The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPRHSPSC PKT 06-28-1999 C hn3 City of Federal Way CITY COUNCIL PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES &PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Monday, June 28, 1999 12:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC FORUM 3. COMMISSION COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF JUNE 14, 1999 SUMMARY 5. COMMITTEE BUSINESS A. B. C. D. E. F. CDBG lnterlocal Agreement Blueberry Farm Op6'rations Policy Fee &:Use Policies Service Organization Recognition Program Soroptimist Flag Display Public Safety Dispatch Services Action Action Information Discussion Action Action Parker Wilbrecht Wilbrecht Schroder Schroder Matheson 6. NEXT MEETING - July 12, 1999 - 5:30 p.m. Agenda Items: Graffiti Policies & Procedures, Skate Park Status, Soroptimist Flag Display 7. ADJOURNMENT Committee Members: Jack Dovey, Chair Jeanne Burbidge Linda Kochmar , Staff: Jennifer Schroder, Director Sue Floyd, Administrative Assistant 661-4041 ~, City of Federal Way . City Council PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Monday, June 14; 1999 5:30"p-m: City Hall Administration Conference Room' , SUMMARY In attendance: Council Committee members Linda Kochmar and Jeanne Burbidge; Jennifer Schroder, Director of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services; Pat Richardson, Assistant City Attorney; Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer; Hazem El-Assar, Assistant Traffic Engineer; Sue Floyd, Administrative Assistant; Guests: Bob Dahl, Jerry Bergman, Jerry Thosen. Excused: Chair Jack Dovey Committee member Jeanne Burbidge called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. PUBLIC FORUM None COMMISSION COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MAY 24, 1999 SUMMARY The May 24, 1999 minutes were approved as written. . ' BUSINESS ITEMS II TRAFFIC SAFETY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDA TIaNS Mr. Perez reported that the Traffic Safety Task Force for the Twin LakeslBrigadoon neighborhood met bi-weekly since October 22, 1998. The Task Force was formed in response to concerns about the increased rate of speed hump installation. The meetings were attended by Task Force members, staff of the Public Works and Public Safety Departments, the Fire Department and the School District. Two open houses were held on March 3 and 18, 1999. The Task Force looked at a variety ofdifferent traffic calming devices, including traffic circles, chicanes and humps. The Task Force recommendations included the following: 1. Consider the installation of traffic calming devices at the following locations: a. 35th Ave. SW between SW 339th PI. & SW 338th St. b. 35th Ave. SWat SW 328th St. c. 27th Ave. SWat SW 332nd PI. d. 28th Ave. SWat SW 327th St. e. 27th Ave. SW between 322nd St. & SW 322nd PI. f. 39th PI. SW near SW 326ch St. Chicane Traffic Circle Traffic Circle All Way Stop Speed Humps Speed Humps b. Generalize current speed hump installation/removal criteria to be applicable to other traffic calming devices including traffic circles, chicanes, and others requested by neighborhood groups and approved by City Council. The following revisions were recommended: a. Set a maximum budget of $10,000 per year per neighborhood for installation of traffic calming devices. If the cost of the proposed device(s) exceeds this budget, a neighborhood must form an LID to fund the excess amount. Otherwise, the City may fund the excess amount in the following year on a rust-come, rust-serve basis, To address concerns raised by Federal Way Fire Department staff regarding the impacts of calming devices on emergency response vehicles, a representative from the Fire Department will be invited to neighborhood meetings to discuss the impacts of proposed devices with the requesting groups. Ballots not returned from residents or property owners on the installation/removal of proposed devices should not be counted as yes or no votes. Previously, only returned ballots in favor of the proposals were counted as yes votes and deliverable, unreturned ballots were counted as no votes. 2. c. Parks, Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety Council Committee June 14, 1999 Summary Page Two After discussing item 2c, committee members concurred with the Task Force recommendation. Discussion ensued on the 600 foot balloting radius. The Task Force was comfortable with this radius. Mr. DaW didn't feel that the 600 foot radius was not sufficient. The Ta~k Force did look at balloting anyone who would be reasonably affected by the hump, but chose to keep it at 600 feet. Mr. Bergman, who served on the Task Force, noted public hearings for each of the proposal traffic devices would have to be held, so if citizens do not want a traffic device, they have the opportunity to vote it down. Mr. Bergman also said that sidewalks around schools are critical. . For example, Brigadoon Elementary has no sidewalks on the west side. Ms. Kochmar concurred and felt that schools should have priority for sidewalks. '", Jerry Thorsen, resident and Federal Way Fire Department staff person, felt that the traffic hump in his neighborhood has reduced traffic. From a Fire Department standpoint, the Task Force did a good job on location of humps and impact on emergency vehicles. Mr. Thosen felt humps with a cutout for emergency vehicles and buses should be explored. Mr. Perez noted that the Task Force recommendations did not specify the type of device for the locations. They would be looked at on a case-by-case basis. LINDA KOCHMAR MOVED, JEANNE BURBIDGE SECONDED A MOTION TO ADOPT THE TRAFFIC CALMING INSTALLATIONIREMOV ALCRITERIARECOMMENDED BY THE TASKFORCE INCLUDING ITEM 2C REGARDING BALLOT RESPONSES. MOTION PASSED. . ~. ,.'; .LINDA KOCHMAR MOVED, JEANNE BURBIDGE SECONDED A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONDUCT TRAFFIC STUDIES AT THE ABOVE LOCATIONS WHERE CALMING DEVICES WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE TASK FORCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY MEET INSTALLATION CRITERIA. MOTION PASSED. NEXT MEETING June 28,1999, 12:00 p.m. , . II .' ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Item SA CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL PARKS, RECREA nON, HUMAN SERVICES, AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Date: June 22,1999 From: Camron Parker, CDBG Coordinator Subject: CDBG and HOME Agreements, 2000-2002 Background Enclosed with this memo are two agreements which renew the City's participation in the King County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME) Consortia. The agreements will be effective between the years 2000 and 2002. Also included is a cover letter that will be signed by the City Manager should the City Council authorize continued participation in the King County CDBG Consortium. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development'(HUD) requires these agreements for cities to be able to participate in r~gional King County CDBG and HOME Consortia. Nearly all suburban cities participate in one or both Consortia. Bellevue and Auburn participate only in the HOME Consortium; they administer their own CDBG entitlements. Like Bellevue and Auburn, the City of Federal Way is entitled to administer its own CDBG program. In 1994, at the direction of City Council, the City joined the King County CDBG Consortium and has jointly administered CDBG funds with the Consortium since that time. The King County Housing and Community Development Division administers both grants. For CDBG, the larger member cities share in the administration by receiving a proportional amount of grant funds on a pass-through system. The HOME grant is administered regionally as it is not a large enough amount to warrant a pass-through system. The County uses approximately ten percent of both grants for administrative costs. This amount is reserved by the County prior to distributing the CDBG pass-through amounts. Changes from Prior Three-Year Agreements These agreements are substantially similar to past three-year agreements. They retain the pass- through method of sharing CDBG funds with the larger suburban cities, and provide for the continued allocation of HOME funds on a regional basis. The County will continue its role as direct liaison to HUD and will manage all annual CDBG capital projects for non-profit grant recipients. The City will continue to operate an annual CDBG allocation process and will PRPSHS -- CDBG Pass-through Page 2 of 3 manage all annual CDBG public service contracts and capital projects that are directly implemented by the City. The agreements contain four important modifications: First, the City's "joint agreement" for USe of CDBG funds is slightly different than the "interlocal cooperation agreements" used by other participating cities. The joint agreement applies to cities that qualify to receive a CDBG entitlement grant directly from HUD. The City of Federal Way has been a HUD designated entitlement community since incorporation. The joint agreement specifies that the City will be allocated the larger of either (a) a Pass-through calculated through the King County Consortium's formula, or (b) the entitlement amount calculated through the HUD formula (less the City's pro rata share of the Consortium's administrative set-aside). Additionally, the joint agreement will allow the City a new level of flexibility regarding the . Housing Stability Program. This is a homelessness prevention program which provides one-time loans or grants to individuals who face homelessness due to an unexpected fmancial crisis. It is funded with 25 percent of the Consortium's public service CDBG funds (fifteen percent of the. total urban county entitlement may be allocated to public service programs). The 25 percent is removed before the calculations are made for the public service pass-through amounts. Under the previous agreement, the City of Federal Way's financial participation in this program was assumed. Under the new agreement, the City will have the option of withholding its pro rata share and allocating these funds to a different eligible public service activity. An additional new requirement in the agreement requires the Housing Stability Program to provide an annual report to all CDBG Consortium members. Second, the CDBG and HOME agreements allow the King County Executive to appoint a citizen from an unincorporated area as a representative to the Joint Recommendations Committee (JRC), which is the Consortium's interjurisdictional policy recommendation body. Previously, only King County department directors (or designees) and Suburban City Association appointees could sit on the JRC. While unincorporated area residents benefit from Consortium