Chief
c. An Interlocal Agreement with Kent Regional Fire Authority c. Forward to 6/11 C.O.W. Pg.143
relating to training. and 6/18 Regular Mtg.
Nick O/ivas, Fire Chief
d. Family Fourth at the Fort event update (requested by d. Information only. Pg.155
Finance Safety Committee).
Tracy Gallaway, Volunteer Coordinator
e. Tourism Promotion Area update. e. Information only. Pg.163
Derek Speck, Economic Development Administrator
f. Financial Planning Model and Capital Improvement f. Information only. Pg.189
Program (CIP) update.
Peggy McCarthy, Finance Director
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
4. MISCELLANEOUS
Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, June 19, 2012
S The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206 433 -1800 or TukwilaCityClerk @TukwilaWA.gov) for assistance.
x
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Finance and Safety Committee
FROM: Peggy McCarthy, Finance Director
DATE: May 30, 2012
SUBJECT: Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015
ISSUE
Approve the Animal Services Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with King County for 2013 through
2015. This excludes the optional Enhanced Control Services Contract contained in Exhibit E of
the ILA and also excludes the optional Licensing Support Contract contained in Exhibit F of the
ILA.
BACKGROUND
Effective July 1, 2010, the City entered into a 2.5 year interlocal agreement with Regional
Animal Services of King County (RASKC) for sheltering, animal control and licensing services
This agreement will expire on December 31, 2012.
A two -year extension was built into the agreement and was available unless a member of the
system dropped out. In the fall of 2011, the City of Auburn, a high user of services, notified the
County of their intent to depart the system at the end of 2012. As Auburn's departure would
cause unsustainable cost shifts for the remaining cities under the existing agreement structure,
a new agreement was developed. King County and member city representatives began
working in November 2011 to reach agreement in principle on changes to the current Animal
Services ILA. The new ILA is attached to this memorandum drafted and the City has until July
1, 2012 to sign it.
A summary of the components of the new ILA follows:
SERVICES:
Control Services.
Call Center- The animal control call center will be operated five days a week for a minimum of
eight hours per day possibly including at least one weekend day (contingent on union
negotiations).
Animal Control Officers (ACOs) The geographical area receiving control services has been
divided into three control districts (see Exhibit B -1 of the ILA for the Control District Map).
Control district 500, comprising the cities of Tukwila, Kent, SeaTac, Maple Valley, Enumclaw,
Black Diamond and Covington, will be staffed by two ACOs; control district 200 and 220 will
each be staffed with one ACO. Countywide, a total of not less than 6 ACOs will be available
daily to maximize response to high workload areas.
The County will use its best efforts to ensure that high priority calls are responded to by an ACO
during regular ACO service hours on the day the call is received. High priority calls include
those calls that pose an emergent danger to the community, including:
1. Emergent animal bite
2. Emergent vicious dog
3. Emergent injured animal
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
4. Police assist calls (police officer on scene requesting assistance from an ACO)
5. Emergent loose livestock or other loose or deceased animal that poses a potential
danger to the community and
6. Emergent animal cruelty.
In addition to the ACOs serving specific districts, the following resources will be available on a
shared basis for all parties.
1. An animal control sergeant will provide oversight of and backup for ACOs five days per
week at least 8 hours day.
2. Staff will be available to perform animal cruelty investigations, to respond to animal
cruelty cases, and to prepare related reports.
3. Not less than 1 ACO will be on call every day during non regular ACO service hours to
respond to high priority calls posing an extreme life and safety danger.
Shelter Services
Shelter services will be provided 7 -days per week, 365 days per year at the County's animal
shelter in Kent or other shelter locations utilized by the County. Page 21 of the ILA provides a
complete list of the shelter services.
Licensinq Services Licensing services will include the operation and maintenance of a
unified system to license pets in contracting cities. Page 23 of the ILA lists the licensing
services.
COST PAYMENT FOR SERVICES:
The pre- commitment estimated 2013 payment for services for the City of Tukwila is $69,705,
comprised of the following components:
Estimated cost allocations:
animal control
49,635
sheltering
110,787
licensing
9,229
Total Estimated Cost Allocation
169,651
Estimated licensing revenue
32,705
Estimated Net Cost Allocation
136,946
King County 2013 -2015 Funding
Transition 5,255
Sheltercredits 61,987
Total King County 2013 -2015 Funding 67,242
ESTIMATED FINAL COST 69,705
The County will calculate a preliminary estimated payment amount on or before August 1, 2012
to include the County and all cities that have executed the ILA; however, the amount shall not
exceed 5% of the pre- commitment estimated payment or $3,500. The maximum increase in
2014 and 2015 payments will be limited to the rate of inflation (defined on page 28 of the ILA)
plus the rate of population growth for the preceding year for the County.
OPTIONAL CONTRACTS:
Optional contracts for Enhanced Control Services and Licensing Support are contained in
Exhibit E and F respectively. Based on feedback from City staff including the Police
Department and the City Clerk regarding their observations and citizen comments received on
WA2012 Info Memos- CoundhAnimal Services (Repaired).doc
2
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
animal control services, and considering the additional cost, the staff does not recommend
contracting for the enhanced control services at this time. The Licensing Support contract
requires a commitment of city staff time. The staffing would come from the City Clerk staff and it
is determined that insufficient staffing resources exist to commit to the number of hours required
in the Licensing Support contract. Therefore, staff does not recommend contracting for the
optional Licensing Support services.
DISCUSSION
The new ILA maintains or increases the level of service currently provided under the existing
agreement and at a reduced cost to the City. The estimated payment amount for 2013 of
$69,705 under the new agreement is $20,628 less than the 2011 actual animal services charge
of $90,333 and $40,295 less than the $110,000 cost budgeted for 2012.
In addition, the regional system provides many benefits including:
Consistent level of service.
Uniform regional licensing system.
Economies of scale for marketing /licensing, field services and shelter operations.
Pet adoption shelter open to public 7 days a week.
The County has reduced costs and has enhanced revenue generating efforts including
rebranding and promoting a licensing campaign. The County has been responsive to the
concerns and requests of member cities and invites member cities to work with them on refining
service protocols.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The 2013 cost of animal services is estimated at $69,705, which is $20,628 less than the actual
2011 animal services costs and $40,295 less than the $110,000 budget for 2012. The cost for
the three year agreement is estimated not to exceed $225,000.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council is being asked to approve the Animal Services Interlocal Agreement and consider
this item at the June 11, 2012 Committee of the Whole meeting and subsequent June 18, 2012
Regular Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015
King County /Cities Work Group for Animal Services Interlocal Agreement Briefing
Materials, May 16, 2012
WA2012 Info Memos- CounciMnimal Services (Repaired).doc
3
El
King County /Cities Work Group for Animal Services
Interlocal Agreement Briefing Materials May 16, 2012
The King County /Cities Workgroup has reached consensus on a Final Proposed Animal Services Interlocal
Agreement (ILA) for 2013 through 2015. This Final Proposed ILA has been reviewed by a group of city and
county attorneys.
ILA: The ILA is summarized on Attachment A "Summary of Key Provisions" and Attachment C "Outline of
Terms for Agreement." It will be an amended successor ILA to the current Agreement.
ESTIMATED INDIVIDUAL CITY COSTS: A model showing the estimated cost allocation for 2013 is provided in
Attachment B "Draft 2013 Estimated Payment Calculation It includes all cities currently in the system,
except Auburn, reflecting this city's notice that it will leave the regional system. This document will be
updated if Auburn decides to remain in the system.
KEY CHANGES PROPOSED: (1) shift to a cost allocation method based more on use, and less on city
population in year 1 to establish the base costs; (2) provide cost stability for jurisdiction in years 2 and 3 by
capping the total net allocable costs in 2013 to a level similar to the system inflationary cap (CPI
population growth); (3) increase the County's level of financial support to the system and hold that support
steady over the 3 -year contract term (2013- 2015); (3) adjust animal control district boundaries to maintain
service levels and control costs; (4) increase focus on system revenue generation and future regional
revenue possibilities; and (5) implement efficiencies and other changes to reduce allocable costs while
maintaining service levels.
PROCESS /TIMELINE: City representatives and King County began working in November 2011, meeting
weekly, in order to reach agreement in principle on changes to the current Animal Services Interlocal
Agreement necessitated by Auburn's indication in September 2011 of its intent to depart the system.
Auburn's notice required a renegotiation discussion per the ILA. The current ILA will not be extended
beyond December 31, 2012, and the parties have until July 1, 2012, to sign a new ILA. Timeline as follows:
February 1, 2012: Completed and circulated Agreement in Principle and process timeline
February 14, 2012: First non binding statement of interest from Cities
April 6, 2012: Completed final draft of amended ILA for distribution
May 1, 2012: Second non binding statement of interest. This will provide parties greater assurance
regarding their expected share of system costs moving forward
May 17, 2012: Final cost estimates and ILA circulated based on second non binding statement of
interest
July 1, 2012: Both parties will have executed the Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 through
2015.
Attachment A: Summary of Key Provisions
Attachment B: Draft 2013 Estimated Payment Calculation
Attachment C: Outline of Terms of Agreement
Attachment D: Benefits of a Regional Animal Services System
Attachment E: Districts Map
Attachment F: RASKC ILA Revenue Work Plan
Attachment G: ILA Negotiations Joint Work Group
Attachment H: May 16, 2012 PowerPoint Presentation
Final Proposed Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015
5
King County /Cities Work Group for Animal Services
Final Proposed Interlocal Agreement May 16, 2012
The King County /Cities Workgroup has reached consensus on a Final Proposed Animal Services Interlocal
Agreement (ILA) for 2013 through 2015. This Final Proposed ILA has been reviewed by a group of city and
county attorneys.
ILA: The ILA is summarized on Attachment A "Summary of Key Provisions" and Attachment C "Outline of
Terms for Agreement." It will be an amended successor ILA to the current Agreement.
ESTIMATED INDIVIDUAL CITY COSTS: A model showing the estimated cost allocation for 2013 is provided in
Attachment B "Draft 2013 Estimated Payment Calculation It includes all cities currently in the system,
except Auburn, reflecting this city's notice that it will leave the regional system. This document will be
updated if Auburn decides to remain in the system.
KEY CHANGES PROPOSED: (1) shift to a cost allocation method based more on use, and less on city
population in year 1 to establish the base costs; (2) provide cost stability for jurisdiction in years 2 and 3 by
capping the total net allocable costs in 2013 to a level similar to the system inflationary cap (CPI
population growth); (3) increase the County's level of financial support to the system and hold that support
steady over the 3 -year contract term (2013- 2015); (3) adjust animal control district boundaries to maintain
service levels and control costs; (4) increase focus on system revenue generation and future regional
revenue possibilities; and (5) implement efficiencies and other changes to reduce allocable costs while
maintaining service levels.
PROCESS /TIMELINE: City representatives and King County began working in November 2011, meeting
weekly, in order to reach agreement in principle on changes to the current Animal Services Interlocal
Agreement necessitated by Auburn's indication in September 2011 of its intent to depart the system.
Auburn's notice required a renegotiation discussion per the ILA. The current ILA will not be extended
beyond December 31, 2012, and the parties have until July 1, 2012, to sign a new ILA. Timeline as follows:
February 1, 2012: Completed and circulated Agreement in Principle and process timeline
February 14, 2012: First non binding statement of interest from Cities
April 6, 2012: Completed final draft of amended ILA for distribution
May 1, 2012: Second non binding statement of interest. This will provide parties greater assurance
regarding their expected share of system costs moving forward
May 17, 2012: Final cost estimates and ILA circulated based on second non binding statement of
interest
July 1, 2012: Both parties will have executed the Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 through
2015.
Attachment A: Summary of Key Provisions
Attachment B: Draft 2013 Estimated Payment Calculation
Attachment C: Outline of Terms of Agreement
Attachment D: Benefits of a Regional Animal Services System
Attachment E: Districts Map
Attachment F: RASKC ILA Revenue Work Plan
Attachment G: ILA Negotiations Joint Work Group
Attachment H: May 16, 2012 PowerPoint Presentation
Final Proposed Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015
X
Attachment A
Summary of Key Provisions: Final Proposed ILA
Current ILA (June 2010
December 31,2012
provides for extension
through 2014)
Costs distributed through model
2012
$5.84 m (2012)
Final Proposed Animal Services
Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through
2015
$5.26 m (2013)
General cost allocation model 50% usage, 50%
80% usage, 20% population sets base
for shelter, licensing and control population
in 2013. Total net allocable costs are
essentially capped to a level similar to
the system inflationary cap (CPI
population growth) for 2014 and
2015. 2013 base share is adjusted
only for changes in revenues from
year to year and by major
annexations, and latecomers.
Jurisdictional Cost stability Costs change each year
To provide more cost predictability
based on actual system
from year to year, costs in 2014 and
use and revenues of each
2015 will be based on the 2013 costs,
jurisdiction.
adjusted for growth in the total
program budget (subject to a cost
inflator cap), changes in revenues,
and changes in population
attributable to annexations over
2,500 and latecomers.
Service term 2.5 years, possible 2 year
3 years, re- opener with possible 2
extension
year extension (effective 7/1/12,
service begins 1/1/13); limited re-
opener for cost /revenue allocation
provided if a voter approved regional
levy is proposed that generates
revenues before 2016.Termination
allowed if such a measure were to be
approved and either party not
satisfied with the results of the re-
opener discussions.
1
May 16, 2012
h
Attachment A
Summary of Key Provisions: Final Proposed ILA
Total County sponsored and $1.37m (2012) $1.76 m (2013)
mitigation contribution
*does not include potential costs of
licensing support which would be
additional to this amount and
potentially recoverable through
license revenues.
Revenue Focus
County commits to working with joint
city county workgroup and elected
officials if a regional levy is
considered
Shelter replacement
Licensing Bridge to sustainability: Joint
commitment to aggressively explore
variety of specific mechanisms to
increase system revenues and
achieve sustainability at the end of
the 3 years
Not Included
Not included
New regional revenues Not included New revenues from donation,
foundation, marketing,
entrepreneurial activities or grants
that are not designated for specific
purposes will be used to reduce
allocable costs for all jurisdictions and
to help offset costs to the county for
credits and non allocable costs
Service Days 5 days (Monday- Friday) Will include at least one weekend
day; coverage may be provided 7
days per week, with 40 hours per
week guaranteed in agreement to
control costs
Service Protocols Established in ILA Cities to be involved in developing
service protocols
2 May 16, 2012
Attachment A
Summary of Key Provisions: Final Proposed ILA
Control Districts 4 Districts 3 Districts
Officers home base at Officers hosted in each district
Shelter
May 16, 2012
9
Attachment A
Summary of Key Provisions: Final Proposed ILA
Goal of model: maintain or lower costs for cities from the estimated 2012 levels
o Increasing county support, adjusting the cost allocation formula, providing
credits and licensing support
Cost efficiencies included for 2013, or sooner if possible
o Reduce costs by aligning staffing with current operations
i. Shelter: $276,000 reduction due to projected lower number of animals in
the shelter
ii. Licensing: Program efficiencies resulting in reductions of $121,000.
iii. Developing a project to bring laundry in -house instead of using
commercial services $65,000 budget savings annually
Key changes from current ILA:
o Shifted cost allocation model to (80% use /20% population) to place more emphasis
on system use rather than population responsive to low use cities
Cost stability provided in 2014 and 2015 by capping the total net allocable costs in
2013 to a level similar to the system inflationary cap (CPI population growth) for
2014 and 2015. (2013 base is adjusted only for changes in revenues from year to
year and by major annexation and latecomers.
Removed additional shelter staff from the cost allocation model: County will fund
additional $240,003 annually
Included licensing support for cities to generate license revenues and lower net
costs with cities providing in -kind support
Provide County financial contribution to higher use cities over 3 year contract term
to provide cost stability
o Reduced control districts from 4 to 3 by collapsing two south districts into one in
response to Auburn indicating it will leave the system
Service levels:
No shelter capital upgrades included in the cost model for the 3 year period
High quality shelter service levels retained, costs decreased
Control service levels maintained and coverage extended to at least one weekend
day
o Licensing service levels retained, costs decreased
System Revenues: Joint commitment to aggressively explore variety of specific mechanisms
to increase system revenues and achieve system stability by end of 3 years
Northern PAWS cities assumed to continue to purchase shelter services from PAWS
4
May 16, 2012
10
draft 2013 estimated payment calculation
s
w
E
m
a 8
x
o U
8
4
z
a N F
O O 4
J
>o g o
r m N
a
H r°
w
8
4
m 5 m
v� M
O W N L C O N N
i
5> y
u
m
4 4 u m v_ N LL r
7 m
D
m
C
N L N N
.3
G m O
Z
outline animal services interlocal agreement for 2013 through 2015 changes from current ila noted in italics
w
L
w
M
CL
II F
d
II� w II II
d u-
L CZ to O
C
4 N
II o
to II
w
C
w
d II 3
J
w
i
cyi r Q6) II v c
II o
u
ti O II
i w 4-j
w II
o_ v u w II qi
c II M
L .Q
c L II w
t
-0 w
II II
4n w
c II
y O V�
x-
u=,
a L1
-0
v O II
7
Q-
'w 3 c a
V o L -r_
v, ,n O d c W
II 0 O
d II L II py
C l7 q O
w '.4., IIl
II
'd
Q c w II
o v+ O a
c o °u o
c o
o
0 1
II w
a w u
II II� O O d F N
U
O O
4-
1 II C O
O w II II
U w 7 II II C y
4 n
c d O vt II c�a
1 L C
°o.., G
II
w
o
II 73 v-1 Q w
U x CZ.
w
L O Z
N 1/1 o Zs w II
c
LS1 w,, c v,
C w kA w
II c c
a II
Qj
o c S- o
II d n
VI
o v,' o a a '3
111 'II w II C w in
I w w 4 II a w �w w w
a
p II w
1 [s+ 'n w u w `n c 0 w
v C,) n
0)
II c O c Q o w
CL
oa 4n O c w
II w a u o
3 IM `n d II
Oy
n
q� w y u O C+
c w t Ou -0
t w
U1 C v 6 v_- N II II O 1
c `n II II
tin t31 O r w
w
C u w w u
0 o ow
3
c d a
Q 4- II II
V.' c w ,n Q L C L w a-+
N a j c a
r1 CL W
II w II w II II o II.
Q c d J
Cr— u N Z., c c
Cl a y u
c u C L t� Q /�I Q1
d u y ty II w
dam'
C i3
to r II w II
Q I n
w
O v
II II II CL Ou
O o o u a.l
II 4. L6 T3 II O a
N C 1
W r- b II u N
C II
�r�p w II w c a.
r- N c i
0� d N
u
v
r
o
-ova
w
o
o w
y
Q i ai O
O
Q�
O I
i
L
u
0
a
a
t
v
LM
N
s tirs
O
s
N
N
0
d
d
a�
Q
u
O
U
i
d
zs
3 i H
a a
p L
Ln
s..
N I N N V Q
O At p w R
G
CL O
p 0) v
tr) v1
O p N
S3 p C
i- n E kA Q T .a t
cU Q -0 T
L Cn
0) a p o
t 1 o=i p 0
3
Q m B
co
O
R u
CA
M 13 p T
bOA t 4 m N R O
to
Q-
N c Y p R O N N N
C3 u
Cl N V
a T p a_ p R O C
1 w to p %10 O
O L y =S i a w td O
D tts u
a cs c a
L ai
o i o
c s upi c n CA) t uo
co
7 R a 4- o p 3 m
1
a _I c oD `'i tea c3 o uA a .fit 4+
n c x ors w co
a
Q6)
o
IUQ W
V N
S?
N
C)
t.fl
T
ca
G
N
0
N
PIP
13 U
V) 0 L B
a
-u 4- g W O
-Z U
a
w v v a
v; cu
Q
4-
Lo i
U w 'cs
W
O
Zz C
L p>
o Z o
ap
C: Qj
Qj
o
cu V)
a m
3
v 4-
tn
c X a ti o
ts
M v
Z3
c
D
w 'a
C N
0
L O
v
a v o L
v a
Oj
a v
O O J
t
p�j
L V) r-4
O
C
v Q N O
N
to O a
C3 rz -C
v O 4. �n
to O s
0 L
o
a o ti o
M��
tr
U a
v c
o
C3
n a, o o v
c
v
o U
o 0 0
Ulf
i N p
O
M
fl
V) O O C
a c v
N
o
Op
a
v o
ch
o,
o
L
Ln o c
c
c
f6 i
aj
cu
C3
O
L L1 O V) O U
O a1
Qj U a
O L2 Q
4J
N N O
r-I a...
fl
O Q� O 0 O a U
O N -O
Q
O N W
Q
rz
o o
V
w a a L 4
0 V U
N C
O
y
QU
m a X
C
v
Qj
�a_ w
H
cc
L
u
ti N m
L
d
7R
E
E
O N d
N
N N
Q
41
Q m O a
u
C
C
7
O a O v
N Q-
7
V M Q c/1
0
16
N
0
N
PIP
-0
QJ w -0 w
a
QJ
Qj
c
v x
u IM -Z
C3 W
C3
V)
n
C�L 4. QJ QJ
T-4 w
kA CL
W
0. V)
CJ6) v
C3 fo
rz
VI C)
Q6) ll,- Qj
4-
CL
c c CL
a N =5 '.14 Q) a-
CL C) 0
:3 tz u f, V) LU >1
a C W 0 J'I- 4�
o W
IA V)
v c
am
4, r.4
w QJ
V) 06)
C)
U 4'' —W
x 0 4,
v v n 4)
W
Q6) W 4S Z
c
W C3 Q,) -0 W W
C3 W W
r-A W -0 C3
CJ6) 4-
Ln
a
r-
Lf)
c)
CL
ba
VI
IC3
o al F4 C c u
V)
8
V) C r'
C)
C
0
:3
V)
co u; w 0
w Q6)
w
w Q6)
U
cr 0 CL
C3 q,) C3 w :5! tm CL)
3. c M C3 Q6)
u
ilr_ w �T V)
4- V) C
V) 41 W W 4� M V) W
o
c F
M Z V)
W
=5 VI)
0
C
co
El
L
C o
a
Q vi v t
g
a 4 1 v
.14� a Q o
In
v Q, Y C O
a
C
a� N O a a a
c v o j a) w a 3
k
E C w w 4.1 o 1
U
r-+
a_+
u a
O N a C a cu o C
a o
Q o
w 7 o o Q CL
a+ si o a fl- to
a C F-
kn a 0�
O -CS O 3 O
sap i Q t o� a a a V) C 'O Q N a� o Q a ZM o C- N o a
7
r oA u w i- a O B
a
CL
CL kn
vo
LU 06
4 0 o' cv m `r
O G O
d
u
a�
v'►
I ca
Q
a�
c
O
N
o o
v a
N
0
tD
LD
proposed revenue allocation draft framework
20
Attachment D
Benefits of a Regional Animal Services System
Effective and Efficient Service
Provides a consistent level of service, common regulatory approach, and humane animal care
across the region.
Allows local police agencies to focus on traditional law enforcement instead of civil animal
offenses (barking, off leash, unlicensed animals).
Builds economies of scale to provide a full range of services, making it less expensive to develop
operations, training, licensing and care programs than it would be for cities to duplicate services
at the local level.
Provides a low -cost spay and neuter program which is key to reducing the population of
homeless animals and thus reducing the costs of the system over time.
Reduces the demand on individual jurisdictions to respond to communications from the media,
advocacy groups and other interested parties (public disclosure requests).
Use of volunteers and partnerships with private animal welfare groups increases humane animal
treatment with minimal public cost: In 2011, volunteers contributed over 60,000 hours of
support to the County animal services system, equivalent to 30 full time employees.
Takes advantage of current technology offices can access calls and database in the field;
customers receive email notices prior to mailed renewal notices; citizens can locate lost pets
online or by phone; cities get detailed, monthly reports on level and types of activity in their
jurisdiction.
King County Board of Appeals hears appeals to civil offenses thus centralizing the adjudication to
a forum that is familiar with the issues.
Customer Service
Provides a single access point for residents searching for a lost pet or seeking animal control
help.
Provides one single point of contact for citizen complaints.
Pet Adoption Center is open and provides services 7 days a week.
A regional, uniform pet licensing program that is simpler for the public to access and
understand, with a broad range of accompanying services to encourage licensing; marketing,
partnering with third parties to encourage license sales, and database management.
Online licensing sales increase the ease of compliance for pet owners.
Public Health and Safety
Provides the ability to identify and track rabies and other public health issues related to animals
on a regional basis.
Reduces public health threats through routine vaccination of animals.
Provides capacity to handle unusual and multi jurisdictional events involving animals that often
require specialized staff, such as: horse cruelty, animal hoarding, loose livestock, dog- fighting,
May 16, 2012
21
Attachment D
animal necropsies and quarantine, holding of animals as evidence in criminal cases and retrieval
of dead animals.
Provides consistent and knowledgeable services to over 4800 callers per year. Calls are
dispatched on a prioritized basis. Emergency response services are available 24 hours per day.
Animal Welfare
Reduces pressure on non profit shelters through capacity at public shelter. Non profit animal
welfare groups contribute by accepting transfers of publicly sheltered animals for care and
adoption.
Animals find new homes and are not euthanized for capacity. Euthanasia rates have been
reduced.
Engages citizens through foster homes and other volunteer programs (on -site and adoption
events).
Provides regional response to animal cruelty cases.
Provides regional preparedness planning and coordination for emergency and disaster response.
Provides regional capacity for seasonal events (kitten season).
Avoids competition across jurisdictions for sheltering space and comparisons across jurisdictions
on animal welfare outcome statistics.
Benefit fund allows private donors to contribute to the heroic care of animals —these services
are not publicly funded and are not usually available in publicly funded animal service programs.
May 16, 2012
2
22
2013-2015 proposed ila option 1 map
24
Attachment: F
RASKC ILA Revenue Workplan
Revenue Sustainability
All partners in RASKC share the goal of creating revenue sustainability for the regional system.
Revenues from license sales have historically provided less than 50% of the funding for the system. The
majority of additional funding under the current interlocal agreement is provided by the jurisdictions.
The items listed below reflect the partners current thinking of items that could increase revenues for the
RASKC model and should be implemented or further evaluated. New ideas may emerge and /or items on
the list may be removed if determined not cost efficient or effective. The County will take the lead on
the items and work in conjunction with the Joint City County Committee.
Near term Potentially Implementable in 2012
Create licensing tool -box for cities
Increase canvassing effort
Improve the RASKC website and promote linkages to it from city websites
Increase public service announcements, media spotlight opportunities
Utilize e-mail to reach out to supporters
Consider implementing a second penalty -free licensing period
Medium Term Potentially Implementable in 2012 -2015
Review /Analyze Licensing fee pricing structure and amount
Improve options for making donations through the licensing program
Investigate creation of entrepreneurial options with pet stores to provide discounts on pet items
to people with licenses
Targeted partnerships with private sector businesses that provide high volume license sales (e.g.
license sales in exchange for a share of the license fee)
Create 501(c)3 for donations and improve efforts to secure donations
Evaluate feasibility of regional levy to support all, or components of the system
Evaluate feasibility of new legislative authority to levy a regional sales tax on pet related items
May 16, 2012
25
26
Attachment G:
Regional Animal Services of King County
Interlocal Agreement Negotiation Joint Work Group
Cities representatives
City of SeaTac, James Graddon
City of Kirkland, Lorrie McKay
City of Issaquah, Ross Hoover
City of Lake Forest Park, Cheryl Niclai
City of Newcastle, Melinda Irvine
City of Kenmore, Nancy Ousley
City of Woodinville, Sydney Jackson
City of Lake Forest Park, Dennis Peterson
City of SeaTac, Annette Louie
City of Redmond, Nina Rivkin
City of Mercer Island, Dave Jokinen
City of Bellevue, Sheida Sahandy
City of Enumclaw, Michael Thomas
City of Kent, Jeff Watling
City of Covington, Derek Matheson
City of Sammamish, Mike Sauerwein
City of Tukwila, Peggy McCarthy
Snoqualmie
Countv representatives
Diane Carlson, Executive Office Sean Bouffiou, Records and Licensing
Services Division
Norm Alberg, Interim Director, Records Yiling Wong, Office of Performance
and Licensing Services Division Strategy Budget
Eric Swansen, Records and Licensing
Services Division Shelter Operations
Neutral facilitator, Karen Reed
Cities represented in Interlocal Agreement
District 200
District 220
District 500
Carnation
Beaux Arts
Covington
Duvall
Bellevue
Black Diamond
Kenmore
Clyde Hill
Enumclaw
Kirkland
Issaquah
Kent
Lake Forest Park
Mercer Island
Maple valley
Redmond
Newcastle
SeaTac
Sammamish
North Bend
Tukwila
Shoreline
Snoqualmie
Woodinville
Yarrow Point
May 16, 2012
27
W.*
final proposed interlocal agreement for provision of 2013-2015 regional animal services
w
0
N
30
background
x
benefits of regional model
x
fh
n�r
3
tin
3
f
n
6
1
i,
GE
35
1,gt4i.
h
y K
F,.
t�
h
O
N
35
why negotiate a new ila?
cost issues
revenue issues
service issues
.s
summary
0
N
lfl
r�
42
timeline
w
0
N
I I
Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015
This AGREEMENT is made and entered into effective as of this 1s' day of July, 2012, by
and between KING COUNTY, a Washington municipal corporation and legal subdivision
of the State of Washington (the "County and the City of Tukwila, a Washington
municipal corporation (the "City
WHEREAS, the provision of animal control, sheltering and licensing services protects
public health and safety and promotes animal welfare; and
WHEREAS, providing such services on a regional basis allows for enhanced coordination
and tracking of regional public and animal health issues, consistency of regulatory
approach across jurisdictional boundaries, economies of scale, and ease of access for the
public; and
WHEREAS, the Contracting Cities are partners in making regional animal services work
effectively, and are customers of the Animal Services Program provided by the County;
and
WHEREAS, in light of the joint interest among the Contracting Parties in continuing to
develop a sustainable program for regional animal services, including achievement of
sustainable funding resources, the County intends to include cities in the process of
identifying and recommending actions to generate additional revenues through the Joint
City County Committee, and further intends to convene a group of elected officials with a
representative from each Contracting City to discuss and make recommendations on any
potential countywide revenue initiative for animal services requiring voter approval, the
implementation of which would be intended to coincide with the end of the term of this
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, by executing this Agreement, the City is not implicitly agreeing to or
supportive of any potential voter approved levy initiative in support of animal services;
and
WHEREAS, the City and the County are parties to an Animal Services Interlocal
Agreement dated July 1, 2010, which will terminate on December 31, 2012 (the "2010
Agreement and
WHEREAS, the City and County have negotiated a successor agreement to the 2010
Agreement in order to extend delivery of Animal Services to the City for an additional
three years beginning January 1, 2013; and
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
ER
WHEREAS, certain notification and other commitments under this successor Agreement
arise before January 2013, but the delivery of Animal Services under this Agreement will
not commence until January 1, 2013; and
WHEREAS, nothing in this Agreement is intended to alter the provision of service or
manner and timing of compensation and reconciliation specified in the 2010 Agreement
for services provided in 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act (RCW Chapter 39.34) is
authorized and desires to contract with the County for the performance of Animal
Services; and
WHEREAS, the County is authorized by the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Section 120 of the
King County Charter and King County Code 11.02.030 to render such services and is
willing to render such services on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the County is offering a similar form of Animal Services Interlocal Agreement
to cities in King County listed in Exhibit C -1 to this Agreement, and has received a non-
binding statement of intent to sign such agreement from those cities;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants and agreements
contained in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:
1. Definitions. Unless the context clearly shows another usage is intended, the
following terms shall have these meanings in this Agreement:
a. "Agreement" means this Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013
Through 2015 between the Parties including any and all Exhibits hereto,
unless the context clearly indicates an intention to reference all such
Agreements by and between the County and other Contracting Cities.
b. "Animal Services" means Control Services, Shelter Services and Licensing
Services combined, as these services are described in Exhibit A. Collectively,
"Animal Services" are sometimes referred to herein as the "Program."
c. "Enhanced Control Services" are additional Control Services that the City
may purchase under certain terms and conditions as described in Exhibit E
(the "Enhance Control Services Contract
d. "Contracting Cities" means all cities that are parties to an Agreement.
e. "Parties" means the City and the County.
f. "Contracting Parties" means all Contracting Cities and the County.
g. "Estimated Payment" means the amount the City is estimated to owe to the
County for the provision of Animal Services over a six month period per the
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
M
formulas set forth in Exhibit C. The Estimated Payment calculation may
result in a credit to the City payable by the County.
h. "Pre- Commitment Estimated 2013 Payment" means the preliminary
estimate of the amount that will be owed by (or payable to) each Contracting
Party for payment June 15, 2013 and December 15, 2013 as shown on Exhibit
C -1.
"Preliminary Estimated 2013 Payment" means the amount estimated by the
County on or before August 1, 2012 per Section 5, to be owed by each
Contracting Party on June 15, 2013 and December 15, 2013 based on the
number of Contracting Cities with respect to which the Agreement goes into
effect per Section 15. This estimate will also provide the basis for
determining whether the Agreement meets the "2013 Payment Test" in
Section 15.
j. The "Final Estimated 2013 Payment" means the amount owed by each
Contracting Party on June 15, 2013 and December 15, 2013, notice of which
shall be given to the City by the County no later than December 15, 2012.
k. "Control District" means one of the three geographic areas delineated in
Exhibit B for the provision of Animal Control Services.
1. "Reconciliation Adjustment Amount" means the amount payable each
August 15 by either the City or County as determined per the reconciliation
process described in Exhibit D. "Reconciliation" is the process by which
the Reconciliation Adjustment Amount is determined.
m. "Service Year" means the calendar year in which Animal Services are or
were provided.
n. "2010 Agreement" means the Animal Services Agreement between the
Parties effective July 1, 2010, and terminating at midnight on December 31,
2012.
o. "New Regional Revenue" means revenue received by the County
specifically for support of Animal Services generated from regional
marketing campaigns (excluding local licensing canvassing efforts by
Contracting Cities or per Section 7), and new foundation, grant, donation
and entrepreneurial activities, except where revenues from these sources are
designated for specific purposes within the Animal Services program;
provided that New Regional Revenue does not include Licensing Revenue,
Non Licensing Revenue or Designated Donations, as defined in Exhibit C.
The manner of estimating and allocating New Regional Revenue is
prescribed in Exhibit C -4 and Exhibit D.
p. "Latecomer City "means a city receiving animal services under an agreement
with the County executed after July 1, 2012, per the conditions of Section 4.a.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
47
2. Services Provided. Beginning January 1, 2013, the County will provide the City
with Animal Services described in Exhibit A. The County will perform these
services consistent with governing City ordinances adopted in accordance with
Section 3. In providing such Animal Services consistent with Exhibit A, the County
will engage in good faith with the Joint City County Committee to develop
potential adjustments to field protocols; provided that, the County shall have sole
discretion as to the staffing assigned to receive and dispatch calls and the manner of
handling and responding to calls for Animal Service. Except as set forth in Section
9 (Indemnification and Hold Harmless), services to be provided by the County
pursuant to this Agreement do not include services of legal counsel, which shall be
provided by the City at its own expense.
a. Enhanced Control Services. The City may request Enhanced Control
Services by completing and submitting Exhibit E to the County. Enhanced
Services will be provided subject to the terms and conditions described in
Exhibit E, including but not limited to a determination by the County that it
has the capacity to provide such services.
3. Citv Oblizations.
a. Animal Reaulatory Codes Adopted. To the extent it has not already done so,
the City shall promptly enact an ordinance or resolution that includes
license, fee, penalty, enforcement, impound/ redemption and sheltering
provisions that are substantially the same as those of Title 11 King County
Code as now in effect or hereafter amended (hereinafter "the City
Ordinance The City shall advise the County of any City animal care and
control standards that differ from those of the County.
b. Authorization to Act on Behalf of Citv. Beginning January 1, 2013, the City
authorizes the County to act on its behalf in undertaking the following:
i. Determining eligibility for and issuing licenses under the terms of the
City Ordinance, subject to the conditions set forth in such laws.
ii. Enforcing the terms of the City Ordinance, including the power to
issue enforcement notices and orders and to deny, suspend or revoke
licenses issued thereunder.
iii. Conducting administrative appeals of those County licensing
determinations made and enforcement actions taken on behalf of the
City. Such appeals shall be considered by the King County Board of
Appeals unless either the City or the County determines that the
particular matter should be heard by the City.
iv. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to divest the City of authority
to independently undertake such enforcement actions as it deems
appropriate to respond to violations of any City ordinances.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
4
Cooperation and Licensing Suuport. The City will assist the County in its
efforts to inform City residents regarding animal codes and regulations and
licensing requirements and will promote the licensing of pets by City
residents through various means as the City shall reasonably determine,
including but not limited to offering the sale of pet licenses at City Hall,
mailing information to residents (using existing City communication
mechanisms such as bill inserts or community newsletters) and posting a
weblink to the County's animal licensing program on the City's official
website. The City will provide to the County accurate and timely records
regarding all pet license sales processed by the City. All proceeds of such
sales shall be remitted to the County by the City on a quarterly basis (no later
than each March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31).
4. Term. Except as otherwise specified in Section 15, this Agreement will take effect as
of July 1, 2012 and, unless extended pursuant to Subparagraph 4.b below, shall
remain in effect through December 31, 2015. The Agreement may not be terminated
for convenience.
a. Latecomers. The County may sign an agreement with additional cities for
provision of animal services prior to the termination or expiration of this
Agreement, but only if the later agreement will not cause an increase in the
City's costs payable to the County under this Agreement. Cities that are
party to such agreements are referred to herein as "Latecomer Cities."
b. Extension of Term. The Parties may agree to extend the Agreement for an
additional two -year term, ending on December 31, 2017. For purposes of
determining whether the Agreement shall be extended, the County will
invite all Contracting Cities to meet in September 2014, to discuss both: (1) a
possible extension of the Agreement under the same terms and conditions;
and (2) a possible extension with amended terms.
i. Either Party may propose amendments to the Agreement as a
condition of an extension.
ii. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to compel either Party
to agree to an extension or amendment of the Agreement, either on
the same or different terms.
iii. The County agrees to give serious consideration to maintaining the
various credits provided to the Contracting City under this
Agreement in any extension of the Agreement.
c. Notice of Intent to Not Extend. No later than March 1, 2015, the Parties shall
provide written notice to one another of whether they wish to extend this
Agreement on the same or amended terms. The County will include a
written reminder of this March 1 deadline when providing the City notice of
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
M e
its 2015 Estimated Payments (notice due December 15, 2014 per Section 5).
By April 5, 2015, the County will provide all Contracting Cities with a list of
all Contracting Parties submitting such notices indicating which Parties do
not seek an extension, which Parties request an extension under the same
terms, and which Parties request an extension under amended terms.
d. Timeline for Extension. If the Contracting Parties wish to extend their
respective Agreements (whether under the same or amended terms) through
December 31, 2017, they shall do so in writing no later than July 1, 2015.
Absent such an agreed extension, the Agreement shall terminate on
December 31, 2015.
e. Limited Reonener and Termination. If a countwide, voter approved
property tax levy for funding some or all of the Animal Services program is
proposed that would impose new tax obligations before January 1, 2016, this
Agreement shall be re- opened for the limited purposes of negotiating
potential changes to the cost and revenue allocation formulas herein. Such
changes may be made in order to reasonably ensure that the Contracting
Cities are receiving equitable benefits from the proposed new levy revenues.
Re- opener negotiations shall be initiated by the County no later than 60 days
before the date of formal transmittal of such proposal to the County Council
for its consideration. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the
contrary, if the re- opener negotiations have failed to result in mutually
agreed upon changes to the cost and revenue allocation formulas (as
reflected in either an executed amendment to this Agreement or a
memorandum of understanding signed between the chief executive officers
of the Parties) within 10 days of the date that the election results confirming
approval of such proposal are certified, either Party may terminate this
Agreement by providing notice to the other Party no sooner than the date the
election results are certified and no later than 15 days following the end of
such 10 -day period. Any termination notice so issued will become effective
180 days following the date of the successful election, or the date on which
the levy is first imposed, whichever is sooner.
f. The 2010 Agreement remains in effect through December 31, 2012. Nothing
in this Agreement shall limit or amend the obligation of the County to
provide Animal Services under the 2010 Agreement as provided therein and
nothing in this Agreement shall amend the obligations therein with respect
to the calculation, timing, and reconciliation of payment of such services.
5. Compensation. The County will develop an Estimated Payment calculation for
each Service Year using the formulas described in Exhibit C, and shall transmit the
payment information to the City according to the schedule described below. The
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
M
50
County will also calculate and inform the City as to the Reconciliation Adjustment
Amount on or before June 30 of each year, as described in Section 6 below and
Exhibit D, in order to reconcile the Estimated Payments made by the City in the
prior Service Year. The City (or County, if applicable) will pay the Estimated
Payment, and any applicable Reconciliation Adjustment Amounts as follows (a list
of all payment related notices and dates is included at Exhibit C -7):
a. Service Year 2013: The County will provide the City with a calculation of the
Preliminary Estimated Payment amounts for Service Year 2013 on or before
August 1, 2012, which shall be derived from the Pre Commitment Estimated
2013 Payment Amount set forth on Exhibit C -1, adjusted if necessary based
on the Contracting Cities and other updates to Calendar Year 2011 data in
Exhibit C -2. The County will provide the City with the Final Estimated
Payment calculation for Service Year 2013 by December 15, 2012. The City
will pay the County the Preliminary Estimated Payment Amounts for
Service Year 2013 on or before June 15, 2013 and December 15, 2013. If the
calculation of the Preliminary Estimated Payment shows the City is entitled
to receive a payment from the County, the County will pay the City such
amount on or before June 15, 2013 and December 15, 2013. The
Reconciliation Adjustment Amount for Service Year 2013 shall be paid on or
before August 15, 2014, as described in Section 6.
b. Service Years after 2013.
L Initial Estimate by September 1. To assist the City with its budgeting
process, the County will provide the City with a non binding,
preliminary indication of the Estimated Payments for the upcoming
Service Year on or before each September 1.
ii. Estimated Pavment Determined by December 15. The Estimated
Payment amounts for the upcoming Service Year will be determined
by the County following adoption of the County's budget and
applying the formulas in Exhibit C. The County will by December 15
provide written notice to all Contracting Parties of the schedule of
Estimated Payments for the upcoming Service Year.
iii. Estimated Pavments Due Each Tune 15 and December 15. The City
will pay the County the Estimated Payment Amount on or before each
June 15 and December 15. If the calculation of the Estimated Payment
shows the City is entitled to receive a payment from the County, the
County will pay the City such amount on or before each June 15 and
December 15.
iv. The Reconciliation Adjustment Amount for the prior Service Year
shall be paid on or before August 15 of the following calendar year, as
described in Section 6.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
7
51
v. If a Party fails to pay an Estimated Payment or Reconciliation
Adjustment Amount within 15 days of the date owed, the Party owed
shall notify the owing Party that they have ten (10) days to cure non-
payment. If the Party fails to cure its nonpayment within this time
period following notice, the amount owed shall accrue interest
thereon at the rate of 1% per month from and after the original due
date and, if the nonpaying Party is the City, the County at its sole
discretion may withhold provision of Animal Services to the City until
all outstanding amounts are paid. If the nonpaying Party is the
County, the City may withhold future Estimated Payments until all
outstanding amounts are paid. Each Party may examine the other's
books and records to verify charges.
vi. Unless the Parties otherwise direct, payments shall be submitted to
the addresses noted at Section 14.g.
c. Pavment Obligation Survives Expiration or Termination of Agreement. The
obligation of the City (or as applicable, the County), to pay an Estimated
Payment Amount or Reconciliation Adjustment Amount for a Service Year
included in the term of this Agreement shall survive the Expiration or
Termination of this Agreement. For example, if this Agreement terminates
on December 31, 2015, the Final Estimated 2015 Payment is nevertheless due
on or before December 15, 2015, and the Reconciliation Adjustment Amount
shall be payable on or before August 15, 2016.
d. The Parties agree the payment and reconciliation formulas in this Agreement
(including all Exhibits) are fair and reasonable.
6. Reconciliation of Estimated Payments and Actual Costs and Revenues. In order
that the Contracting Parties share costs of the regional Animal Services Program
based on their actual, rather than estimated, licensing revenues, there will be an
annual reconciliation. Specifically, on or before June 30 of each year, the County
will reconcile amounts owed under this Agreement for the prior Service Year by
comparing each Contracting Party's Estimated Payments to the amount derived by
recalculating the formulas in Exhibit C using actual revenue data for such Service
Period as detailed in Exhibit D. There will also be an adjustment if necessary to
account for annexations of areas with a population of 2,500 or more and for changes
in relative population shares of Contracting Parties' attributable to Latecomer
Cities. The County will provide the results of the reconciliation to all Contracting
Parties in writing on or before June 30. The Reconciliation Adjustment Amount will
be paid on or before August 15 of the then current year, regardless of the prior
termination of the Agreement as per Section 5.c.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
8
52
7. Regional Revenue Generation and Licensing Revenue Support
a. The Parties intend that the provision of Animal Services becomes
significantly more financially sustainable over the initial three year term of
this Agreement through the development of New Regional Revenue and the
generation of additional Licensing Revenue. The County will develop
proposals designed to support this goal. The County will consult with the
Joint City- County Committee before proceeding with efforts to implement
proposals to generate New Regional Revenue.
b. The Parties do not intend for the provision of Animal Services or receipt of
such Services under this Agreement to be a profit- making enterprise. Where
a Contracting Party receives revenues in excess of its costs under this
Agreement (including costs of PAWS shelter service and Enhanced Control
Service, if applicable), they will be reinvested in the Program to reduce the
costs of other Contracting Parties and to improve service delivery: the cost
allocation formulas of this Agreement are intended to achieve this outcome.
c. Licensine Revenue Support.
i. In 2013, the County will provide licensing revenue support to the nine
Contracting Cities identified on Exhibit C -5 (the "Licensing Revenue
Support Cities
ii. The City may request licensing revenue support from the County in
2014 and 2015 by executing Attachment A to Exhibit F. The terms
and conditions under which such licensing revenue support will be
provided are further described at Exhibit C -5 and Exhibit F. Except
as otherwise provided in Exhibit C -5 with respect to Licensing
Revenue Support Cities with a Licensing Revenue Target of over
$20,000 (per Table 1 of Exhibit C -5), provision of licensing revenue
support in 2014 and 2015 is subject to the County determining it has
capacity to provide such services, with priority allocation of any
available services going first to Licensing Revenue Support Cities on a
first -come, first served basis and thereafter being allocated to other
Contracting Cities requesting service on a first -come, first served
basis. Provision of licensing revenue support is further subject to the
Parties executing a Licensing Support Contract (Exhibit F).
iii. In addition to other terms described in Exhibit F, receipt of licensing
revenue support is subject to the recipient City providing in -kind
services, including but not limited to: assisting in communication with
City residents; publicizing any canvassing efforts the Parties have
agreed should be implemented; assisting in the recruitment of
canvassing staff, if applicable; and providing information to the
County to assist in targeting its canvassing activities, if applicable.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
0
53
8. Mutual Covenants /Independent Contractor. The Parties understand and agree
that the County is acting hereunder as an independent contractor with the intended
following results:
a. Control of County personnel, standards of performance, discipline, and all
other aspects of performance shall be governed entirely by the County;
b. All County persons rendering service hereunder shall be for all purposes
employees of the County, although they may from time to time act as
commissioned officers of the City;
c. The County contact person for the City staff regarding all issues arising
under this Agreement, including but not limited to citizen complaints,
service requests and general information on animal control services is the
Manager of Regional Animal Services.
9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless.
a. Citv Held Harmless. The County shall indemnify and hold harmless the City
and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them from any and all
claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any
nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or
omission of the County, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them
relating to or arising out of performing services pursuant to this Agreement.
In the event that any such suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or
damages is brought against the City, the County shall defend the same at its
sole cost and expense; provided that the City reserves the right to participate
in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if
final judgment in said suit be rendered against the City, and its officers,
agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against the City and the
County and their respective officers, agents, and employees, or any of them,
the County shall satisfy the same.
b. Countv Held Harmless. The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the
County and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them from any and
all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any
nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or
omission of the City, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them
relating to or arising out of performing services pursuant to this Agreement.
In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damages is
brought against the County, the City shall defend the same at its sole cost
and expense; provided that the County reserves the right to participate in
said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if
final judgment be rendered against the County, and its officers, agents, and
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
F
54
employees, or any of them, or jointly against the County and the City and
their respective officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, the City shall
satisfy the same.
c. Liabilitv Related to Citv Ordinances, Policies. Rules and Regulations. In
executing this Agreement, the County does not assume liability or
responsibility for or in any way release the City from any liability or
responsibility that arises in whole or in part as a result of the application of
City ordinances, policies, rules or regulations that are either in place at the
time this Agreement takes effect or differ from those of the County; or that
arise in whole or in part based upon any failure of the City to comply with
applicable adoption requirements or procedures. If any cause, claim, suit,
action or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the
enforceability and /or validity of any such City ordinance, policy, rule or
regulation is at issue, the City shall defend the same at its sole expense and, if
judgment is entered or damages are awarded against the City, the County, or
both, the City shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and
reasonable attorney's fees.
d. Waiver Under WashinLyton Industrial Insurance Act. The foregoing
indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each party's
immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, Chapter 51 RCW, as
respects the other party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the
indemnified party with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the
indemnitor's employees. The parties acknowledge that these provisions were
specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them.
10. Dispute Resolution. Whenever any dispute arises between the Parties or between
the Contracting Parties under this Agreement which is not resolved by routine
meetings or communications, the disputing parties agree to seek resolution of such
dispute in good faith by meeting, as soon as feasible. The meeting shall include the
Chief Executive Officer (or his/her designee) of each party involved in the dispute
and the Manager of the Regional Animal Services Program. If the parties do not
come to an agreement on the dispute, any party may pursue mediation through a
process to be mutually agreed to in good faith by the parties within 30 days, which
may include binding or nonbinding decisions or recommendations. The
mediator(s) shall be individuals skilled in the legal and business aspects of the
subject matter of this Agreement. The parties to the dispute shall share equally the
costs of mediation and assume their own costs.
11. Joint City- County Committee and Collaborative Initiatives. A committee
composed of 3 county representatives (appointed by the County) and one
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
55
representative from each Contracting City that chooses to appoint a representative
shall meet upon reasonable request of a Contracting City or the County, but in no
event shall the Committee meet less than twice each year. Committee members
may not be elected officials. The Committee shall review service issues and make
recommendations regarding efficiencies and improvements to services, and shall
review and make recommendations regarding the conduct and findings of the
collaborative initiatives identified below. Subcommittees to focus on individual
initiatives may be formed, each of which shall include membership from both
county and city members of the Joint City County Committee. Recommendations of
the Joint City- County Committee are non binding. The collaborative initiatives to
be explored shall include, but are not necessarily limited to:
a. Proposals to update animal services codes, including fees and penalties, as a
means to increase revenues and incentives for residents to license, retain, and
care for pets.
b. Exploring the practicability of engaging a private for profit licensing system
operator.
c. Pursuing linkages between County and private non profit shelter and rescue
operations to maximize opportunities for pet adoption, reduction in
homeless pet population, and other efficiencies.
d. Promoting licensing through joint marketing activities of Contracting Cities
and the County, including recommending where the County's marketing
efforts will be deployed each year.
e. Exploring options for continuous service improvement, including increasing
service delivery efficiencies across the board.
f. Studying options for repair and /or replacement of the Kent Shelter.
g. Reviewing the results of the County's calculation of the Reconciliation
Adjustment Amounts.
h. Reviewing preliminary proposed budgets for Animal Services.
i. Providing input into the formatting, content and details of periodic Program
reports as per Section 12 of this Agreement.
j. Reviewing and providing input on proposed Animal Services operational
initiatives.
k. Providing input on Animal Control Services response protocols with the goal
of supporting the most appropriate use of scarce Control Services resources.
1. Establishing and maintaining a marketing subcommittee with members from
within the Joint City- County committee membership and additional staff as
may be agreed.
m. Collaborating on response and service improvements, including
communication with 911 call centers.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
12
56
n. Developing alternative dispute mechanisms that may be deployed to assist
the public in resolving low -level issues such as barking dog complaints.
o. Working with Contracting Cities to plan disaster response for animal
sheltering and care.
p. Ensuring there is at least one meeting each year within each Control District
between the County animal control officer representatives and Contracting
Cities' law enforcement representatives.
q. Identifying, discussing and where appropriate recommending actions to
implement ideas to generate additional revenue to support operation and
maintenance of the Animal Services Program, including but not limited to
providing input and advice in shaping the terms of any proposed
Countywide voted levy to provide funding support for the Animal Services
Program.
12. Reporting. The County will provide the City with an electronic report not less
than monthly summarizing call response and Program usage data for each of the
Contracting Cities and the County and the Animal Services Program. The
formatting, content and details of the report will be developed in consultation with
the Joint City- County Committee.
13. Amendments. Any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing. This
Agreement shall be deemed to incorporate amendments to Agreements between
the Contracting Parties that are approved by the County and at least two thirds
(66 of the legislative bodies of all other Contracting Parties (in both number and
in the percentage of the prior total Estimated Payments owing from such
Contracting Parties in the then current Service Year), evidenced by the authorized
signatures of such approving Parties as of the effective date of the amendment;
provided that this provision shall not apply to any amendment to this Agreement
affecting the Party contribution responsibilities, hold harmless and indemnification
requirements, provisions regarding duration, termination or withdrawal, or the
conditions of this Section.