projects and programs, there was previously no direct representation for these County residents on the JRC. Third, the new CDBG agreements contain some provisions that are important to various cities. One provision allows smaller Pass-through cities to continue to receive a Pass-through even if they fall below the Consortium-adopted $50,000 threshold in future years (Issaquah, for example, is close to the threshold and risks falling below it if Congress reduces the entitlement). Other provisions clarify and add specific time lines to administrative responsibilities of the County to the participating cities. Finally, the CDBG and HOME agreements now provide for an automatic renewal at the end of three years. Under the renewal policy, participation in the Consortia will be automatic every three years unless the City decides to opt out of the Consortia or propose amendments to the agreement. Previously, the agreements terminated after the three year period and had to be re- negotiated by all Consortium participants (approximately 30 cities and the county). While the 6/22/99 \\CFW CH\USER\CD\CAMRONP\AGNDAITM\99PRHSPS\PRHS6-1.D PRPSHS -- CDBG Pass-through Page 3 of 3 administrative details have yet to be established, it is likely that participating cities will certify that they wish to remain in the Consortium every three years. Staff Recommendation For 1~99, the City of Federal Way received more CDBG funds through participation in the Consortium with less City staff time necessary to operate a separate CDBG program. Additionally, to resurrect the City's own CDBG program, HUD will require extensive one and five year housing and community development planning processes that may take up to 18 months to complete. The City would not be eligible to receive CDBG funds until the required planning processes were complete. Additionally, the City would also have to increase the CDBG staffing level to assume grant management duties currently conducted by the County. For these reasons, Human Services staff recommend continued participation in the King County CDBG and HOME Consortia. Committee Recommendation I. The Committee recommends continued participation in the King County CDBG and HOME Consortia and authorizes the City Manager to enter into three-year agreements with King County for the years 2000 to 2002. The Committee forwards this recommendation to the full City Council for consideration at the July 6, 1999 meeti'ng. I 2. The Committee recommends discontinuing participation in the King County CDBG and HOME Consortia recognizing that the City is not entitled to receive a HOME grant, and recognizing that the City would not be eligible to receive CDBG funds until such time as all HUD required housing and community development planning processes are complete and approved by HUD. The Committee forwards this recommendation to the full City Council for consideration at the July 6, 1999 meeting. 3. The Committee forwards to the full City Council a recommendation of its choice for consideration at the July 6, 1999 meeting. ApPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT: Committee Chair Committee Member Committee 6/22/99 \\CFW CH\USER\CD\CAMRONP\AGNDAITM\99PRHSPS\PRHS6-1.D COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT JOINT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between King County and the City of , said parties to the Agreement each being a unit of general local government in the State of Washington. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the federal government through adoption and administration of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (the "Act"), will make Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG"), funds available to both the County and city in the form of entitlement grants; and WHEREAS, the area encompassed by unincorporated King County and any participating cities is designated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") as an urban county for the purpose of receiving CDBG funds; and WHEREAS, the Act directs HUD to distribute to each urban county the annual appropriation of CDBG funds based on the population characteristics of the urban county; and , WHEREAS, the Act allo,ws joint agreements, whereby entitlement cities may join the urban county, and: allows the urban county to distribute CDBG funds to such cities as participating jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the CDBG Regulations require the acceptance of the consolidated housing and community development plan ("Consolidated H&CD Plan") by participating jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, King County will undertake CDBG-funded activities in participating incorporated jurisdictions as specified in the Consolidated H&CD Plan by granting funds to those jurisdictions to carry out such activities; and WHEREAS, King County is responsible to the federal government for all activities undertaken with CDBG funds and will ensure that all CDBG assurances and certifications King County is required to submit to HUD with the Annual Action Plan will be met; and WHEREAS, King County and the participating jurisdictions are committed to targeting CDBG funds to ensure benefit to low- and moderate-income persons as defined by HUD; and WHEREAS, King County and its participating jurisdictions recognize that the needs of low- and moderate-income persons may