14. General Provisions.
a. Other Facilities. The County reserves the right to contract with other shelter
service providers for housing animals received from within the City or from
City residents, whose levels of service meet or exceed those at the County
shelter for purposes of addressing shelter overcrowding or developing other
means to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency or capacity of animal care and
sheltering within King County.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
13
57
b. Survivabilitv. Notwithstanding any provision in this Agreement to the
contrary, the provisions of Section 9 (Indemnification and Hold Harmless)
shall remain operative and in full force and effect, regardless of the
withdrawal or termination of this Agreement.
c. Waiver and Remedies. No term or provision of this Agreement shall be
deemed waived and no breach excused unless such waiver or consent shall
be in writing and signed by the Party claimed to have waived or consented.
Failure to insist upon full performance of any one or several occasions does
not constitute consent to or waiver of any later non performance nor does
payment of a billing or continued performance after notice of a deficiency in
performance constitute an acquiescence thereto. The Parties are entitled to
all remedies in law or equity.
d. Grants. Both Parties shall cooperate and assist each other toward procuring
grants or financial assistance from governmental agencies or private
benefactors for reduction of costs of operating and maintaining the Animal
Services Program and the care and treatment of animals in the Program.
e. Force Maieure. In the event either Party's performance of any of the
provisions of this Agreement becomes impossible due to war, civil unrest,
and any natural event outside of the Party's reasonable control, including
fire, storm, flood, earthquake or other act of nature, that Party will be
excused from performing such obligations until such time as the Force
Majeure event has ended and all facilities and operations have been repaired
and /or restored.
f. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of
the Parties and supersedes any oral representations that are inconsistent with
or modify its terms and conditions.
g. Notices. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any notice
required to be provided under the terms of this Agreement shall be delivered
by E -mail (deemed delivered upon E -mail confirmation of receipt by the
intended recipient), certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested or by
personal service to the following person (or to any other person that the
Party designates in writing to receive notice under this Agreement):
For the City:
For the County: Caroline Whalen, Director
King County Dept. of Executive Services
401 Fifth Avenue, Suite 135
Seattle WA. 98104
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
14
h. Assignment. No Party may sell, transfer or assign any of its rights or benefits
under this Agreement without the approval of the other Party.
i. Venue. The Venue for any action related to this Agreement shall be in
Superior Court in and for King County, Washington.
j. Records. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by
this Agreement shall be subject to inspection and review by the County or
City for such period as is required by state law (Records Retention Act, Ch.
40.14 RCW) but in any event for not less than 1 year following the expiration
or termination of this Agreement.
k. No Third Partv Beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the benefit of the Parties
only, and no third party shall have any rights hereunder.
1. Counterparts. This Agreement and any amendments thereto, shall be
executed on behalf of each Party by its duly authorized representative and
pursuant to an appropriate motion, resolution or ordinance. The Agreement
may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an
original, but those counterparts will constitute one and the same instrument.
15. Terms to Implement Agreement. Because it is unknown how many parties will
ultimately approve the Agreement, and participation of each Contracting Party
impacts the costs of all other Contracting Parties, the Agreement will go into effect
as of July 1, 2012, only if certain "Minimum Contracting Requirements" are met or
waived as described in this section. These Minimum Contracting Requirements
will not be finally determined until August 15, 2012. If it is determined on or about
August 15 that Minimum Contracting Requirements are not met and not waived,
then the Agreement will be deemed to have never gone into effect, regardless of the
July 1, 2012 stated effective date. If the Minimum Contracting Requirements are
met or waived, the Agreement shall be deemed effective as of July 1, 2012. The
Minimum Contracting Requirements are:
a. For both the City and the County:
1. 2013 Payment Test: The Preliminary Estimated 2013 Payment,
calculated on or before August 1, 2012, to include the County and all
cities that have executed the Agreement on or prior to July 1, 2012,
does not exceed the Pre Commitment Estimated 2013 Payment as set
forth in Exhibit C -1 by more than five percent (5 or $3,500,
whichever is greater. If the 2013 Payment Test is not met, either
Party may waive this condition and allow the Agreement to go into
effect, provided that such waiver must be exercised by giving notice
to the other Party (which notice shall meet the requirements of Section
14.g) no later than August 15, 2012.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
15
59
b. For the County: The Minimum Contiguity of Service Condition must be
met, such that the County is only obligated to enter into the Agreement if the
County will be providing Animal Services in areas contiguous to the City,
whether by reason of having an Agreement with another City or due to the
fact that the City is contiguous to unincorporated areas (excluding
unincorporated islands within the City limits). The Minimum Contiguity of
Service Condition may be waived by the County in its sole discretion. The
County shall provide the City notice meeting the requirements of Section
14.g no later than July 21, 2012 if the Minimum Contiguity of Service
Condition has not been met.
c. On or before August 21, 2012, the County shall send all Contracting Cities an
informational email notice confirming the final list of all Contracting Cities
with Agreements that have gone into effect.
16. Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the County
Administrative Officer or his/her designee, and by the City Manager, or his/her
designee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
effective as of July 1, 2012.
King County City of Tukwila
Dow Constantine
King County Executive City Manager/Mayor
Date Date
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form:
King County City Attorney
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Date Date
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
01
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: Animal Services Description
Exhibit B: Control Service District Map Description
Exhibit B -1: Map of Control Service District
Exhibit C: Calculation of Estimated Payments
Exhibit C -1: Pre Commitment Estimated 2013 Payment (showing
participation only by jurisdictions that have expressed interest in contracting for
an additional 3 year term)
Exhibit C -2: Estimated Population, Calls for Service, Shelter Use and
Licensing Data for Jurisdictions, Used to Derive the Pre Commitment
Estimated 2013 Payment
Exhibit C -3: Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Animal Services
Costs, Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue and Budget Net Allocable
Animal Services Costs for 2013
Exhibit C -4: Calculation and Allocation of Transition Credit, Shelter
Credit, and Estimated New Regional Revenue
Exhibit C -5: Licensing Revenue Support
Exhibit C -6: Summary of Calculation Periods for Use and Population
Components
Exhibit C -7: Payment and Calculation Schedule
Exhibit D: Reconciliation
Exhibit E: Enhanced Control Services Contract (Optional)
Exhibit F: Licensing Support Contract (Optional)
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
IITA
Exhibit A
Animal Service Description
Part I: Control Services
Control Services include the operation of a public call center, the dispatch of animal
control officers in response to calls, and the handling of calls in the field by animal control
officers, including the collection and delivery of animals to the Kent Shelter (or such other
shelters as the County may utilize in accordance with this Agreement).
1. Call Center
a. The County will operate an animal control call center five days every week
(excluding holidays and County- designated furlough days, if applicable) for
a minimum of eight hours per day (normal business hours). The County will
negotiate with applicable unions with the purpose of obtaining a
commitment for the five day call center operation to include at least one
weekend day. The County may adjust the days of the week the call center
operates to match the final choice of Control District service days.
b. The animal control call center will provide callers with guidance, education,
options and alternative resources as possible /appropriate.
c. When the call center is not in operation, callers will hear a recorded message
referring them to 911 in case of emergency, or if the event is not an
emergency, to either leave a message or call back during regular business
hours.
2. Animal Control Officers
a. The County will divide the area receiving Control Services into three Control
Districts as shown on Exhibit B. Subject to the limitations provided in this
Section 2, Control Districts 200 and 220 will be staffed with one Animal
Control Officer during Regular ACO Service Hours and District 500 will be
staffed with two Animal Control Officers (ACOs) during Regular ACO
Service Hours. Regular ACO Service Hours is defined to include not less
than 40 hours per week. The County will negotiate with applicable unions
with the intention of obtaining a commitment for Regular ACO Service
Hours to include service on at least one weekend day. Regular ACO Service
Hours may change from time to time.
i. Except as the County may in its sole discretion determine is necessary
to protect officer safety, ACOs shall be available for responding to
calls within their assigned Control District and will not be generally
available to respond to calls in other Control Districts. Exhibit B -1
shows the map of Control Districts.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
18
M
ii. Countywide, the County will have a total of not less than 6 ACOs
(Full -Time Equivalent employees) on staff to maximize the ability of
the County to staff all Control Districts notwithstanding vacation,
sick leave, and other absences, and to respond to high workload areas
on a day -to -day basis. While the Parties recognize that the County
may at times not be able to staff all Control Districts as proposed
given unscheduled sick leave or vacancies, the County will make its
best efforts to establish regular hourly schedules and vacations for
ACOs in order to minimize any such gaps in coverage. In the event of
extended absences among the 6 ACOs, the County will re- allocate
remaining ACOs as practicable in order to balance the hours of service
available in each Control District. In the event of ACO absences (for
any causes and whether or not such absences are extended as a result
of vacancies or other issues), the first priority in allocating ACOs shall
be to ensure there is an ACO assigned in each Control District during
Regular ACO Service Hours.
b. Control District boundaries have been designed to balance work load,
correspond to jurisdictional boundaries and facilitate expedient
transportation access across each district. The County will arrange a location
for an Animal Control vehicle to be stationed overnight in Control Districts
"host sites in order to facilitate service and travel time improvements or
efficiencies.
c. The County will use its best efforts to ensure that High Priority Calls are
responded to by an ACO during Regular ACO Service Hours on the day
such call is received. The County shall retain full discretion as to the order in
which High Priority calls are responded. High Priority Calls include those
calls that pose an emergent danger to the community, including:
1. Emergent animal bite,
2. Emergent vicious dog,
3. Emergent injured animal,
4. Police assist calls (police officer on scene requesting assistance
from an ACO),
5. Emergent loose livestock or other loose or deceased animal that
poses a potential danger to the community, and
6. Emergent animal cruelty.
d. Lower priority calls include all calls that are not High Priority Calls. These
calls will be responded to by the call center staff over the telephone, referral
to other resources, or by dispatching of an ACO as necessary or available, all
as determined necessary and appropriate in the sole discretion of the
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
L
63
County. Particularly in the busier seasons of the year (spring through fall),
lower priority calls may only receive a telephone response from the Call
Center. Lower Priority calls are non emergent requests for service, including
but not limited to:
1. Non emergent high priority events,
2. Patrol request (ACO requested to patrol a specific area due to
possible code violations),
3. Trespass,
4. Stray Dog /Cat /other animal confined,
5. Barking Dog,
6. Leash Law Violation,
7. Deceased Animal,
8. Trap Request,
9. Female animal in season, and
10. Owner's Dog /Cat /other animal confined.
The Joint -City County Committee is tasked with reviewing response
protocols and recommending potential changes to further the goal of
supporting the most appropriate use of scarce Control Service resources
countywide. The County will in good faith consider such recommendations
but reserves the right to make final decisions on response protocols. The
County will make no changes to its procedures that are inconsistent with the
terms of this Exhibit A, except that upon the recommendation of the Joint
City- County Committee, the County may agree to modify response with
respect to calls involving animals other than horses, livestock, dogs and cats.
In addition to the ACOs serving specific districts, the following Control
Service resources will be available on a shared basis for all Parties and shall
be dispatched as deemed necessary and appropriate by the County.
1. An animal control sergeant will provide oversight of and back-
up for ACOs five days per week at least 8 hours /day (subject to
vacation /sick leave /training /etc.).
2. Staff will be available to perform animal cruelty investigations,
to respond to animal cruelty cases, and to prepare related
reports (subject to vacation /sick leave /training /etc.).
3. Not less than 1 ACO will be on call every day at times that are
not Regular ACO Service Hours (including the days per week
that are not included within Regular ACO Service Hours), to
respond to High Priority Calls posing an extreme life and
safety danger, as determined by the County.
g. The Parties understand that rural areas of the County will generally receive a
less rapid response time from ACOs than urban areas.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
20
i
h. Contracting Cities may contract with King County for "Enhanced Control
Services" through separate agreement (as set forth in Exhibit E); provided
that a City may not purchase Enhanced Control Services under Option 1 as
described in Exhibit E if such City is receiving a Transition Funding Credit,
Shelter Credit, or licensing revenue support the cost of which is not
reimbursed to the County.
Part II: Shelter Services
Shelter services include the general care, cleaning and nourishment of owner released, lost
or stray dogs, cats and other animals. Such services shall be provided 7 -days per week, 365
days per year at the County's animal shelter in Kent (the "Shelter or other shelter
locations utilized by the County, including related services described in this section. The
County's Eastside Pet Adoption Center in the Crossroads area of Bellevue will be closed to
the public.
During 2013 -2015, major maintenance of the Shelter will continue to be included in the
Program costs allocated under this Agreement (as part of the central County overhead
charges allocated to the Program), but no major renovation, upgrades or replacements of
the Shelter established as a capital project within the County Budget are anticipated nor
will any such capital project costs be allocated to the Contracting Cities in Service Years
2013 -2015.
1. Shelter Services
a. Services provided to animals will include enrichment, exercise, care and
feeding, and reasonable medical attention.
b. The Public Service Counter at the Shelter will be open to the public not less
than 30 hours per week and not less than 5 days per week, excluding
holidays and County designated furlough days, for purposes of pet
redemption, adoption, license sales services and (as may be offered from
time to time) pet surrenders. The Public Service Counter at the shelter may
be open for additional hours if practicable within available resources.
c. The County will maintain a volunteer /foster care function at the Shelter to
encourage use of volunteers working at the shelter and use of foster
families to provide fostering /transitional care between shelter and
permanent homes for adoptable animals.
d. The County will maintain an animal placement function at the Shelter to
provide for and manage adoption events and other activities leading to the
placement of animals in appropriate homes.
e. Veterinary services will be provided and will include animal exams,
treatment and minor procedures, spay /neuter and other surgeries. Limited
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
21
65
emergency veterinary services will be available in non business hours,
through third -party contracts, and engaged if and when the County
determines necessary.
f. The County will take steps through its operating policies, codes, public fee
structures and partnerships to reduce the number of animals and their
length of stay in the Shelter, and may at times limit owner surrenders and
field pick -ups, adjust fees and incentivize community -based solutions.
2. Other Shelter services
a. Dangerous animals will be confined as appropriate /necessary.
b. Disaster /emergency preparedness for animals will be coordinated
regionally through efforts of King County staff.
3. Shelter for Contracting Cities contracting with PAWS (Potentially including
Woodinville, Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, Kenmore "Northern Cities For so
long as a Northern City has a contract in effect for sheltering dogs and cats with the
Progressive Animal Welfare Society in Lynnwood (PAWS), the County will not
shelter dogs and cats picked up within the boundaries of such City(s), except in
emergent circumstances and when the PAWS Lynwood shelter is not available.
Dogs and cats picked up by the County within such City(s) will be transferred by
the County to the PAWS shelter in Lynnwood for shelter care, which will be
provided and funded solely through separate contracts between each Northern City
and PAWS, and the County will refer residents of that City to PAWS for sheltering
services. The County will provide shelter services for animals other than dogs and
cats that are picked up within the boundaries of Northern Cities contracting with
PAWS on the same terms and conditions that such shelter services are provided to
other Contracting Parties. Except as provided in this Section, the County is under
no obligation to drop animals picked up in any Contracting City at any shelter
other than the County shelter in Kent.
4. County Contract with PAWS. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to preclude
the County from contracting with PAWS in Lynnwood to care for animals taken in
by County ACOs.
5. Service to Persons who are not Residents of Contracting Cities. The County will
not provide routine shelter services for animals brought in by persons who are not
residents of Contracting Cities, but may provide emergency medical care to such
animals, and may seek to recover the cost of such services from the pet owner
and /or the City in which the resident lives.
Part III: Licensing Services
Licensing services include the operation and maintenance of a unified system to license
pets in Contracting Cities.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
22
i
1. The public will be able to purchase pet licenses in person at the County Licensing
Division public service counter in downtown Seattle (500 4t" Avenue), King County
Community Service Centers and the Kent Animal Shelter during regular business
hours. The County will maintain on its website the capacity for residents to
purchase pet licenses on -line.
2. The County may seek to engage and maintain a variety of private sector partners
(e.g. veterinary clinics, pet stores, grocery stores, city halls, apartment complexes) as
hosts for locations where licenses can be sold or promoted in addition to County
facilities.
3. The County will furnish licenses and application forms and other materials to the
City for its use in selling licenses to the public at City facilities and at public events.
4. The County will publicize reminders and information about pet licensing from time
to time through inserts in County mailings to residents and on the County's public
television channel.
5. The County will annually mail or E -mail at least one renewal form, reminder and
late notice (as applicable) to the last known addresses of all City residents who
purchased a pet license from the County within the previous year (using a rolling
12 -month calendar).
6. The County may make telephone reminder calls in an effort to encourage pet
license renewals.
7. The County shall mail pet license tags or renewal notices as appropriate to
individuals who purchase new or renew their pet licenses.
8. The County will maintain a database of pets owned, owners, addresses and
violations.
9. The County will provide limited sales and marketing support in an effort to
maintain the existing licensing base and increase future license sales. The County
reserves the right to determine the level of sales and marketing support provided
from year to year in consultation with the Joint City- County Committee. The
County will work with any City in which door -to -door canvassing takes place to
reach agreement with the City as to the hours and locations of such canvassing.
10. The County will provide current pet license data files (database extractions) to a
Contracting City promptly upon request. Data files will include pets owned,
owners, addresses, phone numbers, E -mail addresses, violations, license renewal
status, and any other relevant or useful data maintained in the County's database
on pets licensed within the City's limits. A City's database extraction will be
provided in electronic format agreed to by both parties in a timely fashion and in a
standard data release format that is easily usable by the City.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
23
67
Exhibit B: Control Service District Map
The attached map (Exhibit B -1) shows the boundaries of the 3 Control Service Districts as
established at the commencement of this Amended and Restated Agreement.
The cities and towns included in each Control District are as follows:
District 200 (Northern District)
Shoreline
Lake Forest Park
Kenmore
Woodinville
Kirkland
Redmond
Sammamish
Duvall
Carnation
District 220 (Eastern District)
Bellevue
Mercer Island
Yarrow Point
Clyde Hill
Town of Beaux Arts
Issaquah
Snoqualmie
North Bend
Newcastle
District 500 (Southern District)
Tukwila
SeaTac
Kent
Covington
Maple Valley
Black Diamond
Enumclaw
The Districts shall each include portions of unincorporated King County as illustrated on
Exhibit B -1.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
24
control district map
Exhibit C
Calculation of Estimated Payments
The Estimated Payment is the amount, before reconciliation, owed by the City to the
County (or owed by the County to the City if the amount calculated is less than $0) for the
provision of six months of Animal Services, based on the formulas below.
In summary and subject to the more detailed descriptions below, an initial cost
allocation is made for Service Year 2013 based on the cost factors described in Part 1
below; costs are offset by various revenues as described in Part 2. An annual
reconciliation is completed as described in Part 3. In Service Years 2014 and 2015, the
Contracting Parties' allocable costs are adjusted based on: (1) the actual change in total
allocable costs over the previous Service Year (subject to an inflator cap), (2) changes in
revenues, and (3) to account for annexations (in or out of the Program service area) of
areas with a population of 2,500 or more, and for changes in relative population share of
all Contracting Parties due to any Latecomer Cities. If the Agreement is extended past
2015, the cost allocation in 2016 will be recalculated in the same manner as for Service Year
2013 and adjusted in 2017 per the process used for Service Years 2014 and 2015.
Based on the calculation process described in Parts 1 and 2, an "Estimated Payment"
amount owed by each City for each Service Year is determined. Each Estimated Payment
covers six months of service. Payment for service is made by each City every June 15 and
December 15.
Part 1: Service Year 2013 Cost Allocation Process
Control Services costs are to be shared among the 3 geographic Control Districts;
one quarter of such costs are allocated to Control District 200, one quarter to
Control District 220, and one half are allocated to Control District 500. Each
Contracting Party located within a Control District is to be allocated a share of
Control District costs based 80% on the Party's relative share of total Calls for
Service within the Control District and 20% on its relative share of total
population within the Control District.
Shelter Services costs are to be allocated among all Contracting Parties based
20% on their relative population and 80% on the total shelter intake of animals
attributable to each Contracting Party, except that cities contracting for shelter
services with PAWS will pay only a population -based charge.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
26
70
Licensing Services costs are to be allocated among all Contracting Parties, based
20% on their relative population and 80% on the number of licenses issued to
residents of each Contracting Party.
Part 2: Revenue and Other Adjustments to the 2013 Cost Allocation.
In 2013 and each Service Year thereafter, the costs allocable to each Contracting Party are
reduced by various revenues and credits:
Licensing revenue will be attributed to each Contracting Party based on the
residency of the individual purchasing the license (see Part 3 for reconciliation
of Licensing Revenues). As Licensing Revenue and Non Licensing Revenues
change from year to year, the most recent historical actual data for these
amounts will be incorporated to offset costs (See Exhibit C -6 for calculation
periods).
Two credits are applicable to various Contracting Cities to reduce the amount of
their Estimated Payments: a Transition Funding Credit (fixed at 2013 level,
payable annually through 2015) for cities with high per- capita costs and a
Shelter Credit (for Contracting Cities with the highest per capita intakes (usage))
(also fixed at a 2013 level, payable annually through 2015). Application of these
Credits is limited such that the Estimated Payment cannot fall below zero
(before or after the annual Reconciliation calculation).
In addition to the Transition Funding and Shelter credits, in 2013 the County
will provide Licensing Revenue Support to nine identified Contracting Cities
(selected based on the general goal of keeping 2013 costs the same or below 2012
costs). In exchange for certain in -kind support, these "Licensing Revenue
Support Cities" are assured in 2013 of receiving an identified amount of
additional licensing revenue or credit equivalent (the "Licensing Revenue
Target In 2014 and 2015, all Contracting Cities may request licensing revenue
support by entering into a separate licensing support contract with the County
(Exhibit F): this support is subject to availability of County staff, with priority
going to the nine Licensing Revenue Support Cities, provided that, Licensing
Revenue Support Cities with a Licensing Revenue Target over $20,000 /year will
be assured such service in 2013 -2015 by entering into a licensing support
contract by September 1, 2012.
As New Regional Revenues are received by the County to support the Animal
Services Program, those Revenues shall be allocated as follows:
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
27
71
Half of New Regional Revenues shall be applied to reduce allocable
Control Services Costs, Shelter Services Costs, and Licensing Services
Costs (in 2013, by 17 27% and 6 respectively, of total New Regional
Revenues; in 2014 and 2015 the 50% reduction is simply made against
Total Allocable Costs).
The remaining half of New Regional Revenues shall be applied in the
following order of priority:
(a) to offset amounts expended by the County as Transition Funding
Credits, Shelter Credits and unreimbursed licensing revenue support;
(b) to offset other County Animal Services Program costs that are not
allocated in the cost model;
(c) to reduce on a pro -rata basis up to 100% of the costs allocated to
each Contracting Party by the population factor of the cost allocation
formulas (20 with the intent of reducing or eliminating the
population -based cost allocation; and
(d) if any funds remain thereafter, as an offset against each
Contracting Party's final reconciled payment obligation. Items(c) and
(d) above are unlikely to arise during the 3 year term of the
Agreement and shall be calculated only at Reconciliation.
In Service Years 2014 and 2015, allocable costs are adjusted for each Contracting
Party based on the actual increase or decrease in allocable costs from year to
year for the whole Program. Total Budgeted Allocable Costs cannot increase by
more than the Annual Budget Inflator Cap. The Annual Budget Inflator Cap is
the rate of inflation (based on the annual change in the September CPI -U for the
Seattle- Tacoma Bremerton area over the rate the preceding year) plus the rate of
population growth for the preceding year for the County (including the
unincorporated area and all Contracting Cities).
In all Service Years, costs are also adjusted for annexations (in or out of the
Program service area) of areas with a population greater of 2,500 or more and
the shift in relative population shares among all Contracting Parties as a result
of any Latecomer Cities,
Part 3: Reconciliation
Estimated Payments are reconciled to reflect actual revenues as well as changes
in population attributable to annexations of areas with a population of 2,500 or
more (in or out of the Program) and the shifts in relative population among all
Contracting Parties as a result of any Latecomer Cities. The Reconciliation occurs
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
28
72
by June 30 of the following calendar year. The Reconciliation calculation and
payment process is described in Exhibit D.
The receipt of Transition Funding Credits or Shelter Credits can never result in
the amount of the Estimated Reconciliation Adjustment Payment falling below
$0.
If a jurisdiction's licensing revenues exceed its net costs payable under this
Agreement, then in the annual reconciliation process, the excess licensing
revenue is reallocated pro rata amongst all Contracting Parties which will
otherwise incur net costs; provided that, the determination of net costs shall be
adjusted as follows: (1) for a Contracting City purchasing shelter services from
PAWS, net costs includes consideration of the amounts paid by such City to
PAWS; and (2) for a Contracting City purchasing Enhanced Control Services per
Exhibit E, net costs includes consideration of the amounts paid for such services.
Part 4: Estimated Pavment Calculation Formulas
For Service Year 2013:'
EP= [(EC +ES +EL)— (ER +T +V)] =2
For Service Years 2014 and 2015:
EP [(B x LF) (ER +T V)] 2
Where:
"EP" is the Estimated Payment. For Contracting Cities receiving a Transition Credit or
Shelter Credit, the value of EP may not be less $0.
"EC" or "Estimated Control Services Cost" is the City's estimated share of the Budgeted
Net Allocable Control Services Cost for the Service Year. See formula below for deriving
"EC."
"ES" or "Estimated Shelter Services Cost" is the City's estimated share of the Budged Net
Allocable Shelter Services Cost for the Service Year. See formula below for deriving "ES."
1 This formula also applies to Service Year 2016 if the Agreement is extended. The EP formula for Years 2014 and
2015 would apply to Service Years after 2016.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
29
73
"EL" or "Estimated Licensing Services Cost" is the City's estimated share of the Budgeted
Net Allocable Licensing Services Cost for the Service Year. See formula below for deriving
"EL.
"ER" is Estimated Licensing Revenue attributable to the City. For purposes of
determining the Estimated Payment in Year 2013, ER is based on the number of each type
of active license issued to City residents in years 2011 (the "Calculation Period Exhibit
C -2 shows a preliminary estimate of 2011 Licensing Revenue; the numbers in this exhibit
are subject to Reconciliation by June 30, 2012. For Licensing Revenue Support Cities
identified in Exhibit C -5, or other Contracting Cities which have entered into a Licensing
Support Contract per Exhibit F, ER is increased by adding the amount of revenue, if any,
estimated to be derived as a result of licensing revenue support provided to the City (the
"Licensing Revenue Target" or "RT this amount is also shown in the column captioned
"Estimated Revenue from Proposed Licensing Support" on Exhibit C -1). License Revenue
that cannot be attributed to a specific Party (e.g., License Revenue associated with
incomplete address information), which generally represents a very small fraction of
overall revenue, is allocated amongst the Parties based on their respective percentages of
ER as compared to Total Licensing Revenue. Notwithstanding the foregoing, "ER" may be
based on a estimated amount of licensing for the Service Year for the City if, in the
reasonable judgment of the County, an estimated Licensing Revenue amount can be
proposed that is likely to more closely approximate the actual Licensing Revenue for the
Service Year than the data from the Calculation Period; provided that the use of any
estimates shall be subject to the conditions of this paragraph. The County shall work with
the Joint City- County Committee to develop estimated Licensing Revenue amounts for all
Contracting Cities for the upcoming Service Year. If the Joint City County Committee
develops a consensus proposal (agreement shall be based on the consensus of those
Contracting Cities present at the Joint City /County meeting in which Licensing Revenue
estimates are presented in preparation for the September 1 Preliminary Estimated
Payment Calculation notification), it shall be used in developing the September 1
Preliminary Estimated Payment Calculation. If a consensus is not reached, the County
shall apply the actual Licensing Revenue from the Calculation Period for the Service Year
to determine the Preliminary Estimated Payment. For the Final Estimated Payment
Calculation (due December 15), the County may revisit the previous estimate with the
Joint City- County Committee and seek to develop a final consensus revenue estimate. If a
consensus is not reached, the County shall apply the Actual Licensing Revenue from the
applicable Calculation Period in the calculation of the Final Estimated Payment.
"T" is the Transition Funding Credit, if any, allocable to the City for each Service Year
calculated per Exhibit C -4.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
30
74
"V" is the Shelter Credit, if any, allocable to the City for each Service Year calculated per
Exhibit C -4.
"B" is the "Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs" estimated for the Service Year for the
provision of Animal Services which are allocated among all the Contracting Parties for the
purposes of determining the Estimated Payment. The Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs
are calculated as the Budgeted Total Allocable Costs (subject to the Annual Budget
Inflator Cap) less Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue and less 50% of Estimated
New Regional Revenues. The Budgeted Total Allocable Costs exclude any amount
expended by the County as Transition Funding Credits, or Shelter Credits (described in
Exhibit C -4), or to provide Licensing Revenue Support (described in Section 7 and Exhibit
C -5). A preliminary calculation (by service area Control, Shelter, Licensing) of Budgeted
Total Net Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Allocable Costs and Budgeted Total Non
Licensing Revenue for purposes of calculating the Pre Commitment Estimated 2013
Payments is set forth in Exhibit C -3.
"LF" is the "Program Load Factor" attributable to the City. LF has two components, one
fixed, and one subject to change each Service Year and at Reconciliation. The first, fixed
component relates to the City's share of Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs: it is the City's
2013 Service Year Total Animal Services Cost Allocation (See Column 6 of Exhibit C -1)
expressed as a percentage of the Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs for 2013. The pre
commitment estimate of LF appears in column 7 of Exhibit C -1. This component of LF (as
determined based on the Final 2013 Estimated Payment) remains constant for Service
Years 2014 and 2015. The second component of LF relates to annexations of areas with a
population of 2,500 or more or to Latecomer Cities. This second component is calculated
as described in the definition of "Population," below.
"Total Licensing Revenue" means all revenue received by the County's Animal Services
Program attributable to the sale of pet licenses excluding late fees. With respect to each
Contracting Party, the amount of "Licensing Revenue" is the revenue generated by the
sale of pet licenses to residents of the jurisdiction. (With respect to the County, the
jurisdiction is the unincorporated area of King County.)
"Total Non Licensing Revenue" means all revenue from fine, forfeitures, and all other
fees and charges imposed by the County's Animal Services program in connection with
the operation of the Program, but excluding Total Licensing Revenue, Estimated New
Regional Revenues and Designated Donations.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
31
75
"Estimated New Regional Revenues" "ENR are revenues projected to be received by
the County specifically for support of Animal Services which result from regional
marketing campaigns (thus excluding local licensing canvassing efforts pursuant to
Section 7), and new foundation, grant, donation and entrepreneurial activities, except
where revenues from these sources are designated for specific purposes within the Animal
Services Program. Calculation and allocation of Estimated and Actual New Regional
Revenues are further described in Exhibit C -4. For Service Year 2013, Estimated New
Regional Revenues are assumed to be zero. If New Regional Revenues are received in
2013, they will be accounted for in the reconciliation of 2013 Payments. ENR excludes
Designated Donations, Total Non Licensing Revenue and Total Licensing Revenue.
"Designated Donations" mean donations from individuals or other third parties to the
County made for the purpose of supporting specific operations, programs or facilities
within the Animal Services Program.
"Licensing Revenue Support" means activities or funding to be undertaken in specific
cities to enhance licensing revenues, per Section 7, Exhibit C -5 and Exhibit F.
"Annual Budget Inflator Cap" means the maximum amount by which the Budgeted Total
Allocable Costs may be increased from one Service Year to the next Service Year, and year
to year, which is calculated as the rate of inflation (based on the annual change in the
September CPI -U for the Seattle- Tacoma Bremerton area over the rate the preceding year)
plus the rate of population growth for the preceding year for the County (including the
unincorporated area and all Contracting Cities), as identified by comparing the two most
recently published July OFM city and county population reports. The cost allocations to
individual services (e.g. Control Services, Shelter Services or Licensing Services) or specific
items within those services may be increased or decreased from year to year in so long as
the Budgeted Total Annual Allocable Costs do not exceed the Annual Budget Inflator Cap..
"Service Year" is the calendar year in which Animal Services are /were provided.
"Calculation Period" is the time period from which data is used to calculate the Estimated
Payment. The Calculation Period differs by formula component and Service Year. Exhibit
C -6 sets forth in table form the Calculation Periods for all formula factors for Service Years
2013, 2014 and 2015.
"Population" with respect to any Contracting Party for Service Year 2013 means the
population number derived from the State Office of Financial Management (OFM) most
recent annually published report of population used for purposes of allocating state
shared revenues in the subsequent calendar year (typically published by OFM each July,
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
32
76
reflecting final population estimates as of April of the same calendar uearl. For each Service
Year, the OFM reported population will be adjusted for annexations of 2,500 or more
residents known to be occurring after April, 2012 and before the end of the Service Year.
For example, when the final Estimated Payment calculation for 2013 is provided on
December 15, 2012, the population numbers used will be from the OFM report issued in
July 2012 and will be adjusted for all annexations of 2,500 or more residents that occurred
(or are known to be occurring) between April 2012 and December 31, 2013. In any Service
Year, if: (1) annexations of areas with a population of 2,500 or more people occurs to
impact the population within the jurisdiction of a Contracting Party; or (2) a Latecomer
City is brought under contract with the County, these changes shall be accounted for in the
calculation of the Estimated Payment for such Service Year by adjusting the "Program
Load Factor" (or "LF for each Contracting Party. Such adjustment shall be made at the
next occurring possibility (e.g., at calculation of the Preliminary Estimated Payment, Final
Estimated Payment, or Reconciliation, whichever is soonest). The adjustment in LF will be
made on a pro rata basis to reflect the portion of the year in which the population change
was in effect.
In the case of an annexation, the LF calculation will consider the time the annexed
area was in the Contracting Party's jurisdiction and the portion of the year in which
the area was not in such Party's jurisdiction, as well as the relative shift in
population (if any) attributable solely to the annexation as between all Contracting
Parties, by adding (or subtracting) to the LF for each Contracting Party an amount
that is 20% (reflecting the general allocation of cost under the Agreement based on
population) of the change in population for each Contracting Party (expressed as a
percentage of the Contracting Party's population as compared to the total population
for all Contracting Parties) derived by comparing the Final 2013 Estimated Payment
population percentage (LF) to the population percentage after considering the
annexation. The population of an annexed area will be as determined by the
Boundary Review Board, in consultation with the annexing city. The population of
the unincorporated area within any District will be determined by the County's
demographer.
In the case of a Latecomer City, the population shall be similarly adjusted among all
Contracting Parties in the manner described above for annexations, by considering
the change in population between all Contracting Parties attributable solely to the
Latecomer City becoming a Contracting Party.
Exhibit C -1 shows the calculation of Pre Commitment EP for Service Year 2013, assuming
that the County and all Cities that have expressed interest in signing this Agreement as of
May 16, 2012, do in fact approve and sign the Agreement and as a result the Minimum
Contract Requirements with respect to all such Cities and the County are met per Section
15,
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
33
77
Comvonent Calculation Formulas (used in Service Year 2013):
EC is calculated as follows:
EC {[(C x.5) x.81 x CFS} {((C x .5) x.21 x D -Pop}
Where:
"C" is the Budgeted Net Allocable Control Services Cost for the Service Year, which
equals the County's Budgeted Total Allocable Costs for Control Services in the Service
Year, less the Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue attributable to Control Services in
the Service Year (for example, fines issued in the field) and less 17% of Estimated New
Regional Revenues "ENR For purposes of determining the Pre Commitment
Estimated Payments for 2013, the Budgeted Net Allocable Control Services Cost is
$1,690,447, calculated as shown on Exhibit C -3, and shall be similarly derived to
determine the Preliminary and Final Estimated Payment for 2013 and for Service Year 2016
if the Agreement is extended beyond December 31, 2015.
"CFS" is the total annual number of Calls for Service for the Service Year for Control
Services originating within the City expressed as a percentage of the CFS for all Contract
Parties within the same Control District. A Call for Service is defined as a request from an
individual, business or jurisdiction for a control service response to a location within the
City, or a response initiated by an Animal Control Officer in the field, which is entered
into the County's data system (at the Animal Services call center or the sheriff's dispatch
center acting as back -up to the call center) as a request for service. Calls for information,
hang -ups and veterinary transfers are not included in the calculation of Calls for Service.
A response by an Animal Control Officer pursuant to an Enhanced Control Services
Contract will not be counted as a Call for Service. For purposes of determining the
Estimated Payment in 2013, the Calculation Period for CFS is calendar year 2011 actual
data. Exhibit C -2 shows a preliminary estimate of 2011 CFS used to determine the Pre
Commitment Estimated 2013 Payment; the numbers in this Exhibit C -2 are subject to
Reconciliation by June 30, 2012.
"D -Pop" is the Population of the City, expressed as a percentage of the Population of all
jurisdictions within the applicable Control District.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
34
r:
ES for Service Year 2013 is calculated as follows:
If, as of the effective date of this Agreement, the City has entered into a contract for shelter
services with the Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) in Lynnwood, WA, then, for
so long as such contract remains in effect, the City will not pay a share of shelter costs
associated with shelter usage "A" as defined below) and instead the Estimated Payment
will include a population -based charge only, reflecting the regional shelter benefits
nonetheless received by such City, calculated as follows (the components of this
calculation are defined as described below).
ES (S x.2 x Pop)
If the City does not qualify for the population -based shelter charge only, ES is determined
as follows:
ES =(S x.2x Pop) +(S x.8xA)
Where:
"S" is the Budgeted Net Allocable Shelter Services Cost for the Service Year, which equals
the County's Budgeted Total Allocable Costs for Shelter Services less Budgeted Total Non
Licensing Revenue attributable to Shelter operations (i.e., adoption fees, microchip fees,
impound fees, owner surrender fees, from all Contracting Parties) and less 27% of
Estimated New Regional Revenues (ENR) in the Service Year. For purposes of
determining the Pre Commitment Estimated Payments for 2013, the Budgeted Net
Allocable Shelter Services Cost is $2,707,453, calculated as shown on Exhibit C -3, and shall
be similarly derived to determine the Preliminary and Final Estimated Payments for 2013
and for Service Year 2016 if the Agreement is extended beyond December 31, 2015.
"Pop" is the population of the City expressed as a percentage of the Population of all
Contracting Parties.
"A" is the total number of animals that were: (1) picked up by County Animal Control
Officers from within the City, (2) delivered by a City resident to the County shelter, or (3)
delivered to the shelter that are owned by a resident of the City expressed as a percentage of
the total number of animals in the County Shelter during the Calculation Period. For
purposes of the 2013 Estimated Payment, the Calculation Period for "A" is calendar year
2011. Exhibit C -2 shows a preliminary estimate of "A" for 2011 used to determine the Pre
Commitment Estimated 2013 Payments; the numbers in this exhibit are subject to
Reconciliation by June 30, 2012.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12 35
79
EL for Service Year 2013 is calculated as follows:
EL (L x.2 x Pop) (L x.8 x I)
OW76 M
"L" is the Budgeted Net Licensing Services Cost for the Service Year, which equals the
County's Budgeted Total Allocable Costs for License Services in the Service Year less
Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue attributable to License Services (for example, pet
license late fees) in the Service Year and less 6% of Estimated New Regional Revenues
(ENR) in the Service Year. For purposes of determining the Pre Commitment Estimated
Payments for 2013, the Budgeted Net Licensing Cost is $660,375, calculated as shown on
Exhibit C -3, and shall be similarly derived to determine the Preliminary and final
Estimated Payments for 2013 and for Service Year 2016 if the Agreement is extended
beyond December 31, 2015.
"Pop" is the Population of the City expressed as a percentage of the population of all
Contracting Parties.
"I" is the number of active paid regular pet licenses (e.g., excluding 'buddy licenses" or
temporary licenses) issued to City residents during the Calculation Period. For purposes
of calculating the Estimated Payment in 2013, the Calculation Period for "I" is calendar
year 2011. Exhibit C -2 shows a preliminary estimate of "I" to be used for calculating the
Pre Commitment Estimated 2013 Payments; the numbers in this Exhibit are subject to
reconciliation by June 30, 2012,
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
36
pre-commitment estimated 2013 payment calculation
#w
»t!k 5\
k!
\ti
;!k
w
rn
Exhibit C -2
Population, Calls for Service, Shelter Use and Licensing Data for Jurisdictions,
Used to Derive the Pre Commitment 2013 Estimated
Source: Wash. St. Office of Financial Management, KC Office of Management and Budget, Regional Animal Services of KC
Date: February 22, 2012
Proposed
Estimated 2013
District
Jurisdiction
Population
Bothell
Intakes
Carnation
I
1,7801
Duvall
1
51
Estimated Unincorporated King County
6,7151
Kenmore
o
Kirkland
N
Lake Forest Park
(see total below) I(see total below)
Redmond
1161
Sammamish
2,021
Shoreline
2301
Woodinville
Beaux Arts
Bellevue
Clyde Hill
Estimated Unincorporated King County
N Issaquah
N Mercer Island
Newcastle
North Bend
Snoqualmie
Yarrow Pt
(Kent (Includes Panther Lake Annexation)
1SeaTac
(Tukwila
1Auburn
0
(Black Diamond
Covington
Enumclaw
Estimated Unincorporated King County
Maple Valley
City Totals
King County Unincorporated Area Totals
TOTALS
2011
Estimated 2013
Estimated 2013
Estimated 2013
Population
Calls
Intakes
Licenses
I
1,7801
1
131
1
51
160
6,7151
341
231
712
65,6421
2401
(see total below) I(see total below)
20,7801
1161
01
2,021
80,7381
2301
1091
7,855
12,6101
701
01
1,666
55,1501
871
471
3,980
46,9401
851
361
3,970
53,2001
2811
01
4,967
10,9401
341
01
998
3001
01
01
331
123, 4001
3171
1851
9,3801
2,9851
31
31
248
87,5721
4181
(see total below) I(see total below)
30,6901
1321
581
1,942
22,7101
211
111
1,727
10,4101
401
131
520
5,8301
421
261
535
10,9501
271
101
8421
1,0051
11
01
1001
118,2001
6141
1,4541
8,555
27,1101
2001
3391
1,544
19,0501
1211
2001
1, 0651
01
01
01
01
4,1601
181
241
340
17,6401
1321
1451
1,642
10,9201
1101
1011
872
100,3331
7831
(see total below) I (see total below)
22,9301
891
1111
1,919
782, 78 51
2,8171
2,9001
57,593
187, 9051
1,4411
1,4251
27,1751
970,6901
4,2581
4,3251
84,7681
Note: Usage data from 2011 activity. License count excludes Senior Lifetime Licenses
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
39
Exhibit C -3
Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue, and
Budgeted Net Allocable Costs
This Exhibit Shows the Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non
Licensing Revenue, and Budgeted Net Allocable Costs to derive Pre Commitment Estimated 2013
Payments. All values shown are based on annualized costs and revenues. The staffing levels
incorporated in this calculation are for year 2013 only and except as otherwise expressly provided in
the Agreement may change from year to year as the County determines may be appropriate to
achieve efficiencies, etc.
Control Services: Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non
Licensing Revenue, and Budgeted Net Allocable Costs
The calculation of Pre Commitment Estimated 2013 Control Services Costs is shown below (all
costs in 2012 dollars).
Cost
Methodology
1 I Direct Service Management Staff Costs
$148,361
2 Direct Service Field Staff Costs
$725,879
3 Call Center Direct Service Staff Costs
$229,697
4 Overtime, Duty, Shift Differential and Temp Costs
$80,891
5 Facilities Costs
$8,990
6 Office and Other Operational Supplies and Equipment
$17,500
7 Printing, Publications, and Postage
$34,000
8 Medical Costs
$22,500
9 Other Services
$80,000
10 Transportation
$141,904
11 Communications Costs
$38,811
12 IT Costs and Services
$50,626
13 Misc Direct Costs
$41,900
14 General Fund Overhead Costs
$15,842
15 Division Overhead Costs
$110,490
16 Other Overhead Costs
$23,096
12010 Budgeted Total Allocable Control Services Cost 1 $1,770,487 1
17 Less 2010 Budgeted Total Non- Licensing Revenue $80,040
Attributable to Control Services
18 Less 17% of Estimated New Regional Revenues for 2013 0
2010 Budgeted Net Allocable Control Services Cost $1,690,447
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
Rol
iI
NOTES:
4 These additional salary costs support complete response to calls at the end of the day,
limited response to emergency calls after hours, and extra help during peak call
times.
5 Facilities costs include maintenance and utilities for a portion (5 of the Kent
Shelter (which houses the call center staff operations and records retention as well as
providing a base station for field officers). Excludes all costs associated with the
Crossroads facility.
6 This item includes the office supplies required for both the call center as well as a
wide variety of non- computer equipment and supplies related to animal control field
operations (e.g., uniforms, tranquilizer guns, boots, etc.).
7 This cost element consists of printing and publication costs for various materials
used in the field for animal control.
8 Medical costs include the cost for ambulance and hospital care for animals requiring
emergency services.
9 Services for animal control operations vary by year but consist primarily of
consulting vets and laboratory costs associated with cruelty cases.
10 Transportation costs include the cost of the maintenance, repair, and replacement of
the animal care and control vehicles and cabs, fuel, and reimbursement for
occasional job related use of a personal vehicle.
11 Communication costs involve the direct service costs for telephone, cell phone,
radio, and pager use.
12 Information technology direct costs include IT equipment replacement as well as
direct services costs. Excludes approximately $50,000 in service costs associated
with mainframe systems.
13 Miscellaneous direct costs consist of all animal control costs not listed above
including but not limited to contingency, training, certification, and bad checks.
14 General fund overhead costs included in this model include building occupancy
charges and HR/personnel services. No other General Fund overhead costs are
included in the model.
15 Division overhead includes a portion of the following personnel time as well as a
portion of division administration non -labor costs, both based on FTEs: division
director, assistant division director, administration, program manager, finance
officer, payroll /accounts payable, and human resource officer.
16 Other overhead costs include IT, telecommunications, finance, and property services.
17 Non licensing revenue attributable to field operations include animal control
violation penalties, charges for field pickup of deceased /owner relinquished animals,
and fines for failure to license.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
41
Shelter Services: Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non
Licensing Revenue, and Budgeted Net Allocable Costs
The calculation of Pre Commitment Estimated 2013 Shelter Services Costs is shown below (all
costs in 2012 dollars).
1 I Direct Service Management Staff Costs
2 Direct Service Shelter Staff Costs
3 Direct Service Clinic Staff Costs
4 Overtime, Duty, Shift Differential and Temp Costs
5 Facilities Costs
6 Office and Other Operational Supplies and Equipment
7 Printing, Publications, and Postage
8 Medical Costs
9 Other Services
10 Transportation
1 1 Communications Costs
12 IT Costs and Services
13 Misc Direct Costs
14 General Fund Overhead Costs
15 Division Overhead Costs
16 Other Overhead Costs
2010 Budgeted Total Allocable Shelter Services Cost
17 Less 2010 Budgeted Total Non- Licensing Revenue
Attributable to Shelter Services
18 Less 27% of Estimated New Regional Revenues for 2013
2010 Budgeted Net Allocable Shelter Services Cost
NOTES:
Cost
Methodology
$214,815
$1,168,436
$286,268
$159,682
$170,814
$94,200
$20,000
$127,500
$122,500
$10,566
$6,200
$51,360
$60,306
$113,614
$176,572
$37,124
$2,819,960
$112,507
0
$2,707,453
5 Facilities costs include maintenance and utilities for the majority (95 of the Kent Shelter
(which also houses the call center staff operations and records retention as well as providing
a base station for field officers). It excludes all costs associated with the Crossroads facility.
6 This item includes the office supplies as well as a wide variety of non computer equipment
and supplies related to animal care (e.g., uniforms, food, litter, etc.).
7 This cost element consists of printing and publication costs for various materials used at the
shelter.
8 Medical costs include the cost for ambulance and hospital care for animals requiring
emergency services as well as the cost for consulting vets, laboratory costs, medicine, and
vaccines.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
42
W
9 Services for animal control operations vary by year but include costs such as shipping of
food provided free of charge and sheltering of large animals.
10 Transportation costs include the cost of the maintenance, repair, and replacement of and fuel
for the animal care and control vehicles used by the shelter to facilitate adoptions, as well as
reimbursement for occasional job related use of a personal vehicle.
I 1 Communication costs involve the direct service costs for telephone, cell phone, radio, and
pager use.
12 Information technology direct costs include IT equipment replacement as well as direct
services costs.
13 Miscellaneous direct costs consist of all animal care costs not listed above including but not
limited to contingency, training, certification, and bad checks.
14 General fund overhead costs included in this model include building occupancy charges and
HR/personnel services. No other General Fund overhead costs are included in the model.
15 Division overhead includes a portion of the following personnel time as well as a portion of
division administration non -labor costs, both based on FTEs: division director, assistant
division director, administration, program manager, finance officer, payroll /accounts
payable, and human resource officer.
16 Other overhead costs include IT, telecommunications, finance, and property services.
17 Non licensing revenue attributable to sheltering operations include impound fees, microchip
fees, adoption fees, and owner relinquished euthanasia costs.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
43
Licensing Services: Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non
Licensing Revenue, and Budgeted Net Allocable Costs
The calculation of Pre Commitment Estimated 2013 Licensing Services Costs is shown below (all
costs in 2012 dollars).
Cost
Methodology
1 I Direct Service Management Staff Costs
$52,917
2 Direct Service Licensing Staff Costs
$346,523
3 Overtime, Duty, Shift Differential and Temp Costs
$26,295
4 Facilities Costs
$13,100
5 Office and Other Operational Supplies and Equipment
$3,300
6 Printing, Publications, and Postage
$74,600
7 Other Services
$14,500
8 Communications Costs
$2,265
9 IT Costs and Services
$77,953
10 Misc Direct Costs
$2,000
11 General Fund Overhead Costs
$9,884
12 Division Overhead Costs
$39,280
13 Other Overhead Costs
$11,023
2010 Budgeted Total Allocable Licensing Services Cost $673,640
14 Less 2010 Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue $13,265
Attributable to Licensing Services
15 Less 6% of Estimated New Regional Revenue -0-
2010 Budgeted Net Allocable Licensing Services Cost $660,375
NOTES:
4 Facilities costs include maintenance and utilities for the portion of the King County
Administration building occupied by the pet licensing staff and associated records.
5 This item includes the office supplies required for the licensing call center.
6 This cost element consists of printing, publication, and distribution costs for various
materials used to promote licensing of pets, including services to prepare materials for
mailing.
7 Services for animal licensing operations include the purchase of tags and monthly fees for
online pet licensing hosting.
8 Communication costs involve the direct service costs for telephone, cell phone, radio, and
pager use.
9 Information technology direct costs include IT equipment replacement as well as direct
services costs. Excludes approximately $120,000 in service costs associated with
mainframe systems.
10 Miscellaneous direct costs consist of all pet licensing costs not listed above including but not
limited to training, certification, transportation, and bad checks.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
44
I 1 General fund overhead costs included in this model include building occupancy charges and
HR/personnel services. No other General Fund overhead costs are included in the model.
12 Division overhead includes a portion of the following personnel time as well as a portion of
division administration non -labor costs, both based on FTEs: division director, assistant
division director, administration, program manager, finance officer, payroll /accounts
payable, and human resource officer.
13 Other overhead costs include IT, telecommunications, finance, and property services.
14 Non licensing revenue attributable to licensing operations consists of licensing late fees.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
M
w e
Exhibit C -4
Calculation and Allocation of Transition Funding Credit "T Shelter Credit "V
and Estimated New Regional Revenue "ENR
A. Transition Funding Credit
The Transition Funding Credit as originally calculated in the 2010 Agreement offset costs
to certain Contracting Cities that would have otherwise paid the highest per capita costs
for Animal Services in 2010. The credit was scheduled on a declining basis over four years
(2010- 2013). In this Agreement, the Contracting Cities qualifying for this credit are listed
in Table 1 below; these cities will receive the credit at the level calculated for 2013 in the
2010 Agreement for Service Years 2013, 2014 and 2015, provided that, application of the
credit can never result in the Estimated Payment Amount being less than zero ($0) (i.e.,
cannot result in the County owing the City an Estimated Payment). The allocation of the
Transition Funding Credit is shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Transition Funding Credit Annual Amount to be allocated each year in the
period from 2013 -2015
Jurisdiction
Transition
Funding
Credit
Carnation
$552
North Bend
I $1,376
Kent
$110,495
SeaTac
$7,442
Tukwila
$5,255
Black Diamond
I $1,209
Covington
$5,070
Enumclaw
$11,188
Maple Valley
$6,027
Note: The Transitional Funding Credit is the same regardless of which cities sign the Agreement.
B. Shelter Credit
The Shelter Credit is designed to offset costs for those Contracting Cities whose per capita
shelter intakes "A exceed the average for all Contracting Parties. A total of $750,000 will
be applied as a credit in each of the Service Years 2013 -2015 to Contracting Cities whose
per capita average shelter intakes "A exceeds the average for all Contracting Parties;
provided that application of the Shelter Credit can never result in the Estimated Payment
amount being less than zero ($0) (i.e., cannot result in the County owing the City an
Estimated Payment.) The 2013 Shelter Credit was determined based on estimated animal
Document Dated 5 -29 -12 46
intakes "A for Calendar Year 2011 as shown on Exhibit C -2. The $750,000 was allocated
between every Contracting City with animal intakes over the estimated 2011 Program
average, based on each Contracting City's relative per capita animal intakes in excess of
the average for all Contracting Parties. The Shelter Credit will be paid at the 2013 level in
Service Years 2014 and 2015. The County will consider providing the Shelter Credit in
Service Years 2016 and 2017 at the same level as for Service Year 2013.
Table 3: Annual Shelter Credit Allocation -2013 through 2015
City
North Bend
Kent
SeaTac
Tukwila
Black Diamond
Covington
Enumclaw
Maple Valley
Shelter Credit
$586
$495,870
1$116,611
$61,987
$3,263
$36,409
$28,407
$6,867
C. New Regional Revenue: Estimation and Allocation
Goal
New Regional Revenue for each Service Year shall be estimated as part of the
development of the Estimated Payment calculations for such Service Year. The goal of the
estimate shall be to reduce the amount of Estimated Payments where New Regional
Revenue to be received in the Service Year can be calculated with reasonable certainty.
The Estimated New Regional Revenue will be reconciled annually to account for actual
New Regional Revenue received, per Exhibit D.
Calculation of Estimated New Regional Revenue (ENR)
1. The value of the Estimated New Regional Revenue for Service Year 2013 is zero.
2. For Service Years after 2013, the Estimated New Regional Revenue will be set at the
amount the County includes for such revenue in its adopted budget for the Service
Year. For purposes of the Preliminary Estimated Payment calculation, the County
will include its best estimate for New Regional Revenue at the time the calculation
is issued, after first presenting such estimate to the Joint City County Committee for
its input.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
47
91
Application of ENR
For Service Years 2013 and 2016, 50% of the Estimated New Regional Revenue is
incorporated into the calculations of EC and ES and EL as described in Exhibit C,
specifically:
a. 17% of total Estimated New Regional Revenue is applied to reduce the total
Budgeted Net Allocable Control Services Cost.
b. 27% of total Estimated New Regional Revenue is applied to reduce the total
Budgeted Net Allocable Shelter Services Cost.
c. 6% of total Estimated New Regional Revenue is applied to reduce the total
Budgeted Net Allocable Licensing Services Cost.
These amounts are reconciled as against actual New Regional Revenue (ENRA) in
the annual Reconciliation process. In 2014, 2015 and 2017 the 50% is simply
deducted against Budgeted Total Allocable Costs to derive Budgeted Total Net
Allocable Costs.
2. For each Service Year, the remaining 50% of Estimated New Regional Revenue is
first applied to offset County contributions to the Program, in the following order of
priority.
a. Offset payments made by the County to fund Transition Funding Credits,
Shelter Credits, Impact Mitigation Credits (if any) and un- reimbursed
Licensing Revenue Support.
b. Offset County funding of Animal Services Program costs that are not
included in the cost allocation model described in Exhibit C, specifically,
costs of:
i. The medical director and volunteer coordinator staff at the Kent Shelter.
ii. Other County- sponsored costs for Animal Services that are not included
in the cost models described in Exhibit C.
C. In the event any of the 50% of Estimated New Regional Revenue remains
after applying it to items (a) and (b) above, the remainder "Residual New
Regional Revenue shall be held in a reserve and applied to the benefit of
all Contracting Parties as part of the annual Reconciliation process, in the
following order of priority:
i. First, to reduce pro -rata up to 20% of each Contracting Party's Estimated
Total Animal Services Cost Allocation (6th column in the spreadsheet at
Exhibit C -1), thereby reducing up to all cost allocations based on
population. This is the factor "X" in the Reconciliation formula.
ii. Second, to reduce pro rata the amount owing from each Contracting
Party with net final costs 0 after consideration of all other factors in
the Reconciliation formula.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
48
92
Offsets described in (a) and (b) above do not impact the calculation of Estimated
Payments or the Reconciliation of Estimated Payments since they are outside the cost
model. The allocations described in (c) above, if any, will be considered in the annual
Reconciliation as described in Exhibit D.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
49
93
Exhibit C -5
Licensing Revenue Support
A. The Contracting Cities that will receive licensing revenue support in 2013 are listed
below (collectively, these nine cities are referred to as the "Licensing Revenue
Support Cities These Cities have been selected by comparing the estimated 2013
Net Final Costs shown in Exhibit C -1 to the 2012 Estimated Net Final Cost. Where
the 2013 Net Final Cost estimate was higher than the 2012 estimate, the difference
was identified as the 2013 Licensing Revenue Target.
B. For any Licensing Revenue Support City in Table 1 whose Preliminary 2013
Estimated Payment is lower than the Pre Commitment Estimate shown in Exhibit
C -1, the Licensing Revenue Target "RT and the Revenue Goal "RG will be the
reduced by an amount equivalent to the reduction between the Pre Commitment
and Preliminary Estimated Payment amounts for 2013.
Table 1:
2013 Licensing Revenue Support Cities, Licensing Revenue Targets and Revenue
Goals*
City
2013
Base Year Revenue
Revenue Goal
Licensing Revenue
(2011 Estimate per
"RG" (total)
Target "RT"
Exhibit C -2)
(increment)
"Base Amount"
City of Carnation
$966
$4,752
$5,718
City of Duvall
$7,658
$21,343
$29,001
City of Kirkland
$23,853
$208,000
$231,853
City of Bellevue
$34,449
$273,931
$308,380
City of Newcastle
$2,599
$15,271
$17,870
City of North Bend
$6,463
$15,694
$22,157
City of Black Diamond
$2,001
$10,185
$12,186
City of Enumclaw
$5,973
$25,307
$31,280
City of Maple Valley
$6,956
$56,628
$63,584
*Amounts in this table are subject to adjustment per Paragraph B above.
C. The 2013 Licensing Revenue Target "RT is the amount each City in Table 1 will
receive in 2013, either in the form of additional licensing revenues over the Base
Year amount or as a Licensing Revenue Credit "LRC") applied at Reconciliation.
2 For Contracting Cities that purchase shelter services from PAWS, the target was based on the Pre Commitment 2013
Estimated Payment calculated in February 2012 during contract negotiations.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
50
I
D. As further described in Section 7 and Exhibit C -5, licensing revenue support
services include the provision of County staff and materials support (which may
include use of volunteers or other in -kind support) as determined necessary by the
County to generate the Licensing Revenue Target.
E. In 2014 and 2015, any Licensing Revenue Support City or other Contracting City
may request licensing revenue support services from the County under the terms of
Exhibit F. Provision of such services is subject to the County determining it has
capacity to perform such services. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Licensing
Revenue Support City for which RT is in excess of $20,000 per year may receive
licensing revenue support service in all three years, but only if by September 1,
2012, it commits to providing in -kind support in all three Services Years by
executing the contract in Exhibit F with respect to all 3 Service Years (2013, 2014
and 2015). Allocation of licensing revenue support services in 2014 and 2015 will be
prioritized first to meet the County's contractual commitment, if any, to a Licensing
Revenue Support City that has entered into a 3 -year agreement for such service.
Thereafter, service shall be allocated to Licensing Revenue Support Cities
requesting such service on first -come, first served basis; and thereafter to any other
Contracting City requesting such service on a first -come, first served basis.
Table 2:
Calculation of Estimated Payments and Licensing Revenue Credits
for Licensing Revenue Support Cities
For Service Year 2013:
The Estimated Payment calculation will include the 2013 Licensing Revenue
Support Target "RT if any, for the City per Table 1 above in the calculation of
Estimated Licensing Revenues "ER (these amounts are shown in separate
columns on Exhibit C -1).
At Reconciliation:
For Cities with a RT $20,000, Actual Licensing Revenue for 2013 "AR2013")
will be determined by allocating 65% of Licensing Revenues received (if
any) over the Base Amount to determine AR2013
if Actual Licensing Revenue for 2013 "AR2013") Revenue Goal "RG then
no additional credit is payable to the City "LRC" $0)
If AR2013 RG, then the difference (RG -AR) is the Licensing Revenue Credit
"LRC included in the Reconciliation Adjustment Amount provided that,
for Cities whose RT >$20,000, 35% of Licensing Revenues over the Base
Amount shall be allocated to increase LRC when the value of ANFCo is
being calculated at Reconciliation, and provided further, that in all cases LRC
cannot exceed the 2013 Licensing Revenue Target for the City.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
51
95
For Service Year 2014, if the City and County have executed a Licensing Support Contract
per Exhibit F, and the City is therefore providing additional in -kind services in order to
generate licensing revenue support in 2014, then:
The Estimated Payment for 2014 will include Estimated Licensing Revenues
calculated at the amount of Actual Revenue "AR for 2012 or the Revenue Goal
(RG), whichever is greater. RG will be the amount in Table 1 for Licensing
Revenue Support Cities, or such other amount as the Parties may agree in the
Licensing Support Contract.
At Reconciliation:
For Cities with a RT $20,000, AR 2014 will be determined by allocating 65%
of Licensing Revenues received (if any) over the Base Amount to determine
AR2014
If Actual Licensing Revenue in 2014 is greater than the Revenue Goal (AR2014
RG), then
no Licensing Revenue Credit is payable to the City (LRC $0), and
The County shall charge the City for an amount which is the lesser of
(a) the cost of County's licensing support services in 2014 to the City
(as defined in the Licensing Support Contract for 2014), or (b) the
amount by which AR2014 >RG.
If AR2014 RG, then the difference (RG- AR2014) is LRC. The LRC amount is
added to reduce the City's costs when calculating the Reconciliation
Adjustment Amount, provided that, for Cities whose RT >$20,000, 35% of
Licensing Revenues over the Base Amount shall be allocated to increase
"LRC") a when the value of ANFCo is being calculated at Reconciliation,
and provided further that in all cases LRC cannot exceed the 2013 Licensing
Revenue Target for the City.
For Service Year 2015, the process and calculation shall be the same as for 2014, e.g.:
if the City and County have executed Exhibit F, and the City is therefore providing
additional in -kind services in order to generate Licensing Revenue Support in 2015, then:
The Estimated Payment for 2015 will include Estimated Licensing Revenues
calculated at the amount of Actual Revenue ("AR for 2013 (excluding LRC paid
for Service Year 2013) or RG, whichever is greater. RG will be the amount in Table
1 for Licensing Revenue Support Cities, or such other amount as the Parties may
agree in the Licensing Support Contract.
At Reconciliation:
For Cities with a RT $20,000, AR 2015 will be determined by allocating 65%
of Licensing Revenues received (if any) over the Base Amount to determine
AR2015
If Actual 2015 Licensing Revenue is greater than the Revenue Goal (AR2015
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
52
RG), then
no Licensing Revenue Credit is payable to the City (LRC $0), and
The County shall charge the City for an amount which is the lesser of
(a) the cost of County's licensing support services in 2015 to the City
(as defined in the Licensing Support Contract for 2015), or (b) the
amount by which AR201s >RG.
o If AR2o15 RG, then the difference (RG- AR2ms) is LRC. The LRC amount is
added to reduce the City's costs when calculating the Reconciliation
Adjustment Amount; provided that, for Cities whose RT >$20,000, 35% of
Licensing Revenues over the Base Amount shall be allocated to increase
"LRC when the value of ANFCo is being calculated at Reconciliation, and
and provided further that in all cases LRC cannot exceed the 2013 Licensing
Revenue Target for the City.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
53
97
Exhibit C -6:
Summary of Calculation Periods for Use and Population Components
This Exhibit restates in summary table form the Calculation Periods used for calculating
the usage and population components in the formulas to derive Estimated Payments. See
Exhibit C for complete formulas and definitions of the formula components.
ER is estimated Licensing Revenue attributable to the City
CFS is total annual number of Calls for Service originating in the City
A is the number of animals in the shelter attributable to the City
I is the number of active paid regular pet licenses issued to City residents
ENR is the New Regional Revenue estimated to be received during the Service Year
Pop is Population of the City expressed as a percentage of all Contracting Parties; D -Pop is
Population of the City expressed as a percentage of the population of all jurisdictions
within a Control District
Calculation Periods Service Year 2013
Component
Preliminary
Estimated 2013
Reconciliation Payment
Estimated 2013
Payment (final)
Amount
Payment (published
(published December 15
(determined June 2014)
August 2012)
2012)
ER
Actual 2011
Same
Actual 2013
(Estimated
Revenue)
CFS
Actual 2011
Same
N/A
(Calls for
Service)
A
Actual 2011
Same
N/A
(Animal
intakes)
I (Issued Pet
Actual 2011
Same
N/A
Licenses)
ENR
Estimated 2013 ($0)
Estimated 2013 ($0)
Actual 2013
(Estimated
New Regional
Revenue)
Pop, D -Pop
July 2012 OFM report,
Same, adjusted for all
Same, adjusted for all
(Population)
adjusted for
annexations 2,500
annexations 2,500
annexations 2,500
occurring (and
occurring (and Latecomer
occurring (and
Latecomer Cities joining)
Cities joining) after April
Latecomer Cities
after April 2012 and
and before the end of 2013
joining) after April
before the end of 2013
2012 and before the
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
54
end of 2013.
Calculation Periods: Service Year 2014
Estimated 2015
Component
Preliminary
Estimated 2014
Reconciliation
Payment (published
Estimated 2014
Payment (published
Payment Amount
Payment (published
December 2013)
(determined June 2015)
Actual 2015
September 2013)
N/A
N/A
ER
Actual 2012
Same
Actual 2014
CFS
N/A
N/A
N/A
A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
ENR
Estimated 2014
Estimated 2014
Actual 2014
Pop, D -Pop
July 2012 OFM report,
Same, adjusted for all
Same, adjusted for all
joining) after April
adjusted for all
annexations 2,500
annexations 2,500 (and
annexations 2,500
known to take effect (and
Latecomer Cities joining)
known to take effect
Latecomer Cities joining)
occurring after April 2012
shall be developed in a manner comparable to year 2014.
(and Latecomer Cities
after April 2012 and
and before the end of
joining) after April
before the end of 2014
2014
2012 and before the
end of 2014.
Calculation Periods: Service Year 2015
Component Preliminary
Estimated 2015
Reconciliation
Estimated 2015
Payment (published
Payment Amount
Payment (published
December 2014)
(determined June 2016)
September 2014)
ER Actual 2013
Same
Actual 2015
CFS N/A
N/A
N/A
A N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
ENR I Estimated 2015
Estimated 2015
Actual 2015
Pop, D -Pop July 2012 OFM report,
Same, adjusted for all
Same, adjusted for all
adjusted for all
annexations 2,500
annexations 2,500
annexations 2,500
known to take effect (and
occurring (and
known take effect
Latecomer Cities joining)
Latecomer Cities joining)
(and Latecomer Cities
after April 2012 and
after April 2012 and
joining) after April
before the end of 2015
before the end of 2015
2012 and before the
end of 2015.
If the Agreement is extended past 2015 for an additional 2 years, the calculation periods
for 2016 shall be developed in a manner comparable to Service
Year 2013, and for 2017
shall be developed in a manner comparable to year 2014.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
55
Exhibit C -7
Payment and Calculation Schedule
Service Year 2013
Item Date
Preliminary estimate of 2013 Estimated August 1, 2012
Payments provided to City by County
Final Estimated 2013 Payment calculation December 15, 2012
provided to City by County
First 2013 Estimated Payment due June 15, 2013
Second 2013 Estimated Payment due December 15, 2013
2013 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount On or before June 30, 2014
calculated
2013 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount On or before August 15, 2014
payable
Service Year 2014
I Date
Item
Date
Preliminary estimate of 2014 Estimated
September 1, 2013
Payments provided to City by County
December 15, 2014
Final Estimated 2014 Payment calculation
December 15, 2013
provided to City by County
June 15, 2015
First 2014 Estimated Payment due
June 15, 2014
Second 2014 Estimated Payment due
December 15, 2014
2014 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount
On or before June 30, 2015
calculated
August 15, 2016
2014 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount
August 15, 2015
Payable
Service Year 2015
Item
I Date
Preliminary estimate of 2015 Estimated
September 1, 2014
Payments provided to City by County
Final Estimated 2015 Payment calculation
December 15, 2014
provided to City by County
First 2015 Estimated Payment due
June 15, 2015
Second 2015 Estimated Payment due
December 15, 2015
2015 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount
On or before June 30, 2016
calculated
2015 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount
August 15, 2016
Payable
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
56
MI
If the Agreement is extended past December 31, 2015, the schedule is developed in the
same manner as described above for years 2016 and 2017.
Additional timelines are in place to commence and complete negotiations for an extension
of the Agreement:
County convenes interested Contracting September 2014
Cities to discuss (1) a possible extension on
the same terms and (2) a possible extension
on different terms.
Notice of Intent by either Party not to renew March 1, 2015
agreement on the same terms (Cities also
indicate whether they wish to negotiate for
an extension on different terms or to let
Agreement expire at end of 2015)
Deadline for signing an extension (whether July 1, 2015
on the same or amended terms)
See Section 4 of Agreement for additional details on Extension of the Agreement Term for
an additional two years.
Dates for remittal to County of pet license Quarterly, each March 31, June 30,
sales revenues processed by Contracting September 30, December 31
Cities (per section 3.0
Except as otherwise provided for Licensing Revenue Support Cities with a Licensing
Revenue Target greater than $20,000 /year, requests for Licensing Revenue Support in
Service Years 2014 or 2015 may be made at any time between June 30 and October 31 of the
prior Service Year. (See Exhibit C -5 for additional detail).
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
57
101
Exhibit D
Reconciliation
The purpose of the reconciliation calculation is to adjust payments made each Service Year
by Contracting Parties to reflect actual licensing and non licensing revenue, various
credits, and New Regional Revenue, as compared to the estimates of such revenues and
credits incorporated in the Estimated Payment calculations, and to adjust for population
changes resulting from annexations of areas with a population of over 2,500 (if any) and
the addition of Latecomer Cities. To accomplish this, an "Adjusted Net Final Cost"
"ANFC calculation is made each June for each Contracting Party as described below,
and then adjusted for various factors as described in this Exhibit D.
As noted in Section 7 of the Agreement, the Parties intend that receipt of Animal Services
should not be a profit- making enterprise. When a City receives revenues in excess of its
costs under this Agreement (including costs of PAWS shelter service, if applicable), such
excess will be reinvested to reduce costs incurred by other Contracting Parties. The cost
allocation formulas of this Agreement are intended to achieve this outcome.
Terms not otherwise defined here have the meanings set forth in Exhibit C or the body of
the Agreement.
Calculation of ANFC and Reconciliation Adjustment Amount
The following formula will be used to calculate the Reconciliation Adjustment Amount,
which shall be payable by August 15. The factors in the formula are defined below. As
described in paragraphs A and B, the subscript "0" denotes the initial calculation;
subscript "1" denotes the final calculation.
ANFCo (AR T V X LRC) (B x LF)
A. If ANFCo 0, i.e., revenues and credits are greater than costs (adding the cost
factor "W" in the formula for Contracting Cities purchasing shelter services from
PAWS or purchasing Enhanced Control Services), then:
ANFC1 0, i.e., it is reset to zero and the difference between ANFCo and ANFCi is
set aside by the County (or, if the revenues are not in the possession of the County,
then the gap amount is payable by the City to the County by August 15) and all
such excess amounts from all Contracting Parties where ANCFo 0 are allocated
pro -rata to parties for which ANFC, 0, per paragraph B below. Contracting
Parties for which ANFCo 0 do not receive a reconciliation payment.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
58
102
B. If ANFCo 0, i.e., costs are greater than revenues (without considering "W" for those
Contracting Cities purchasing shelter services from PAWS or purchasing Enhanced
Control Services), then the negative dollar amount is not "reset" and ANFC1 is the
same as ANFCo. Contracting Parties in this situation will receive a pro -rata
allocation from the sum of excess revenues from those Parties for which ANFCo>
0 per paragraph A. In this way, excess revenues are reallocated across Contracting
Parties with net final costs.
C. If, after crediting the City with its pro rata share of any excess revenues per
paragraph B, ANFC1 Total Estimated Payments made in the Service Year, then
the difference shall be paid by the County to the City no later than August 15; if
ANFC, Total Estimated Payments made in the Service Year, then the difference
shall be paid by the City to the County no later than August 15.
Where:
"AR" is Actual Licensing Revenue attributable to the City, based on actual Licensing
Revenues received from residents of the City in the Service Year, adjusted for Cities with a
Licensing Revenue Target $20,000 as described in Exhibit C -5. (License Revenue that
cannot be attributed to a specific Party (e.g., License Revenue associated with incomplete
address information), will be allocated amongst the Parties based on their respective
percentages of total AR).
"T" is the Transition Funding Credit, if any, for the Service Year.
"V" is the Shelter Credit, if any, for the Service Year.
"W" is the actual amount paid by a City receiving shelter services to PAWS for such
services during the Service Year, if any, plus the actual amount paid by a City to the
County for the purchase of Enhanced Control Services during the Service Year, if any.
"X" is the amount of Residual New Regional Revenue, if any, allocable to the City from
the 50% of New Regional Revenues which is first applied to offset County costs for
funding Shelter Credits, Transition Funding Credits and any Program costs not allocated
in the cost model. The residual is shared amongst the Contracting Parties to reduce pro
rata up to 20% of each Contracting Party's Estimated Total Animal Services Cost
Allocation (See column titled "Estimated Total Animal Services Cost Allocation" in the
spreadsheet at Exhibit C -1).
"LRC" is the amount of any Licensing Revenue Credit or Charge to be applied based on
receipt of licensing support services. For a Licensing Revenue Support City designated in
Exhibit C -5, the amount shall be determined per Table 2 of Exhibit C -5 and the associated
Document Dated 5-29-12 59
103
Licensing Support Contract, if any. Where a Licensing Revenue Support City is due a
Licensing Revenue Credit, the amount applied for this factor is a positive dollar amount
(e.g., increases City's revenues in the amount of the credit); if a Licensing Revenue Support
City is assessed a Licensing Revenue Charge, the amount applied for this factor is a
negative amount (e.g., increases City's costs). For any Contracting City receiving licensing
support services per a Licensing Support Contract/ Exhibit F other than a Licensing
Revenue Support City, LRC will be a negative amount (increasing the City's costs) equal
to the County's cost of the licensing support set forth in the Attachment A to the Licensing
Support Contract.
"B" is the "Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs" as estimated for the Service Year for the
provision of Animal Services to be allocated between all the Contracting Parties for the
purposes of determining the Estimated Payment, calculated as described in Exhibit C.
"LF" is the "Program Load Factor" attributable to City for the Service Year, calculated as
described in Exhibit C. LF will be recalculated if necessary to account for annexations of
areas with a population of 2,500 or more people, or for Latecomer Cities if such events
were not accounted for in the Final Estimated Payment Calculation for the Service Year
being reconciled.
Additional Allocation of New Regional Revenues after calculation of all amounts
above: If there is any residual New Regional Revenue remaining after allocating the full
possible "V amount to each Party (to fully eliminate the population based portion of
costs), the remainder shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to all Contracting Parties for
which ANFCi 0. If there is any residual thereafter, it will be applied to improve Animal
Services.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
A 1,
Exhibit E
Enhanced Control Services Contract (Optional)
Between City of "City and King County "County
The County will to offer Enhanced Control Services to the City during Service Years 2013,
2014 and 2105 of the Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015
between the City and the County dated and effective as of July 1, 2012 (the "Agreement
subject to the terms and conditions as described herein. The provisions of this Contract
are optional to both Parties and shall not be effective unless executed by both Parties.
A. The City may request services under two different options, summarized here and
described in further detail below:
Option 1: for a period of not less than one year, the City may request service from
an Animal Control Officer dedicated to the City "Dedicated Officer Such service
must be confirmed in writing through both Parties entering into this Enhanced
Control Services Contract no later than August 15 of the year prior to the Service
Year in which the service is requested.
Option 2: for a period of less than one year, the City may request a specified
number of over -time service hours on specified days and time from the 6 Animal
Control Officers staffing the three Control Districts. Unlike Option 1, the individual
officers providing the service will be determined by the County and may vary from
time to time; the term "Dedicated Officer" used in context of Option 2 is thus
different than its meaning with respect to Option 1. Option 2 service must be
requested no later than 60 days prior to the commencement of the period in which
the service is requested, unless waived by the County.
The City shall initiate a request for enhanced service by completing and submitting
Attachment A to the County. If the County determines it is able to provide the
requested service, it will so confirm by completing and countersigning Attachment A
and signing this Contract and returning both to the City for final execution.
B. The County will provide enhanced Control Services to the City in the form of an
Animal Control Officer dedicated to the City "Dedicated Officer as described in
Attachment A and this Contract.
Costs identified in Attachment A for Option 1 are for one (1) year of service in
2010, in 2010 dollars, and include the cost of the employee (salary, benefits),
equipment and animal control vehicle for the employee's use). Costs are subject
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
ON
105
to adjustment each year, limited by the Annual Budget Inflator Cap (as defined
in the Agreement).
Costs for Option 2 will be determined by the County each year based on its
actual hourly overtime pay for the individual Animal Control Officers providing
the service, plus mileage at the federal reimbursement rate. The number of
miles for which mileage is charged shall be miles which would not have been
traveled but for the provision of the enhanced service.
3. Costs paid for enhanced services will be included in the Reconciliation
calculation for each Service Year, as described in Exhibit D of the Agreement.
C. Services of the Dedicated Officer shall be in addition to the Animal Services otherwise
provided to the City by the County through the Agreement. Accordingly, the calls
responded to by the Dedicated Officer shall not be incorporated in the calculation of
the City's Calls for Service (as further described in Exhibit C and D to the Agreement).
D. The scheduling of work by the Dedicated Officer will be determined by mutual
agreement of the contract administrators identified in the Agreement, and (in the case
of a purchase of service under Option 1) the mutual agreement of officials of other
Contracting Cities named as contract administrators that have committed to sharing in
the expense of the Dedicated Officer. In the event the parties are unable to agree on
scheduling, the County shall have the right to finally determine the schedule of the
Dedicated Officer(s).
E. Control Services to be provided to the City pursuant to this Enhanced Services
Contract include Control Services of the type and nature as described under the
Agreement with respect to Animal Control Officers serving in Control Districts, and
include but are not limited to, issuing written warnings, citations and other
enforcement notices and orders on behalf of the City, or such other services as the
Parties may reasonably agree.
F. The County will provide the City with a general quarterly calendar of scheduled
service in the City, and a monthly report of the types of services offered and
performed.
G. For Services vurchased under Option 1: An FTE will be scheduled to serve 40 hour
weeks, however, with loss of service hours potentially attributable to vacation, sick
leave, training and furlough days, not less than 1600 hours per year will be provided.
Similarly, a half -time FTE will provide not less than 800 hours per year. The County
shall submit to the City an invoice and billing voucher at the end of each calendar
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
62
"1:
quarter, excepting that during the 4th quarter of each year during the term of this
Contract, an invoice shall be submitted to the City no later than December 15 1 h. All
invoiced amounts shall be payable by the City within 30 days of the invoice date.
H. For Services vurchased under Option 2: The County shall submit to the City an
invoice and billing voucher at the end of each calendar quarter. All invoiced amounts
shall be payable by the City within 30 days of the invoice date.
The City or County may terminate this Enhanced Services Contract with or without
cause upon providing not less than 3 months written notice to the other Party;
provided that, if the City has purchased services under Option 1 and is sharing the
Enhanced Control Services with other Contracting Cities, this Contract may only be
terminated by the City if: (1) all such other Contracting Cities similarly agree to
terminate service on such date, or (2) if prior to such termination date another
Contracting City or Cities enters into a contract with the County to purchase the
Enhanced Control Service that the City wishes to terminate; provided further: except as
provided in Paragraph A.1, a Contract may not be terminated if the term of service
resulting is less than one year.
All terms of the Agreement, except as expressly stated otherwise in this Exhibit, shall
apply to this Enhanced Control Services Contract. Capitalized Terms not defined
herein have those meanings as set forth in the Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Enhanced Services Contract
to be executed effective as of this day of
King County
Dow Constantine
King County Executive
Date
Approved as to Form:
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
,201
City of
By:
Mayor /City Manager
Date
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
63
107
Exhibit E: Attachment A
ENHANCED CONTROL SERVICES OPTION REQUEST
(to be completed by City requesting Enhanced Control Services; final service terms subject
to adjustment by County and agreement by City and will be confirmed in writing
executed and appended to Enhanced Control Service Contract /Exhibit E)
City
Requested Enhanced Control Services Start Date:
Requested Enhanced Control Services End Date:
*term of service must be at least one year, except if purchasing services under Option 2.
Please indicate whether City is requesting services under Option 1 or Option 2:
Option 1:
of Full Time Equivalent Officer (FTE) requested:
requests must be in multiples of either 20% or 25
Option 2:
Overtime Hours purchase from existing ACO staff:
(minimum request: 20
hours per (week /month)
General Description of desired services (days, hours, nature of service):
For Option 1:
Contracting Cities with whom the City proposes to share the Enhanced Control
Services, and proposed percentages of an FTE those Cities are expected to request:
On behalf of the City, the undersigned understands and agrees that the County will
attempt to honor requests but reserves the right to propose aggregated, adjusted and
variously scheduled service, including but not limited to adjusting allocations of service from
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
iE
W i
increments of 20% to 25 in order to develop workable employment and scheduling for
the officers within then existing workrules, and that the City will be allowed to rescind or
amend its request for Enhanced Control Services as a result of such proposed changes.
Requests that cannot be combined to equal 50% of an FTE, 100% of an FTE, or some
multiple thereof may not be honored. Service must be requested for a minimum term
of one -year, except as permitted by Paragraph A.1. Service may not extend beyond the
term of the Agreement.
City requests that alone or in combination with requests of other Contracting Cities
equal at least 50% of an FTE will be charged at the rate in Column 1 below.
City requests that alone or in combination with other requests for Enhanced Control
Services equal 100% of an FTE will be charged at the rate in Column 2 below.
Cities may propose a different allocation approach for County consideration.
An FTE will be scheduled to serve 40 hour weeks, however, with loss of hours potentially
attributable to vacation, sick leave, training and furlough days, a minimum of 1600 hours
per year will be provided. A half -time FTE will provide a minimum of 800 hours per year.
For example, a commitment to purchase 20% of an FTE for enhanced service will result in
provision of not less than 320 hours per year.
Hours of service lost for vacation, sick leave, training and furlough days will be allocated
on pro rata basis between all Contracting Cities sharing the services of that FTE.
Column 1:
Aggregate of 50% of an FTE Requested by
all Participating Cities
Cost to City: of Half -Time FTE
requested) x $75,000 /year in 2010*
Example: if City A requests 25% of an
FTE and City B requests 25% of an
FTE then each city would pay $18,750
for Enhanced Control Services from July 1,
2010 through December 31, 2011 (6
months).
Column 2:
Aggregate of 1 FTE Requested by all
Participating Cities
Cost to City: of FTE requested) x
$115,000 /year in 2010
Example: If City A requests 25% of an FTE
and City B requests 25% of an FTE and
City C requests 50% of an FTE, Cities A
and B would pay $14,375 and City C
would pay $28,750 for Enhanced Control
Services from July 1, 2010 through
December 31, 2011 (6 months)
*(50% of a Half -Time FTE)
This example is based on 2010 costs. Actual costs will be based on actual Service Year FTE
costs.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
65
109
For Option 2:
On behalf of the City, the undersigned understands and agrees that the County will
confirm what services, if any, it can provide, and at what costs, by completing this
Attachment A, and the City must signify whether it accepts the County's offer by signing
the Enhanced Services Contract.
Request Signed as of this day of 201_.
City of
By:
Its
To be comvleted by Kine Countv:
Option 1: The County hereby confirms its ability and willingness to provide
Enhanced Control services as requested by the City in this Attachment A, with
adjustments as noted below (if any):
The FTE Cost for the Service Year in which the City has requested service is:
Option 2: the County confirms its ability to provide control service overtime hours
as follows (insert description— days /hours):
Such overtime hours shall be provided at a cost of (may be a
range) per service hour, with the actual cost depending on the individual(s)
assigned to work the hours, plus mileage at the federal reimbursement rate.
King County
By:
Its
Date:
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
No!
Mi
Exhibit F
Licensing Support Contract (Optional)
Between City of "City and King County "County
The County is prepared to offer licensing revenue support to the City subject to the terms
and conditions described in this Licensing Support Contract "Contract The provisions
of this Exhibit are optional and shall not be effective unless this Exhibit is executed by both
the City and the County and both parties have entered into the underlying Animal
Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015 (the "Agreement
A. Service Reauests. Submittal: Requests to enter into a licensing support contract
should be made by submitting the Licensing Revenue Support Services Request
(Attachment A to this Exhibit F) to the County between June 30 and October 31 of the
calendar year prior to year in which such services are requested "Service Year A
separate Request shall be submitted for each Service Year, excepting that a Licensing
Support City with a revenue target in excess of $20,000 /year may submit a request by
September 1, 2012 in order to receive service in all three Service Years (2013, 2014 and
2015).
B. Countv to Determine Service Availabilitv: The County will determine whether it has
capacity to provide the requested service based on whether it has staff available, and
consistent with the priorities stated in Section 7.c and Exhibit C -5 of the Agreement.
C. Services Provided by County. Cost: The County will determine the licensing revenue
support activities it will undertake to achieve the Licensing Revenue Target. Activities
may include, but are not limited to canvassing, mailings, calls to non renewals. In
completing Attachment A to confirm its ability to provide licensing support services to
the City, the County shall identify the cost for such service for each applicable Service
Year. If the City accepts the County's proposed costs, it shall so signify by
countersigning Attachment A.
D. Services Provided by City: In exchange for receiving licensing revenue support from
the County, the City will provide the following services:
1. Include inserts regarding animal licensing in bills or other mailings as may be
allowed by law, at the City's cost. The County will provide the design for the insert
and coordinate with the City to deliver the design on an agreed upon schedule.
2. Dedicate a minimum level of volunteer /staff hours per month (averaged over the
year), based on the City's Licensing Revenue Target for the Year (as
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
67
111
specified /selected in Attachment A) to canvassing and /or mailings and outbound
calls to non renewals. City volunteer /staff hour requirements are scaled based on
the size of the Licensing Revenue Target per Table A below:
Table A: Volunteer /Staff Hours to be Provided by City
If the Licensing Revenue Target The City shall provide volunteer /staff hours
for the Service Year is between: support (averaged over the year)
$0 and $5,000 J 9 hours per month
$5,001410,000 18 hours per month
$10,000 420,000 27 hours per month
$20,001 and $40,000 36 hours per month
>$40,000 45 hours per month
3. Provide representation at a minimum of two public events annually to inform City
residents about the Animal Services Program and promote pet licensing.
4. Inform City residents about the Animal Services Program and promote pet
licensing utilizing print and electronic media including the city's website, social
media, community brochures and newsletter ads /articles, signage /posters and pet
licensing applications in public areas of city buildings and parks.
5. Appoint a representative to serve on the joint City- County marketing
subcommittee; this representative shall attend the quarterly meetings of the
subcommittee and help shape and apply within the City the joint advertising
strategies developed by consensus of the subcommittee.
E. Selection of Licensine Revenue Target and Pavment for Licensine Revenue Suvvort:
1. For Licensing Revenue Support Cities (those identified in Exhibit C -5 of the
Agreement):
In 2014 and 2015, Licensing Revenue Support Cities may receive licensing revenue
support intended to generate total annual Licensing Revenue at or above the
Revenue Goal in Table 1 of Exhibit C -5. The City will receive a Licensing Revenue
Credit or Charge at Reconciliation in accordance with the calculations in Table 2 of
Exhibit C -5. A Licensing Revenue Support City may request service under
subparagraph 2 below.
2. For all other Contacting Cities: The City will identify a proposed Licensing
Revenue Target in Attachment A. The County may propose an alternate Revenue
Target. If the Parties agree upon a Licensing Revenue Target, the County shall
indentify its annual cost to provide service designed to achieve the target. At
Reconciliation, the City shall be charged for licensing support service at the cost
specified and agreed in Attachment A (the "Licensing Revenue Charge
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
68
112
regardless of the amount of Licensing Revenue received by the City during the Service Year
(see Exhibit D of the Agreement for additional detail).
F. Other Terms and Conditions:
1. Before January 31 of the Service Year, each Party will provide the other with a
general calendar of in -kind services to be provided over the course of the Service
Year.
2. Each Party will provide the other with a monthly written report of the services
performed during the Service Year.
3. Either Party may terminate this Contract with or without cause by providing not
less than 2 months' advance written notice to the other Party; provided that all
County costs incurred to the point of termination remain chargeable to the City as
otherwise provided.
4. All terms of the Agreement, except as expressly stated otherwise herein, shall apply
to this Contract, and Capitalized Terms not defined herein have the meanings as set
forth in the Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Contract for Licensing
Support Services to be executed effective as of this day of 201_.
King County City of
Dow Constantine By:
King County Executive Mayor /City Manager
Date Date
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form:
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney City Attorney
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
113
Exhibit F: Attachment A
LICENSING REVENUE SUPPORT SERVICES REQUEST
(to be completed by City requesting licensing support services; one request per Service Year except for a
Licensing Support City with a Licensing Revenue Target over $20,000 /year; final terms subject to adjustment
by County and agreement by City confirmed in writing, executed and appended to the Contract for
Licensing Support Services Exhibit F of the Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015
"the Agreement dated effective as of July 1, 2012.)
1. City
Date of Request:
2. Licensing Revenue Target (the amount by which the City seeks to increase its
revenues in the Service Year):
Note:
For Licensing Revenue Support Cities, the Licensing Revenue Support Target
is defined in Table 1 of Exhibit C -5 of the Agreement, unless the Parties
otherwise agree.
The amount of volunteer /staff hours and other in -kind services required of
the City in exchange for receipt of licensing support services is based on the
size of the Licensing Revenue Target (see Licensing Support Contract/
Exhibit F of Agreement).
3. Contact person who will coordinate City responsibilities associated with delivery of
licensing support services:
Name:
Title:
Phone:
Fax:
I understand that:
A. provision of licensing revenue support services is subject to the County
determining it has staff available to provide the services;
B. For Contracting Cities other than Licensing Revenue Support Cities, the County
may propose an adjustment in the requested Licensing Revenue Target;
C. the County will, by September 1 of the current calendar year, provide the City
with a firm cost to provide the amount of licensing support services the County
proposes to provide by completing this Attachment A;
D. the County cannot verify and does not guarantee a precise level of Licensing
Revenues to be received by the City as a result of these services;
E. Receipt of service is subject to County and City agreeing on the Licensing
Revenue Target and County charge for these services (incorporated in
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
70
114
calculation of the Licensing Revenue Credit /Charge per the Agreement), and
executing the Licensing Support Contract (Exhibit F of the Agreement).
Request signed as of this day of 201_
City of
By:
Its:
To be completed by King County:
The County offers to provide the City licensing revenue support services in Service Year
201 intended to generate (the "Licensing Revenue Target in additional
Licensing Revenue for a total Service Year cost of some or all of which cost
may be charged to the City in calculating the Licensing Revenue Charge, as further
described in the Licensing Support Contract and Exhibits C -5 (for Licensing Support
Cities) and D of the Agreement.
King County
By:
Its:
Date:
To be completed by the Citv:
The County offer is accepted as of this
City of
By:
Its:
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
day of 201_.
71
115
116
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Finance and Safety Committee
FROM: Mike Villa, Chief of Police
DATE: May 23, 2012
SUBJECT: Police Department 15t Quarter 2012 Report
BACKGROUND
The Police Department would like to keep the Finance and Safety Committee better
informed as to public safety and policing issues within the city.
At a previous Finance and Safety meeting, it was suggested that quarterly Police
updates be provided beginning in 2012. The committee was unanimously in favor of
receiving quarterly reports.
DISCUSSION
During the presentation an update will be provided regarding Crime in Tukwila, the
department's strategic approach and end state vision, and strategic ways and means.
The presentation will conclude with a look at the way ahead.
RECOMMENDATION
The report is for information and discussion only. The Finance and Safety Committee is
not being asked to make any decisions.
ATTACHMENTS
Power Point Presentation 1 St quarter report
Police Department Vision
117
118
police department quarterly information brief
powerpoint
x
1st quarter crime statistics
calls for service
robbery
aggravated assualt
burglary 1st and 2nd degree
residential burglary
auto theft
theft from vehicle
strategic approaches solving and mitigating problems
police vision
a world-class police department delivering professional law enforcement service
1st quarter goals and objectives
strategic ways
x
x
x
strategic means
staffing
strategic means equipment training
budget
the way ahead
x
T 0 a
ISIOR S ai` m``nt
-I world-class jwlice departnient
14,1vering pi-ofessIonal haw enforceinent. sery
We, the members of the Tukwila Police Department
are committed to reach this vision.
142
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Finance and Safety Committee
FROM: Nick Olivas, Fire Chief
DATE: May 29, 2012
SUBJECT: An Interlocal Agreement to join the Kent Regional Fire Authority Training
Consortium
ISSUE
Council review of an Interlocal Agreement between the Tukwila Fire Department and the Kent
Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Training Consortium.
BACKGROUND
In late 2010 -early 2011, The Kent RFA, with the assistance of the City of SeaTac and Maple
Valley (King County Fire Protection District 43) formed a training consortium. The consortium
was formed because it is virtually impossible, under current economic conditions, to adequately
staff a training department let alone deliver, track and document required training. Through the
pooling of resources, the consortium has been able to deliver the training that is required by the
Washington Administrative Code as well as adopted National Fire Protection Standards.
DISCUSSION
With the reorganization of the training department after Chief Grisham moved to be the City's
Emergency Manager, we were approached by Kent in the spring of 2011 to participate with
them in the consortium to determine whether joining the consortium would be in our best
interests. Since that time, we have worked closely with them, both in the development and the
delivery of training. As demonstrated by unsolicited feedback from our department members,
since beginning our association with the consortium, our training has shown improvement and
the crews now look forward to the positive training environment that is part of the philosophy of
the training officers. We have also improved tracking and documentation of our training through
the purchase of training tracker.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
We will dedicate 1 to 1 full time employees (FTEs) currently working in training to the
consortium. They will continue to be City employees, will report to duty in Tukwila, and spend
much of their time working in Kent or the other participating jurisdictions either developing or
delivering training. There is no financial impact as we are not increasing or decreasing staff. We
have found no downside to this proposal, and we have already experienced the benefits from
working closely with the other training officers involved. Our personnel are better trained and
better prepared for emergencies than they were last year at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is being asked to consider this item and forward it to the June 11, 2012
Committee of the Whole Meeting and subsequent June 18, 2012 Regular Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Kent consortium memorandum prepared by Training Captain Jeff Johnson
Draft Interlocal Agreement prepared by our City Attorney
143
144
To: Chief Olivas
From: Captain Johnson
Subject: Kent Training Consortium, Benefits and Achievements
Date: May 29, 2012
Fire Department Training is mandated by the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Meeting the requirements of these agencies can be
challenging, as every fire department has limited resources, budgets, and personnel. Not only that, but
the fire department must also spend time concentrating on Emergency Medical Services (EMS), Special
Teams (Hazardous Materials and Rescue), and Emergency Management. The strain on an individual fire
department to achieve proficiency in these disciplines with only one or two members in their Training
Division can be daunting.
The Kent Fire Training Consortium meets these training requirements by pooling the resources
and the training personnel of three fire departments. In addition, the expense to each individual
department is reduced as costs are shared. Another benefit is consistency of training among the
participating departments. Each participant is taught to address fire and EMS problems in a consistent,
predictable manner.
The Kent Fire Training Consortium currently consists of members of the Kent, SeaTac, and Maple
Valley fire departments. The Consortium is supervised by one Battalion Chief and staffed by four
Captains, two firefighters, and one Administrative Assistant. Together, these members manage and
track training for 266 firefighters. With the addition of the Tukwila Fire Department, this number will
rise to 332 firefighters. Further, Tukwila will contribute one Training Captain to the Consortium full time
and another Training Captain at half time.
Having a pool of Training Officers allows specialization to occur. Currently within the Consortium
two Training officers focus primarily on EMS, one Training officer has developed expertise in engineer
pump operations, another specializes in Truck Company operations, and the others work on suppression
related drills. Such specialization has allowed the quality and quantity of such training to increase.
Appreciation for this has been expressed by firefighters and officers alike.
145
The Kent Consortium has a full time administrative assistant. This administrative assistant is
responsible for the computer tracking program, scheduling of events, and other administrative tasks
that would otherwise take up the time of the Training Officers. This allows for more time to design and
deliver classes "in the field
The Consortium uses two primary methods of instruction. The first is done by the establishment
of quarterly training requirements. This training is designed by the Consortium to meet or exceed the
WAC and NFPA mandates. The quarterly requirements are to be done by individual fire companies.
When their training is completed, the data is entered into a computer tracking program. In this way, the
Consortium can be assured that the prescribed instruction is taking place.
The second method is by annual training emphases. The Consortium designs and delivers 2 -3
annual training emphasis drills during the year. These drills are meant to pull together the quarterly
training objectives into a "unified whole During a quarter, the engine and ladder companies will have
focused on hose deployment, ladder operations, and patient removal. During the annual emphasis drill,
the participants will be doing all of these operations during a fire simulation. During 2012, the emphasis
drills include: SCBA competency, Live Fire Training, and MCI (Mass Casualty Incident) drills.
The Consortium takes part in other areas as well. Examples include Blue Card Training (The
Incident Command System), Special Operations (Hazardous materials and Rescue), Boat operations, and
Officer Development.
The Tukwila Training Division has been taking part in the Consortium drills since spring
of last year. Both Tukwila Training officers have benefited as have the members of our department.
The Consortium has been very generous to us, investing in our department with their resources and
mentorship.
The Training Officers are looking forward to the opportunity to work as official members of the
Consortium. It is our desire to participate, enhancing the quality of training within this Training Division
and further benefiting from the expertise of others.
146
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT
REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
I. PREAMBLE
This Agreement is entered into as of the day of 2012, by
and between the CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal corporation "City and the KENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY, a municipal corporation
"RFA This Agreement is made pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW (the "Interlocal
Cooperation Act and has been authorized by the governing body of each Party. Each of
the Parties is a "public agency" as defined in the Interlocal Cooperation Act.
II. RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City and the RFA currently each maintain and operate their own
fire departments to provide fire protection, fire suppression and emergency medical
services in their respective jursidictions.
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to allow for the joint operation and
administration of each entity's training divisions; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement is not intended to supersede or conflict with the
collective bargaining agreements of either party.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
III. AGREEMENT
Section 1. Effective Date and Termination of Agreement. This agreement
shall be effective on May 1, 2012 and shall terminate on December 31, 2012. The
Agreement may be renewed for additional time periods provided that both parties must
give notice of an intent to renew to the other party 30 days prior to the expiration. Either
party may unilaterally terminate this Agreement with 30 days written notice to the other
party.
Section 2. Definitions. The following terms, when used in this Agreement, shall
be defined as follows:
A. "Consolidated Operations" shall mean the operations performed under the
direction of the Chief and shall include the training for personnel of both the RFA and
City.
1NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Page 1 of 6
147
B. "FTE" shall mean full time employee.
C. "Days" shall mean calendar days, unless otherwise noted.
Section 3. Services Performed by the RFA for the Citv.
3.1 Training Services. The RFA agrees to ,perform training services for the
City through a training consortium as follows:
(a) See Exhibit A for scope of services to be performed under this Agreement.
(b) Consideration for Training Services. In consideration of the training
services described herein, the City shall provide the following to the RFA:
(i) The City shall assign one and a quarter to one and a half existing
FTE's to the training consortium to assist in providing the training
services pursuant to this Agreement. The level of service provided
by the City pursuant to this Agreement shall be solely determined
by the City, based on its departmental needs.
(ii) In the event the person occupying these positions is on leave or
works a different shift for a period of 30 days or more, the City
shall, at no expense to the RFA, fill the position with another
employee familiar with and adequately trained to provide the
needed services.
Section 4. General Provisions.
4.1 Employees of the RFA are not employees of the City. The RFA
employees who provide the City services pursuant to the Agreement shall be employees
of the RFA and not employees of the City. The RFA shall, at all times, be solely
responsible for the conduct of its employees in performing the services called for in this
Agreement. The RFA shall be solely responsible for all compensation, benefits and
insurance for its employees.
4.2 Employees of the City are not employees of the RFA. All City
employees who provide the RFA services called for in this Agreement shall be employees
of the City and not employees of the RFA. The City shall, at all times, be solely
responsible for the conduct of its employees in performing the services called for in this
Agreement. The City shall be solely responsible for all compensation, benefits and
insurance for its employees.
Section 5. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Each party agrees to defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the other party and each of its employees, officials, agents
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Page 2 of 6
MR,
and volunteers from any and all losses, claims, liabilities, lawsuits or legal judgments
arising out of any negligent or willful actions or inactions by the performing party or any
of its employees, officials, agents or volunteers, while acting within the scope of duties
required by this Agreement. Each party shall be responsible for its own legal costs and
attorney's fees. This provision shall survive the expiration of this Agreement as it related
to services performed under the terms of the Agreement. It is further specifically and
expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes each party's
mutually negotiated waiver of immunity under Title 51 RCW, solely to carry out the
purposes of this indemnification clause.
Section 6. Insurance. Each party shall carry and maintain for the duration of this
Agreement property and liability insurance coverage for all operations, facilities,
equipment and personnel, at not less than the amount as existing on the date of this
Agreement and in a form and with a company acceptable to the other party.
Section 7. Propertv Ownership. All property acquired by the RFA to enable it
to perform the services required by this Agreement, shall remain the property of the RFA
in the event of the termination of this Agreement. All property acquired by the City to
enable it to perform the services required by this Agreement, shall remain the property of
the City in the event of the termination of this Agreement.
Section 8. No Special Relationship Created. No Third Partv Beneficiarv.
The services provided under this Agreement represent an extension and expansion of
duties owed to the public in general. Neither party intends to create a special relationship
or duty to the other party or to the public served by either party. This Agreement is solely
for the benefit of the Parties hereto and no third party shall be entitled to claim or enforce
any rights hereunder.
Section 9. Dispute Resolution and Governing Law. This Agreement shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington.
A. If a dispute arises between the Parties concerning the performance of any
provision of this Agreement or the interpretation thereof, the Parties agree to follow the
procedures set forth herein. It is the goal of the parties to resolve differences as early in
this step process as possible.
(1) SteD One Informal Discussions. Each Party shall designate a
representative, who shall meet and attempt to resolve the dispute. This may involve more
than one meeting.
(2) Step Two Written Notification and Resolution. If informal
discussions are not successful, then the aggrieved Party shall mail, via certified mail,
written notice of dispute to the other Party's address shown in Section 12 of this
Agreement. The notice shall set forth the nature of the dispute and the desired outcome.
A written response shall be provided by the recipient of the notice within ten (10) days'
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Page 3 of 6
149
receipt of the certified, mailed notice. The response to the notice shall include the
respondent's version of the dispute and a proposed resolution. The Parties shall meet
within ten (10) business days following respondent's answer to determine whether the
dispute can be resolved amicably. If the dispute is amicably resolved, the Parties shall
sign a memorandum of understanding with regards thereto.
(3) Sten Three Mediation. If the Parties are unable to resolve their
differences at Step Two, the Parties will endeavor to settle the dispute by mediation under
the mediation rules of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service of Seattle,
Washington. Such mediation will be non- binding but a condition precedent to having the
dispute resolved pursuant to Arbitration, below. Mediation shall commence, unless
otherwise agreed, within thirty (30) days of a Party's written request to the other Party for
mediation of a dispute. Any resolution of the dispute at this stage shall be reduced to
writing and, if the resolution involves an interpretation of the Agreement herein, the
Agreement herein shall be amended to include the interpretation.
(4) Sten Four Arbitration. If the Parties are unable to resolve their
differences at Step Three, the dispute will be resolved by arbitration. A written notice
requesting arbitration must be delivered to the other Parties. The Parties will select an
arbitrator by mutual agreement. If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator within 10
working days after the arbitration request notice has been received, then the dispute will
be referred to Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. of Seattle, Washington,
and an arbitrator will be selected either by mutual agreement of the Parties or, failing that,
by the appointment by each Party of a non interested representative who shall jointly
choose an arbitrator.
Section 10. Modification. This Agreement may be amended or terminated only
upon consent of both Parties hereto. Any amendment or termination shall be in writing
and signed by the parties.
Section 11. Non Waiver. The waiver by any Party of any breach of any term,
covenant, or condition of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of such term,
covenant, or condition or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant,
or condition of this Agreement.
Section 12. Impairment of Rights. Nothing in this agreement shall impair a
Party's right to seek injunctive relief from the Court if immediate and irreparable injury,
loss or damage to any rights arising from this Agreement will occur before Arbitration
can be conducted.
Section 13. Record Keeping. The records and documents with respect to all
matters covered by this Agreement shall be subject to audit by the Parties during the term
of this Agreement and three (3) years after termination or such other longer period as may
be required by applicable law.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Page 4 of 6
150
Section 14. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Agreement or application
thereof to any Party or circumstance, is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement which can be given
effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this
Agreement are declared to be severable.
Section 15. Counternarts. This Agreement shall be effective whether signed by
the Parties on the same document or in counterparts.
Section 16. Entire Agreement. The written terms and provisions of this
Agreement, together with any Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior
communications, negotiations, representations or agreements, either verbal or written of
any officer or other representative of each party and such statements shall not be effective
or be construed as entering into or forming part of or altering in any marmer this
Agreement.
Section 17. Notices All notices or other communications shall be deemed
sufficient hereunder if made in writing and delivered by facsimile, e -mail, or by first -class
mail, postage prepaid, to each Party at its respective address set forth below, or such other
address as such Party may hereafter designate to the others in writing:
CITY OF TUKWILA KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT
City Administrator REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
6200 South Center Blvd. Fire Chief
Tukwila, WA 98188 24611 116 Ave. S.E.
Kent, WA 98030
Notices sent by mail shall be deemed given when properly mailed, and the postmark
affixed by the United States Post Office shall be conclusive evidence.
Section 18. Filing /Posting. This Agreement shall be filed with the County
Auditor or posted on the websites of the Parties as authorized by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by each Party as set
forth below:
CITY OF TUKWILA KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT /REGIONAL
FIRE AUTHORITY
in
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Page 5 of 6
By: J. OAG.iwd4o
TM
151
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
By: e Q
City Attorn
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Page 6 of 6
152
EXHIBIT A
Training Services
1. Services Provided to City. The RFA, as part of the Training Consortium with SeaTac, Maple
Valley Fire and Life Safety and Tukwila shall provide the following Training Services to the
City:
1.1.Trainin2 services provided:
(a) Officer training to comply with WAC 296- 305- 05501, to include "Blue Card"
Command Training. Training to include certification of officers and training of
acting officers.
(b) Quarterly Tactical Scenarios
(c) Conduct quarterly Chief s Training
(d) Emergency Vehicle Accident Prevention (EVIP) training.
(e) Recertification of Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT's).
(f) Competency Based Training (CBT) modules delivered.
(g) Competency Based Training (CBT) manipulative skill evaluations.
(h) Conduct annual live fire training.
(i) Conduct Mod and Step Tests
0) Conduct Firefighter II Certification Exam
(k) Conduct annual SCBA practicals
(1) Deliver make -up training for missed lessons.
(m) Plan, monitor and conduct Return to Work refiesher training.
(n) Semi annual apparatus pump academy.
(o) Apparatus operator evaluation /refresher training
(p) Provide Aid Car training
(q) Provide Competency Based Training (CBT) Instructor training
(r) Collect and review CPR outcomes with crews
A -1
153
(s) Conduct semi annual company evaluations.
(t) Vehicle extrication rodeo and training session
(u) Conduct Cormnercial Ventilation Training
(v) Participation in Zone 3 training activities
(w) Training and Continuing Education in specialty areas. (e.g. confined space)
1.2.Ma=zerial Tasks Provided:
(a) Planning, Budget and Program Management
(b) Facilities Scheduling, Quarterly, Annual Training Calendar Development
(c) Develop emergency response tactical scenarios.
(d) Develop training DVDs /films
(e) Training Tracker Records Management
(f) Complete transfer of paper records into data base.
(g) Class Registration, Disbursement, Purchase Orders
(h) JATC program document review /revision
(i) Review and revise drill manuals, classes, Mod and Step tests,
0) Schedule and support multi company drills
(k) Attend Zone 3 meetings
(1) Training facilities maintenance.
A -2
154
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Finance Safety
FROM: Rick Still, Parks Recreation Director
BY: Tracy Gallaway, Volunteer Events Superintendent
DATE: May 30, 2012
SUBJECT: Follow up 2012 Family 4 th at Fort Dent event
ISSUE
Revised event layout for Tukwila's Family 4 th of July event at Fort Dent Park.
BACKGROUND
Due to difficulty in contacting our previous fireworks vendor, a new fireworks vendor was hired
for this year's fireworks show. The new fireworks vendor is Western Display Fireworks, Ltd.
The staff from Western Display Fireworks had concerns with shooting the fireworks show from
the previous location due to the proximity to the turf fields. We agreed to change the display
location. This change also affects the overall event layout (see attachments).
DISCUSSION
The fireworks show will now be shot from the south end of the park, on the grass fields #5 and
#6. In the past, these fields were not utilized for the event except for an occasional "pick up"
soccer game. Moving the fireworks show to this location is preferable because it helps to
alleviate concern for protecting the turf fields in the north part of the park.
There will be a change in parking this year to accommodate the new event layout. Parking
along the grass fields will be restricted, but additional parking will be available in the paved lot
and gravel lot which were restricted due to the previous display location. There are
approximately 150 spaces are available in this area. Additionally, each year staff is granted
permission from the John C. Radovich Development Co. for parking in the lots immediately
outside of Fort Dent. Total parking available in this area is 499 spaces (487 regular and 12
handicap spaces).
We know it will be important to let the community know about the change in the event layout.
We are working with the Tukwila Reporter to do a story about the change. We are also creating
signage to indicate the change. The signage will be posted at the event site one week prior to
the event. The event layout information will also be posted on the City website, Parks
Recreation Facebook page and available at City Hall and TCC. On the event day, staff will be
handing out the information to visitors as they enter the park.
A question was brought up in regards to adequate portable toilets for the event. We have
arranged for 30 portable toilets for this year's event (we had 24 in 2011). In 2011 there was a
unique issue related to the timing of the event and the delivery of equipment. Last year the
event fell on a Monday, so delivery was scheduled for Friday. During the weekend prior to the
event the toilets were open and could not be serviced again until after the event. This year the
event falls on a Wednesday, and the toilets will not be delivered until the day before the event.
This should help alleviate any problems with service.
155
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The change in fireworks vendor does not affect the cost of the fireworks show. The cost
remains at $10,000. There will be some savings in staff time, particularly for Parks and
Recreation Department staff (full time and extra labor), because staff will not need to spend
several hours on the event day laying tarp and the day following the event rolling tarp as was
required for protection of the fields in the previous location. We anticipate this savings to be
about $2,500.
Costs for Police and Fire personnel should remain consistent with costs from 2011 at
approximately $5,650.
Approximately $900 will be spent producing signage and for event advertising that
communicates the change in the event layout. Adjustments have been made within the current
budget to account for the expenditure.
RECOMMENDATION
Information Only.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Updated aerial map of fireworks display area and safety zone.
2. 4 th of July event layout tentative plan.
3. 4 th of July event comparison 2010 and 2011 Actuals 2012 Budgeted.
WAVolunteer Special Events\Special EventslAdministrationllnfoMemo Finance and Safety June 5 Follow up info for 4th of July event .doc
156
updated aerial map of fireworks display area
158
Attachment 2: 4th of July event layout tentative plan.
GL N
ZO
im,
zz
Cd C.)
GL N
ZO
im,
I s,
Attachment 3: 4th of July event comparison 2010 and 2011 Actuals 2012 Budgeted.
Tukwila's Family 4th
Event Day Activities
Fireworks Show
Food Booths
Kids Inflatable Area
Stage Music/ Entertainment
Roving Entertainers
Vendor Marketplace
Hands On Arts Crafts
Event Hours
2:00- 11:OOpm 6:00- 11:OOpm 4:00- 11:OOpm
Expenditures
2010 Actual
2011 Actual
2012 Budgeted
Extra Labor
1,611
1,308
1,000
Supplies
9,903
2,504
1,000
Professional Services
36,019
22,063
23,000
Advertising Printing
101
900
Rental Equipment
3,396
2,664
2,600
Other
Other City Staff (Police Fire)
7,430
5,646
5,646
Totals
51,030
28,539
28,500
Revenues
Vendor Fees
3,050
1,700
1,000
Concession Sales
964
160
150
Sponsorship
5,100
1,500
1,500
Totals
9,114
3,360
2,650
Net Cost
41,916
25,179
25,850
P &R Staff (Planning Event Day)
19,683
10,290
8,000
Other City Staff (Police Fire)
7,430
5,646
5,646
Estimated Event Attendance
5000
5000
5000
Estimated Resident Attendance (80
4000
4000
4000
Cost Per Resident Attendance
17
10
10
161
162
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Finance and Safety Committee
FROM: Derek Speck, Economic Development Administrator
DATE: May 30, 2012
SUBJECT: Tourism Promotion Area
ISSUE
The City of Tukwila has an opportunity to form a tourism promotion area (TPA). This would
charge a fee of up to $2 per hotel room night to be used for tourism promotion. If the Council
chooses to form a TPA, the City would also need to determine an appropriate organizational
structure to carry out the work.
BACKGROUND
Under RCW 35.101 the State of Washington allows certain legislative authorities to form tourism
promotion areas. A tourism promotion area (TPA) is a geographic region in which a legislative
authority (such as a city or county) charges a per room night fee on the furnishing of lodging by
a lodging business to be used for tourism promotion. The charge is collected by the State and
remitted to the local government much in the same manner as lodging tax. The State defines
tourism promotion as "activities and expenditures designed to increase tourism and convention
business, including but not limited to advertising, publicizing, or otherwise distributing
information for the purpose of attracting and welcoming tourists, and operating tourism
destination marketing organizations" (RCW 25.101.010). The fee maybe up to $2 per room
night and may be charged to lodging businesses with forty or more lodging units. The State law
requires that in counties with a population of one million or more the legislative authority shall be
composed of two or more jurisdictions acting jointly under an interlocal agreement created for
the joint establishment and operation of a tourism promotion area. Thus, in order to form a TPA,
the City of Tukwila would need to enter into an interlocal agreement with another city or King
County.
Before a city council can adopt an ordinance to implement a TPA, State law requires an
initiation petition to be presented to the legislative authority and the legislative authority to hold a
public hearing. To be valid, the initiation petition must include a number of items including: a
description of the boundaries of the proposed area; the proposed uses and projects to which the
proposed revenue from the charge shall be put and total estimated costs; the estimated rate for
the charge with a proposed breakdown by classification of lodging business; and the signatures
of the persons who operate lodging businesses in the proposed area who would pay sixty
percent or more of the proposed charges. Some hoteliers in Tukwila and SeaTac have
proposed a charge on lodging businesses with 60 or more rooms. Based on that scenario,
Tukwila has fifteen hotels and motels in that classification which comprise 2,035 rooms (see
attached list). In that scenario, the initiation petition would need to be signed by operators of
over 1,221 rooms. If a protest is made by the lodging businesses in the area which would pay a
majority of the proposed charges, the formation proceedings must terminate.
163
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
Seattle Southside Visitor Services staff have researched TPAs in Washington State and found
that eight TPAs and been formed and one is in the formation process. They generate annual
revenues ranging from $0 to $1.7 million. In all cases, the legislative authorities who formed the
TPAs also appointed or formed a variety of types of boards and commissions to make
recommendations as to the use of the TPA funds. In most cases, the legislative authorities
contract with non government organizations to implement the tourism promotion programs.
Most of those organizations are organized under IRS code 501 c (6). None of them are
organized under Washington State law as a public development authority (PDA). For example,
the Spokane County TPA has a $1.7 million annual budget. It contracts with the Spokane
Convention and Visitor's Bureau, which is a 501(c)6 and the Spokane Regional Sports
Foundation, which is a 501(c)3, for sales and marketing of convention and trade shows,
marketing Spokane County to the travel industry and to recruit major sporting events.
A number of hoteliers have approached Seattle Southside Visitor Services (SSVS) and the
Cities of Des Moines, SeaTac, and Tukwila with a request that the cities form a TPA. Managers
representing eight Tukwila hotels submitted a letter dated March 29, 2012 to the Tukwila City
Council requesting the City form a TPA (attached). SSVS staff has also been working with the
City of SeaTac and the SeaTac hotels on forming a TPA. If the Cities of SeaTac and Tukwila
formed a TPA with a $2 per room night charge on hotels with 60 or more rooms, it could
generate an estimated $2.5 million per year for tourism promotion.
As a separate, but potentially related issue, the cities of Tukwila and SeaTac each separately
currently implement a 1 tax on lodging. As required by State law, each city also has a lodging
tax committee that serves as an advisory committee to each city council and provides
recommendations on the expenditures of the lodging tax funds. The cities of Tukwila, SeaTac,
Kent, and Des Moines contribute approximately $1.2 million per year toward the Seattle
Southside Visitors Services, which is a tourism promotion program administered by the City of
Tukwila. Formation of a TPA would not affect the collection of the 1 lodging tax. The lodging
tax advisory committees are required by State law and would remain in effect.
DISCUSSION
If the City Council desires to explore the formation of a tourism promotion area, there are three
main categories of decisions the Council should consider: formation requirements, discretion
over expenditures, and form of organization for implementation.
(1) Formation Requirements: The City of Tukwila would need to execute an interlocal
agreement for tourism promotion with at least one city or the County to act jointly as the
legislative authority. After receiving a valid initiation petition, the legislative authority would
need to adopt a resolution of intent that states, among other things, a description of the
boundaries in the proposed areas, the proposed area uses and projects to which proposed
revenues from the charge shall be dedicated and the total estimated cost of projects, and
the estimated rate (s) for the charge with a proposed breakdown by classification of the
lodging business. Note: The legislative authority would need to conduct a public hearing.
If lodging businesses that would pay a majority of the proposed charges protest the
formation, the formation must terminate. After the legislative authority conducts a public
hearing, it would then adopt an ordinance to establish an area. Among other items, the
ordinance would need to include the geographic boundaries, the initial or additional rate of
charges to be imposed with a breakdown by classification, and the uses to which the
164
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
charged revenue shall be put (which must conform to the uses declared in the initiation
petition). The legislative authority may disestablish a tourism promotion area by ordinance
after a public hearing.
(2) Discretion Over Expenditures: A key question is what organization will have discretion
over expenditures, e.g. who approves the budget. State law provides that the legislative
authority imposing the charge shall have sole discretion as to how the revenue derived
from the charge is to be used to promote tourism (RCW 35.101.130). However, the
legislative authority may appoint advisory boards or commissions to make
recommendations for its use or the legislative authority may create a new advisory board or
commission for that purpose. For example, the legislative authority could appoint the
existing lodging tax boards as an advisory board or it could create a new advisory board.
In their memo dated March 29, 2012, representatives of eight hotels in Tukwila requested
that the TPA be managed and implemented through a Public Development Authority
(PDA). Among other reasons, they explain that they prefer the PDA as a way to provide
autonomy and oversight, presumably by the TPA ratepayer hotels. Based on a very
preliminary review of the state law and its reference that the legislative authority has "sole
discretion over expenditures it is not clear that the legislative authority could completely
give up budget authority. However, this may be worth additional legal review to see if it is
possible to include language in the formation ordinance that still enables the legislative
authority to have "sole discretion" but provides enough discretion over expenditures to the
PDA to provide the hotel ratepayers the assurance they seek. Staff could perform
additional research into the existing TPAs in the state to understand what form of
organization they have as their legislative authority and how much discretion over
expenditures is provided to the implementing organizations or advisory boards.
(3) Form of Organization: A tourism promotion area is a funding mechanism. A TPA itself
does not require a specific organizational structure to implement tourism promotion. The
legislative authority could expend the funds using city government resources, such as we
do today through our tourism office known as Seattle Southside Visitor Services. SSVS is
an organization formed by interlocal agreements with four cities and administered by the
City of Tukwila using City of Tukwila staff. The legislative authority could contract with
other organizations or businesses, such as the Chamber of Commerce or a marketing firm.
Or, the cities in the TPA could create a new organization specifically designed to implement
tourism promotion such as a 501(c) 6 or a public development authority (PDA).
One important consideration for the City of Tukwila is how the form of organization would
affect the existing staff positions at Seattle Southside Visitor Services since they are
employees of the City of Tukwila. There are four full -time staff positions which are
represented by the Public, Professional Office Clerical Employees and Drivers Local
Union No. 763, an affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The staff has
expressed strong support for the formation of the TPA and hope to work for the new
tourism organization if one is formed. They have also requested that if a new organization
is formed, they would remain City of Tukwila employees and work for the new organization
under a support services contract.
If the Council is interested in forming a TPA, staff would do additional research into the
various forms of an organization to determine which would be the best fit. Staff would also
research the City of Tukwila's roles, responsibility, and liability under the various forms.
I
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 4
There are a number of organizations who have a stake in the creation of a tourism promotion
area. Following is some feedback from the various stakeholders.
Seattle Southside Visitors Services: SSVS staff is very excited about TPA and sees this as a
good opportunity to generate up to $2.5 million in additional tourism promotion revenue each
year and hope that the Cities of SeaTac and Tukwila would form a public development authority
(PDA) to manage and implement the Seattle Southside tourism program drawing upon both the
tourism promotion area revenue and lodging tax revenue. New and expanded tourism
promotion activities are expected to include more advertising, sales and marketing (strategic
planning, market research, creative development, media placement, sales activities, hosting
tourism industry events). New regional sales and marketing efforts could focus on small to mid-
size meetings and events, multi property meetings and events, Canadian market development,
niche markets including urban, adventure, cultural, sports, incentive, and geo- tourism; group
tour product development, FAM tours for targeted customers, public relations programs
including press /travel writer tours and coverage, and sporting event marketing enhancement.
Tukwila Lodging Tax Advisory Committee: Over the past few months, the City of.Tukwila's
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee has received informational updates on the possibility of a
TPA. City staff has not brought the item to a vote in order to complete additional research and
receive City Council feedback on the various options. In general, the discussion at LTAC has
been very supportive of forming a TPA.
Tukwila Hoteliers: Managers representing eight Tukwila hotels submitted a letter dated March
29, 2012 to the Tukwila City Council requesting the City form a TPA (attached). City staff has
not yet performed outreach to hoteliers not represented on the letter.
Chamber of Commerce: The Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce has provided a
letter to the City of Tukwila expressing support for the creation of a TPA (attached).
City of SeaTac: SeaTac's City Council's Administration and Finance Committee received an
informational update on the potential TPA on 10/11/11 (minutes attached). SeaTac's
Hotel /Motel Advisory Committee (HMAC) received an update on the TPA on 1/11/12 (minutes
attached). At this time City of SeaTac staff is preparing to bring a contract related to the TPA to
their Council study session on June 12, 2012 for discussion and to the Council's regular
meeting on June 26, 2012 for a vote. The proposed contract would be with a law firm to
prepare documentation to establish the TPA and a PDA. SeaTac staff is recommending
formation of a PDA for the new organization because that is the form requested by their
hoteliers. A PDA would require a sponsoring /chartering organization and SeaTac staff has
indicated that the City of SeaTac is willing to serve in that role.
City of Des Moines: The Des Moines City Council heard this item at their meeting of May 17,
2012 and directed their staff to work with the Cities of SeaTac and Tukwila in the creation of the
Seattle Southside Tourism Development Authority (minutes attached).
City staff believes that a tourism promotion area is potentially a very good opportunity for the
City of Tukwila and is worthy of consideration. It is very significant that a number of our
hoteliers are asking the City to impose this charge. Staff believes the hotelier support is a
strong indication that the TPA would increase tourist activity and benefit the City and its
166
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 5
businesses. Based on the hotelier request, staff believes the additional benefits from tourism
promotion would offset any competitive disadvantage due to the additional room night fee.
Prior to forming a TPA, there are some details that staff believes need additional analysis. First,
the City should check with all the hotels in Tukwila and confirm their level of interest. Second,
we should more fully analyze the options for the extent to which the Council and /or the hoteliers
would have discretion over the budget. And third, we need to confirm the extent to which the
City would have responsibility or liability if a non -city organizational structure is chosen. And
fourth, we should more thoroughly assess the alternatives for how our existing tourism staff
positions are organized if a TPA is formed.
If the Council is interested in exploring the formation of a TPA, the staff would conduct official
city staff outreach to all hotels and motels in Tukwila, solicit additional input from Tukwila's
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, and further engage with the City of SeaTac and other
potential partners. Staff would also perform additional research into the issues related to
discretion of expenditures, form of organization, and tourism staff positions.
In terms of doing this additional research, it will save time if the Council is able to either rule out
or emphasis certain alternatives based on what we know at this point. Thus, staff requests
Council direction on the following questions:
(1) Is the Council interested in exploring formation of a tourism promotion area?
(2) To what extent is the Council comfortable granting discretion over expenditures to
another organization?
(3) Are there certain forms of organization the Council strongly prefers or would not
consider?
FINANCIAL IMPACT
No additional budget authority is being requested at this time. If at some point a tourism
promotion area is formed, the budget would be adjusted at that time.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is being asked to consider this item and forward it to a future Committee of the
Whole.
ATTACHMENTS
List of Tukwila Hotels
Letter from Tukwila hoteliers dated March 29, 2012
Letter from the Chamber of Commerce dated May 14, 2012
Minutes from City of SeaTac Administration and Finance Committee dated 10/11/2011
Minutes from the SeaTac Hotel /Motel Tax Advisory Committee dated 1/11/2012
Minutes from the Des Moines City Council meeting of 5/17/2012
Chart of tourism promotion areas in Washington
167
x
Hotels and Motels in Tukwila
Hotel Name
Best Western Rivers Edge
Comfort Suites
Courtyard by Marriott Southcenter
Courtyard by Marriott- SeaTac
Days Inn Seattle South
Doubletree by Hilton Seattle Airport Southcenter
Econo Lodge
Embassy Suites
Extended Stay America Tukwila
Great Bear Motor Inn (a)
Hampton Inn Southcenter
Homestead Studio Suites
Homewood Suites by Hilton
Knights Inn
Ramada Limited
Residence Inn by Marriott
Riverside Residence (a)
Spruce Motel
Americas Best Value
Travelers Choice
Travelodge
Total
Minimum needed for initiation petition (60
Minimum needed for successful protest vote (50
Hotels who signed the 3/29/12 memo
Example Classification by of Rooms
All 40+ 60+
146
146
146
138
138
138
149
149
149
211
211
211
119
119
119
219
219
219
47
47
238
238
238
96
96
96
154
154
154
94
94
94
106
106
106
54
54
68
68
68
144
144
144
40
40
81
81
81
36
72
72
72
2,212
2,176
2,035
1,306
1,221
1,089
1,018
1,200
1,200
Notes
(a) Room count information was unavailable at the time of this report.
(b) Hotel data provided by Seattle Southside Visitor Services 5/29/12
(c) Per RCW 35.101.020 an initiation petition must be signed by persons who operate
lodging businesses who would pay sixty percent or more of the proposed charges.
(d) Per RCW 35.101.070 the proposed action to create a tourism promotion area
must terminate if protested by the lodging businesses which would pay a majority of
the proposed charges.
(e) Per RCW 35.101.010 and 35.101.050 the a legislative authority may only impose a
tourism promotion area charge on lodging businesses with 40 or more lodging units.
Updated: 5/30/12
Printed: 05/30/2012 2:38 PM
169
lM
G�
K 6-&t b-71M
aJ
y1�
G,� 2� Gr�irriionl� dh-
,9yn
TO: Mayor Jim Haggerton and City of Tukwila Council members
C
FROM: Tukwila Hotel TPA Ratepayers
DATE: 3/29/2012
SUBJECT: Seattle Southside Tourism Promotion Area and Tourism Development
Authority
A Tourism Promotion Area (TPA).can only be created if the legislative authority receives
an initiation petition signed by the hotel businesses that would pay 60 percent of the self
imposed surcharge (this is not a tax). As these funds would be dedicated for tourism
promotion activities dnly as stated by RCW 35.101; we the potential ratepayers believe
this initiative if spent effectively would bring more visitors to the City resulting in more
visitor spending that would: bolster hotel occupancy, protect current jobs, create new
jobs, increase business at restaurants and retail stores, and increase patronage at arts,
cultural and sporting venues.
Hoteliers are very supportive of forming a TPA and anxious to begin the process.
However, as hoteliers we believe we are in the best position to understand and determine
best uses for effectively promoting tourism in a way that generates overnights stays in our
hotels. The lodging association has seen successful and some not so successful
implementations of public funds for tourism promotion statewide. With lessons learned,
we wish to bring forward a new and innovative proposal for the City Council's
consideration that could result in an additional $1.5 to $2.5 million annually through a
TPA that would enhance and build on Seattle Southside Visitor Services' already
successful destination marketing efforts and would provide for public oversight but
active, private sector participation. A win/win for all involved parties.
Potential TPA ratepayers prefer that the TPA be managed and implemented through a
Public Development Authority (PDA). We wish to work with the Cities to develop a
Public Development Authority or "Seattle Southside Tourism Development Authority"
(SSTDA).
After careful analysis, we (potential TPA ratepayers) believe this option would provide:
Anatomy and oversight of the new TPA funds;
Assurance the funds would be used effectively to generate overnight hotel stays;
Provide for a TPA disestablishment policy should the ratepayers desire to do so in the
future; and
Redirect (but not increase) the current lodging tax revenues currently supporting Seattle
Southside's marketing program.
171
Furthermore, we believe there are many benefits to the participating Cities:
Permits the participating cities to delegate tourism services to individuals with expertise;
Liability and financial risk to the participating cities is limited; and
Provides for effective oversight of public funds.
Ratepayers want to work with the Cities to form a TPA and SSTDA. Any other
organizational structure such as City dept. or 501c would not provide ratepayers with the
above mentioned desires. Therefore, the initiation petitions will not precede until the
above concept and the following draft documents are created and generally supported by
all affected parties (1) Inter -local Agreement; (2) SSTDA Charter and Bylaws; (3) model
ordinance to be adopted by participating cities.
We encourage Tukwila City Administration to make this a high priority so we can all
move forward. The Cities of Des Moines and SeaTac are already on board and SeaTac
has agreed to sponsor the public entity SSTDA.
Thanks for your continued support as always!
Hotel Name: CJ
L 0 J
Signature:
Hotel Name: 144 md 7 0 /n J iZ te:
Signatua
Hotel Name: G Y Date: 3 /24 1/L
7vkwlIq
Signature: /i_
Hotel Name: 60,4 !Z �OvV' �-r Date: -3 1 2 -q 1
Signature:
Hotel Name: lO�iSS�( U�_Pe SrCC Lr_ Date: _-E� 2q (2
.c -Vww I A Op Signature
Hotel Name: P+ v _1e�eC1 S +G��fv�; Date: Z
Signature j
1 72
Hotel Name: }'t 1 }t-S Date: 2. Z
Signature:
Hotel N, Date: 7
Signa ir�(�,� /27�Y'�
Hotel Name: Date:
Signature:
Hotel Name: Date:
Si
Hotel Name: Date:
Signature:
Hotel Name: Date:
Signature:
Hotel Name: Date:
Signature:
173
74
KtUtIVtU
V gSi Chamber of Commerce
May 14, 2012
Derek Speck
Economic Development Administrator
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Derek:
I
CITY OF TUKIMLA
The Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce supports area hotels and their efforts
to create a Tourism Promotion Area for Seattle Southside. As major employers in our
region, these entities are taking innovative steps to improve the marketing and promotion
efforts of Southwest King County communities.
By implementing the TPA, this would give Seattle Southside a boost in the marketing
efforts of our area, which is critical, staying competitive with the other community's
regional tourism markets. The Chamber also supports the opportunity to increase the
number of room nights our local hotels should see with the additional marketing dollars.
Our Chamber supports the creation of the Tourism Promotion Area and the hotels self
assessment to fund new programs. The Chamber gives our full support to this project to
ensure the future of a viable tourism industry in Southwest King County.
Sincerely,
Lynn Wallace
President /CEO
175
Administration and Finance Committee
Minutes
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
3:00 PM
Council Chambers
Members: Present: Absent: Commence: 3:05 p.m.
Break: 3:47 p.m.
Commence: 4:05 p.m.
Adjourn: 4:19 p.m.
Gene Fisher, Chair X
Tony Anderson X
Rick Forschler X
Note: Items 6 7 to be reviewed
iointly with the Public Safetv
Justice Committee
Other Councilmembers Present: Ralph Shape, Pam Fernald
Staff Coordinator: Joyce Papke, Interim Finance Director
1. Council's HRANEBA
Informational Update
Program Deputy
X Recommended for:
X Approval
Mayor Fisher /Anh
Approval with modifications
Hoang
Denial
X Referred to 10/25/11 RCM.
Human Resources Director, Anh Hoang distributed a draft memorandum
outlining three options for Council consideration with regard to their
HRANEBA contributions from the City. The three options are: 1) The
City would continue contributing to HRANEBA as it is now. The Council
would not need to take any action if this option were chosen; 2) Stop
contribution to HRANEBA and deposit specified dollar amount into a
deferred compensation plan set up for each Councilmember effective
January 1, 2014. From January, 2012 through December, 2013 the City
would continue contributing into each Councilmember's HRANEBA
account. 3) Stop contribution to HRANEBA effective January 1, 2012
and deposit a specified dollar amount into a deferred compensation plan
set up for the four positions elected for the 2012 -2015 term. The
HRA/VEBA contributions would cease for the remaining three
Councilmembers. The City's contribution into a deferred compensation
plan would commence for the remaining three Councilmembers at the
beginning of the next term, January 1, 2014. City Attorney Mary Bartolo
stated Council would need to take action by the 10/25/11 Council
meeting if there was a change. It was recommended an Ordinance be
written and presented at the next RCM for Option #2. If it does not pass,
it would default to Option #1 (no change).
I
A &F Minutes
October 11, 2011
Page 2 of 3
2. Draft 2012 Legislative
X Informational Update
Agenda —Jeff Robinson
Recommended for:
Approval
Approval with modifications
Denial
Referred to
Economic Development Manager Jeff Robinson distributed a draft of the
2012 Legislative Agenda for the Committee's review. The primary issues
of particular importance to the City of SeaTac are 1) Transportation
Funding; 2) Infrastructure; 3) Light Rail Station Area; and 4) Stormwater
Capacity Grants. The purpose for presenting the draft was to give the
Council time and opportunity to respond to the issues. It was suggested
that there be a one hour workshop in November or December to discuss
the issues prior to bringing it to full Council. Mr. Robinson requested that
additional comments or questions be addressed to him electronically.
3. Seattle Southside
X informational Update
Tourism Promotion Area
Recommended for:
Approval
Jeff Robinson, Jeff
Approval with modifications
Hart, G.M. Seattle
Denial
Marriott, Lynn Wallace,
Referred to
President, SW King
County Chamber of
Economic Development Manager, Jeff Robinson reported on the
potential for the creation of a TPA in the Seattle Southside market area.
Commerce
A least two cities have to participate and initial discussions have included
Tukwila and Kent. The revenue generated by a per room night surcharge
would be deposited into a TPA account for the express purpose of
tourism marketing activities. The estimated revenue would be between
approximately $1 million and $2 million a year. Mr. Robinson reported
that there will be meetings with the other cities to lay the ground work. A
"Frequently Asked Questions" and information sheet is available for the
Council's information.
4. City Councilmembers
Informational Update
and City Manager Future
X Recommended for:
X Approval
Travel Authorizations
Approval with modifications
and Completed Travel
Denial
Approval of City Credit
X Referred to 10/25/11 RCM
Card Payments and
Travel authorizations were reviewed by A F Committee and
Personal
recommended for approval at the next regular Council meeting.
Reimbursements
Joyce Papke
5. Next Meeting
November 8, 2011
177
A &F TMiiZutes
October 11, 2011
Page 3 of 3
6. Interlocal Agreement
Informational Update
with the Kent Regional
X Recommended for:
Fire Authority for Joint
X Approval
Operations and
Approval with modifications
Administration of
Denial
X Referred to 10/25/11 RCM,
Specific Fire Services
Fire Chief Jim Schneider made a recommendation to renew the Interlocal
Jim Schneider
Agreement with the Kent Regional Fire Authority for joint operations of
Administration and specific Fire Services for 2012. Under the current
contract those services include Fire Chief, Fire Prevention (which
includes Public Education Services), Fire Investigation and Training
services. Chief Schneider reported that consolidation of services has
proven to be efficient and productive. The cost of the proposed contract
would be $187,467 and become effective 1/1/2012. This is an increase
of 4.2% over the 2011 contract due to the Collective Bargaining
Agreement Cost of Living increase. A question was asked about grants
received in 2011. Chief Schneider reported that the SeaTac Fire
Department has secured three grants in 2011: the RAMPART, EMPG
and VISTA grants.
7. Administrative Office of Informational Update
the Courts Agreement X Recommended for:
Paulette Revoir X Approval
Approval with modifications
Denial
X Referred to 10/25111 RCM.
Court Administrator, Paulette Revoir distributed a proposed Interagency
Agreement between the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and
SeaTac Municipal Court for reimbursement of interpreter expenses. The
contract is for costs incurred during the period of July 1, 2011 June 30,
2012 and would cover interpreter services for English deficient and
deaf /hard of hearing citizens with a financial need. The SeaTac
Municipal Court would be reimbursed for interpreter costs up to a
maximum of $9,363.
I
City of SeaTac
Hotel /Motel Tax Advisory Committee Meeting
January 11, 2012
Meeting Notes
Motel -Motel Members Present: Caroline Curtis; Cathy Heiberg; Jeff Hart; Vickie Molzer;
Frank Welton; Pat Baker; Roger McCracken
Members Absent: Jeff Bauknecht; Mayor Terry Anderson, Chair
Others Present: Steve Beek, Celebrate America; Doris Cassan, Dollar Rent a Car; Oren
Hadaller, Celebrate America; Clyde Hill, Celebrate America; Julie Hill, Celebrate America;
Katherine Kertzman, SSVS; Lynn Wallace, SWKC Chamber;
Meeting Duration: 3:00 --4:15 p.m.
Staff Present: Jeff Robinson, Economic Development Manager; Kit Ledbetter, Parks and Recreation
Director
AB Topic Disposition
2: Adoption of Minutes of _Informational Update
November 9, 2011 –Roger _Recommended for:
McCracken, Acting Chair
X Approval(s)
_—Approval with modifications
Denial
Motion by Heiberg. Second, Molzer
3. Funding Request
X Informational Update
from "Celebrate America
Recommended for:
Festival" Committee Steve
____Approval
Beck Clyde Hill
Approval with modifications
_Denial
Beck provided written materials to the
committee and gave an overview of the
Celebrate America Committee and its purpose
which is to create a sense of community for the
residents of SeaTac and provide a day -long
schedule of events and activities for all age
groups and families.
Beck, Clyde Hill and Oren Hadaller presented
the concept for the July 4th celebration and the
activities they were planning. These included a
wide range of athletic events and contests; a
memorial and flag "pavilion to honor
wounded warriors from the armed services;
food and beverage vendors; and a fireworks
display over Angle Lake.
The total request to the committee was for
ASS, 000 in HIM Tax funds.
179
Hotel/Motel Tax Advisory Committee
Page 2
The cornrnittee had several questions regarding
hoiv the budget had been structured, if the
organizers of the events had committed to the
events, how the celebration would be publicized,
and whether the event could use less than the
frill ainount requested.
McCracken pointed out that this was outside of
the normal request cycle and that a Cite Council
budget amendment a -ould be needed to alloit the
f tiding.
Other questions revolved aroiind the impact to
room nights and other economic benefits that
may accrue to local businesses.
4.Multi -Sports Facility
workplan update Jeff
Robinson
The committee asked the Celebrate America
Group to work with Kit Ledbetter and Katherine
Ker•tznran to better describe projected costs and
potential impacts to the tourism industry.
The committee agreed to discuss the requests at
the Febritary meeting if the Celebrate America
group could provide the necessary it for
for a decision to be objective1 }J reached.
Robinson asked that the information and
budgets be provided in advance of the Febr itary
meeting so the HIM Committee members ii�ould
have fi cient tune to analyze the request and
have a knowledgeable discussion.
X Informational Update
Recommended for:
Approval
_Approval with modifications
Denial
Referred to:
Robinson provided a status report on the Multi
sport facility study based on a it progress
report provided by Land Economic Consultants,
which is conducting the analysis.
Preliminary findings indicate that such a facility
would be utilized by a tivide range ofpotential
sports activities. Next steps ivould be to "right
size the facility and to undertake a review of
other similar projects around the country to
better understand the economics of developing,
operating and marketing such a facility.
IW
Its
Hotel/Motel Tax Advisory Committee
Page 3
S. SSVS Update Katherine
Kertzman
X Informational Update
_Recommended for:
__Approval
_Approval with modifications
Denial
Referred to:
Kertzman reminded the group of the SSVS Tourism
neworking event taking place on Februaryy 8 1h and
asked everyone to try and attend. She gave a brief
overview of the event which will include a
presentation of the SSVS Annual report and
information on the return on investment analysis to
better understand the actual impart of tourism
marketing expenditures in SSVS communities.
Kertzman asked that the committee postpone the
February meeting so that it would not conflict with
the networking and/ annual meeting. The committee
agreed to move February's meeting to the 15 th
6. Discussion, of Seattle Welton provided an update on the progress toward
Southside Tourism Promotion establishing a Southside Seattle Tourism Promotion
Area —Group area (SSTPA) comprised of the cities of SeaTac,
Tuk -wila, Kent and Des Moines.
A group meeting was conducted with several hotel
managers and the general consensus was to move
forward with the SSTPA.
Items for further discussion will include at what
level the assessment would be established, the size of
hotels to be included, when to start the process and
how the additional revenues will be spent.
Kertzman reported that she is in the process of
drafting an operating plan for the TPA and a budget
that will describe the additional services and new
initiatives that could be supported by TPA revenues.
Kertzman reported that she and Robinson have
begun work with a law firm to discuss the potential
of a Public Development Authority that could act as
the administrative and operating entity of the SSTPA
and also manage the funding provided to SSVS
through lodging tax revenues.
re- asserted the importdnce of n" ot co-
mingling the current revenues from the lodging tax
with the new TPA funds and that the HIM Tax
I:
Hotel /Motel Tax Advisory Committee
Page 4
7. Smith Travel Report t
D.O.R. Lodging Tax Receipts
8. Other business
'9. Adjourn
Advisors Conunittee have the abilio to direct and
monitor the use of the tax revenues apart fr•oni the
TP.4 funds.
Hart provided a report on the monthly Smith
statistics and indicated that all numbers ar
trending upward.
He described the year to date rise in occupancy
at 5.1 %0 with increased RevPar at 7.4% and
Revenue up 8 the year through the
November report.
Robinson reported that the single location
report for Sea Tac showed an increase of
$67, 000 in lodging tax revenue in 3011 based
on the Department of revenue report.
X Informational Update
_Recommended for:
Approval
_Approval with modifications
Denial
Referred to:
The committee discusser) the Port of Seattle's
request from interested parties to develop a new
hotel on airport property.
The meeting adjourned at 4:I5prr
NA
Consent Agenda Item #4
AGENDA ITEM
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Des Moines, WA
SUBJECT: Seattle Southside Tourism
Development Authority
ATTACHMENTS: Overview, Seattle Southside
Tourism Promotion Area FAQ, Current Revenue
and Service Structure, New Revenue and Service
Structure
Purpose and Recommendation
FOR AGENDA OF: May 17, 2012
DEPT. OF ORIGIN: Economic Development
DATE SUBMITTED: May 15, 2012
CLEARANCES:
Legal
Finance Mices
[X] Economic Development
Parks Recreation Senior
Planning, Building PW
APPROVED BY CITY MANL R
FOR SUBMITTAL:
The purpose of this agenda item is to seek Council direction to work with the Cities of Tukwila and
SeaTac in the creation of the Seattle Southside Tourism Development Authority.
Suumested Motion
First Motion: I move to give direction to the City Manager and staff of the City of Des Moines to work
with the other participating cities in the creation of the Seattle Southside Tourism Development
Authority.
Backeround
Seattle Southside Visitor Services (SSVS) is a tourism promotion program administered by the City of
Tukwila, serving the cities of SeaTac, Kent and Des Moines (participating cities) pursuant to separate
interlocal agreements (ILA's).
27
1
IT-IN
SSVS has provided tourism promotion to participating cities since 2002 and has demonstrated steady
growth and excellent Return on Investment (ROI). SSVS receives approximately $20,000 annually in
lodging tax revenue from motels that are located in the City of Des Moines.
Discussion
As outlined by Director Katherine Kertzman at the April 26 meeting, SSVS is proposing to form a
new entity called Seattle Southside Tourism Promotion Area (the SSTPA), which will collect an amount
not to exceed $2.00 per night from participating businesses. The City of Des Moines Hotel /Motel Tax
Advisory Committee approved the creation of this new Tourism Promotion Area at their last meeting, as
did the Hotel /Motel Tax Advisory Committee of SeaTac.
The SSTPA will create a new source of revenue, which will be used together with the existing lodging
tax revenues, to fund the Seattle Southside Tourism Development Authority (SSTDA). The SSTDA
will continue and expand the tourism promotion services currently provided by SSVS.
In order to move forward with the plan to create the SSTPA, and subsequently SSTDA, SSVS needs two
participating cities. SSVS has requested that Des Moines be one of these cities, and seeks Council
direction in support of this request,
Alternatives
Do not carry the motion.
Financial Impact
None.
Recommendation /Conclusion:
Des Moines stands to benefit from the expansion of SVSS as it transitions into the (larger and better
funded) SSTDA. Tourism promotion services will grow, with no additional revenues required from the
City beyond the lodging taxes currently allocated.
P.
IT.M.
D) U L Q) o CO
C- c7 O O C U
L a 0
U ca c O Q) r
U U Q) c c a) E LO
.o�,� c o N °.2 WO >o 0
w U) C3 c U O O c n a)
Q U ca ca co m c U m e U-C m O CM C(n a) U
u) o
4 -C m p pp c� c Q ui Co C o cz
U 3 m� oU Q-0� o o o Ems'°
cz
c C .o N -6 N° a) c E c U O E
0 o c� DL c o �-C o o o o oa o 0 0
UUE >c�U10 Q Um Q F Um oEaU O a..� Q)
co 0 0 0 O
p p cz O -C cz O N U) c� O N a) O) N >O co
0 ,i o c m 'C c) >1 J
Q
O
co Q o cz
E -a U
OU co c CO cn OU -0 x C
o m o c c c o c W C) 0 C7 cn ui ui c cU
p CO cn E .D U i� E cu c
o o O
o E¢ 0 a) o-M aa)) co
E 2 o w ccc 0 o
c .i O o U N U O o
cnUF cz c
>m cz m FULL¢ ca
c
v, oc CZ °j a c aEic�coo
w o�� m o m o c M °'o c E E ao
c cc E' E ma c- c
O O 3
o O -0 c cZ N U Q Y t y a)
c' a E c E c a) o c o >.c o c o cn o¢ CY
p iii O O Y D ai U O <i5 c O~ o f
co c) 0U �U O Q a cn o
a c� a) a aa) a)• c'� 3 E
N' N U c� ciS U E U E U co c cz cu
cz
a c O O. a N c CL O cz U a)
Qc c n Sci) E Via) B oa F .gym -0
w
cn
zwF- 2 N
CC Z> r O f r
IL OC
d
n
cc ,W 0
w c'C O O O O
0 N N N N
LL
U N U
a'0' a 0 0 0 Q. m Q 0U CJ ci 0 Q
0 c P c c c O� c U a) c a) O
p Y V Y Y Y c O L U U O E a) O= c C c6
CL Q Q Q c Q a) U E m a) N C CZ cn ascncn (0Z) U UYLr =)U (z E asF— LLJL]0cf) D cz
MTR
o
O
Cld E o
(n
U -0 a) a) _0
C
CO a) V- Q) 0 o
ma 0 =502 L01-
E (D 3roU O W c
a)
(D
a)
a) N 0 CL 0 N o) u`)i CD
�aa)EEa mz —o88
a Q m g rZ 'E q) v (n
L
0 -0
u) C E C Q O N O) co "O
V C 0 -Fni E o cn E 0 E- O �E 0 Q cm
n Q- °cm a 7:F -'•fin ��ai
N E c.E v o c� a E c'a) E'Q�
O u) O Y C E N O (D C O Q O p_ C a5
cm Q) O C ccs o c F E (n p) cz
a) a) O C m> a) C Y "6 N C U "0 (En (n a) O.
N Q L O cn C O C C (n (n m O a N O C c� O
-C X O C (n O C O a1 a) C L
F- w C- 3: mC)-0 o.n L-c E.� m cn Q E o
w
�a
0 C
OF -0 •C L cn
o
O
Q N 0`2
E o� �U'F� o
O
L
1--
z
n m >"o a) 0 0 0 0c E
x> m U m o_ o> :3 cn
o
w
o m >Eo -o.-
m L o O U C (n Q C
LZ_
U!
Q.
V Y
M O E p c� N N. C CL 0
CO
O C Co
G cc
U E (CL) rte-+ o
0
U
Q
O a) `L c C 2: IT O O C a)
C) -C c(S m O O, 0 C O M
C p
C a EU to c� O a.o
cam
UJ
(D C O E U E a E E C°
O. O
st- z
0 i2 i2
C
U y
-o
W CC'
cn m c� a s a) o c� c� X a) o
Q.Q ca W 3/ U Q
�U
O
Cld E o
(n
U -0 a) a) _0
C
CO a) V- Q) 0 o
ma 0 =502 L01-
E (D 3roU O W c
a)
(D
a)
a) N 0 CL 0 N o) u`)i CD
�aa)EEa mz —o88
a Q m g rZ 'E q) v (n
L
0 -0
u) C E C Q O N O) co "O
V C 0 -Fni E o cn E 0 E- O �E 0 Q cm
n Q- °cm a 7:F -'•fin ��ai
N E c.E v o c� a E c'a) E'Q�
O u) O Y C E N O (D C O Q O p_ C a5
cm Q) O C ccs o c F E (n p) cz
a) a) O C m> a) C Y "6 N C U "0 (En (n a) O.
N Q L O cn C O C C (n (n m O a N O C c� O
-C X O C (n O C O a1 a) C L
F- w C- 3: mC)-0 o.n L-c E.� m cn Q E o
w
�a
a) C
o
O
O O L
(d C
.O
C
O
M o
C c 0) i L o L a) ns o°
M
Z
l V p• C Q 0 :t,
O
O
f— ai
a)
U)
O Q o U c) C O_ C Q
G cc
D E> a) (D E o E
5 E
E O a L 01> O c E 7 j
a)
J O
o O C O O
O 0 i .0) O 0 Q (n
Q
ca
UJ
a) O. i O cci (n— E C cz
>1
O
st- z
a) �pEaCLa)�
W CC'
(n a) O C> O c� cz
Q c15 o EI- as> Q° O T
C p
Q
O
Cld E o
(n
U -0 a) a) _0
C
CO a) V- Q) 0 o
ma 0 =502 L01-
E (D 3roU O W c
a)
(D
a)
a) N 0 CL 0 N o) u`)i CD
�aa)EEa mz —o88
a Q m g rZ 'E q) v (n
L
0 -0
u) C E C Q O N O) co "O
V C 0 -Fni E o cn E 0 E- O �E 0 Q cm
n Q- °cm a 7:F -'•fin ��ai
N E c.E v o c� a E c'a) E'Q�
O u) O Y C E N O (D C O Q O p_ C a5
cm Q) O C ccs o c F E (n p) cz
a) a) O C m> a) C Y "6 N C U "0 (En (n a) O.
N Q L O cn C O C C (n (n m O a N O C c� O
-C X O C (n O C O a1 a) C L
F- w C- 3: mC)-0 o.n L-c E.� m cn Q E o
w
�a
o
O
O
0ZW
000
O
r
G cc
6
UJ
It
st- z
O
W CC'
O
O
N
N
Q
C]
{n ui
O
O
C
O
Q
0
O
0
C
LY
1- z
A L
O
D
U E o E
o
a. 0
E
M
o
U
F- D
U C3
N
I •0
C o a,
O C
0
�0 E Q
a U) C) Y
C L L
oc�U 0-v)E
U O O C Q
L u) cz a) C
c c fl W
C p C Q
O U C 0 a) C
U Q L
O U) co O
CD Lr) C CZ -o
a)
ECQ a)Ma)
E C O (tY
OC_ O ciS
cn co 0- E
cz
U C C p) O d' E
"O w O co C -r- "O O
C 5 Q _0 _0
O O U Q> C Q p (SS fll
CO CZ O Q (D (n O
O Q U O E U a)
Q O E p' V O C L Q
7 .Q O U (Z Q U 0 co
O> O C C U O C Q C
()-0 N C' 0) 'v Q
�c -0 Co CD �CQ(n
O 0 a) r C O 'O U N N
0 o E CO aa o-� am
Q
ca
to i
c -0
O Q E E -Q 0)-o cz
Q
U0-c -m C
a Q U C 'Fn U O
U a) _n O C�
Q 'y voi Ca
U (n to
O s�Q�Ep6) E
(SS Cn L cz C C to
C cz U O 'U 'C
co Q E Q O C
E cz 'O (1) cz .Q
y— L
O Q L O 4-
O CZ O O L -0
(Z E t—CEo 0
C C cn (LS O E• U
QoQC L oa)
(Z (p U Q p C Q O
C .a) �O Q O
O Q ci3 U- O Q D to to
O
a o �3: U c� E c c E E (n
E U p O C .p a) O Q p Q a) C Q
•C O C a) C O O N 'CJ C .O p Q 0 .O
o Q U >QEa �w >ECL E0
Q�as M a Q-- op-0 CZ °n E a aE
m
I I I
C 0
o
as 0) CIS vi O O
C
C
U
Q
C: (b E 0 (n
c�
C .e! c_
E
GJ
E
C w Y
0 Q
0._ CnCCn a CE�CE Q
E "O cz 0
0_0
cn
to Q Q
Q
Q QC()v C C�
'CL
U)
N
E�-
LO
_�'�E
O O N (SS C p (Z C O C •E
cz
U)
IL o
:3 Q C
Q Q-
W
.Q
Q
c, -a Cn
(n
p U)
U) Cn O Q Q) O N a) O
Ea• >YE YES
C
0
0
O 0 Q
I-
a)
=3 p :3 O-0 0 c� O N CLS O U
H O° aca U E Qi: E n
Ucn
Q J W
Z
c Q
X Z
EH
C E
E d w
O
z
at
ca
p
t[ 5
T
0
lad_ cc
0
0
c0
N
N
L
m
0
C
ca
CL cc
0
C O
Y o
O
O
C
O M a) O N 3 c
C
co
co
C O.� O 'a co
UnUUQmww —j
O O C CO p
�cn0
Q
U�:
m
I I I
e
c
c-
E co a 0
=c
£M
§b \�0-/$
/E'
LO
z
§2 /0
/a /)2�
2(
w
7
O
ƒ 3 -c
/�����E�
o._
f
/2 °°ce \52
g 2 2 E
E
4E% %33
o j o
LU
\E
\2/
E
e
c
E co a 0
=c
Z w
§b \�0-/$
/k
7 0 a)
a° ®5�\ 2
n
(n
/a /)2�
2(
®\E§�
t[± o
m c e m o o o
o E e
y
o I f$
6 e
E
/�����E�
o._
2 kE0
/2 °°ce \52
g 2 2 E
7\22%
E±�� E
E
4E% %33
r, k0
t
�k
U) »ff±
E/7
a22//
Ea
CL e m a
cE.g7@
\.g£�E
I%>
m c
/\E/¢
y
UJ
0 0
in
:7
E
0\
a.
E o
7
tr
k
LU
k
m
in
E
CL 0
E
cz
a)
E o
o m
e UF-
7
ƒ
2
2
ƒ
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Haggerton
Finance and Safety Committee
Peggy McCarthy, Finance Director
May 30, 2012
Financial Planning Model Attachment A and Attachment B Review
ISSUE
Review the layout and content of Attachment A and Attachment B of the Financial Planning Model,
through 2012, for use in future financial planning.
BACKGROUND
Attachment A and Attachment B model the revenue and expenditures of most of the City's
governmental funds. The funds included in the model are:
Fund Fund Name
000
General Fund
103
Residential Streets
104
Arterial Streets
2
Debt Service
301
Land Acquisition Development
302
Facilities
303
General Government Improvements
304
Fire Improvements
The governmental funds excluded from the model are:
Fund I Fund Name
105 Contingency Fund
107 Fire Equipment Cumulative Reserve
109 Drug Seizure
These funds are excluded from the model because they were established for very specific purposes,
and as such, are not available for general government activities.
Revenues on Attachment A exclude transfers between the funds included in the model, exclude
grant revenue received for capital projects and exclude financing proceeds.
Capital expenditures on Attachment B include only those costs paid for from City operations. The
amounts exclude expenditures financed through grants and debt proceeds.
DISCUSSION
The model is used to identify trends, assess the general financial health of the City and to
determine amounts available for projects and other special purposes. Line 25 of Attachment A
shows the amount of funds available for projects or special purposes after net expenditure for
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
general government services and debt service. The model has been updated with actual amounts
for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 with accounts consistently categorized in each of the years. In
the past, categorization of certain accounts has been inconsistent such as sales tax mitigation
revenue (originally reported with intergovernmental revenue for 2009, now reported with sales
tax revenue).
Changes to Attachment A
1. Line 25, Available after Payment of Debt Service, has been added to show the amount
available for project or Contingency reserve funding after general government services
and debt service has been paid.
2. The line item, Estimated unfunded PERS, has been removed. All reserves deemed
necessary, including this reserve, should be incorporated into the reserve policy and
should be funded through the Contingency fund.
Changes to Attachment B:
3. Transfers to enterprise funds, the Fire Equipment and Drug Seizure funds and additional
advancements on the Metropolitan Park District loan have been added to the model to
provide more precise and accurate results.
Change to Attachment A B:
4. An adjustment column has been added to the right of the 2012 budget column to reflect
changes in estimates and their effect on the model. Adjustments have been added to the
draft to:
a. bring revenues more in line with prior year actual results and anticipated results,
b. adjust the debt service to the underlying debt service schedules,
c. reduce capital expenditures for General Government Improvements to reflect
estimated funding from the King County Flood District for the removal of the
Green River temporary levies the Hesco fences and Super Sacks (75% of $1850
budgeted).
d. Total expenditures on Attachment B have not been adjusted, since in the past,
departments have underspent their budgets by 3 to 4%
Next Steps:
The model will be updated as more information becomes available through development of the
biennial budget. A preliminary Attachment C, containing Capital Improvement projects
contemplated for 2013 2018 has been developed and will be discussed with the Committee at a
later date.
FINANCIAL IMPACT None. For discussion only.
RECOMMENDATION
Information Only.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Attachment A 2009, 2010, 2011 Actuals, 2012 Budget and 2012 Projections
Draft Attachment B 2011 Actuals and 2012 Budget
190 W:1FIN Projects\Council Agenda Items\201211nfoMemo_Financial Reporting Model, Attachment A B.docx
total revenues and expenditures
model years 2013-2018
budget analysis
general fund operations and maintenace expenditures
2011 actuals and 2012 budget analysis