cross jurisdictional boundaries and can therefore be considered regional needs; and 06/1 0/99 .. WHEREAS, King County and the participating jurisdictions must submit an Annual Action Plan to HUD which is a requirement to receive CDBG funds; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Joint Agreement, which is entered into pursuant to and in accordance with the State Interlocal Cooperation Act, RCW Chap. 39.34, is for the City to join the urban county consortium, ("Consortium"), for planning the distribution and administration of CDBG and other federal funds received on behalf of the Consortium from HUD, and for execution of activities in accordance with and under authority of the Act; NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERA nON OF THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN CONSIDERA nON OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES CONTAINED HEREIN, IT IS AGREED THAT: I. GENERAL AGREEMENT King County and each participating jurisdiction agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, activities which further the development of viable urban communities, including the provision of decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income, through community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing, ~ded from annual CDBG funds from federal Fiscal Years' 200Q, 2001, and 2002 appropriations, from recaptured funds allo- cated in those years, and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds. II. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS The distribution within the County of CDBG Funds under Title I of the Act shall be governed by the following provisions, exclusive of the Cities of Auburn, Bellevue, and Seattle. A. The amount needed for administration of the Consortium's CDBG and other federal programs which benefit the Consortium shall be reserved by the County. This amount, hereinafter referred to as the administrative setaside, is contingent upon review by the Joint Recommendations Committee ("the Committee"), as provided in Section VIII.C.I., and approval by the Metropolitan King County Council, as provided in Section XIII.B. B. In addition to the administrative setaside referred to in Section II (A), each year 25% of the public service funds available, not to exceed $300,000, will be subtracted from the entitlement and reserved for the Housing Stability Program, a public service activity in support of the affordable housing requirements under the implementation of the state Growth Management Act (RCW Chapter 36.70A). This public service setaside will be administered by the County with input from a working group of the 06/1 0/99 2 06/1 0/99 participating cities and county staff. This public service setaside will. be subject to the same percentage of decrease as the annual public service funds if there are any reductions during the year. In addition, any city participating in this Joint Agreement will have the option of withholding their pro rata share of the Housing Stability Program funds and allocating them to a different eligible public service activity if the City so chooses. C. Of the grant amount remaining after the setasides referred to in Sections II.A. and ILB. ("the Adjusted Grant Amount"), the city participating in this Joint Agreement will be eligible to receive a direct pass-through share, provided that: 1. The City's pass-through share will be the larger of a share of the Adjusted Grant Amount based upon the CDBG Consortium's formula (the City's share of the Consortium's total 10w- and moderate-income persons, as defined by HUD), or the City's HUD-specified entitlement grant amount less the City's pro rata share of the Consortium's administrative setaside, and at the City's option (see 11.8. above) less the City's pro rata share ofthe Housing Stability Program; 2. The City participates in developing the Consortium's Consolidated H&CD Plan by identifying its non-housing community development needs; 3. The city agrees to abide by Consortium schedules and requirements to receive a pass-through of CDBG funqs. The responsibilities of these pass- through jurisdictions are defined in Section X. Participating cities may elect not to teceive a direct pass-through but may compete for County and Small Cities Funds, as defined in Section II.D., below. D. The funds remaining in the Adjusted Grant Amount after the distribution of the pass- through funds referred to in Section II.c. shall be referred to as the County and Small Cities Fund, and shall be allocated on a competitive basis to projects serving the cities not qualifying to receive or not electing to receive a pass-through, and/or projects serving the unincorporated areas ofthe County. E. If the monies assigned to a project during the period of this Agreement exceed the actual cost of the project, or if the project is later reduced or canceled, then the excess monies or recaptured funds, will be recaptured by the County and will be redistributed as follows: I. Administrative setaside funds, as defined in Section II.A. and public service setaside as defined in Section 11.8. which are recaptured shall be returned to the Consortium and be distributed to the Pass-through Cities and County and Small Cities Funds based on their percentage of the Consortium's low- and moderate- income persons, as defined by HUD. 2. Funds recaptured from a project funded through a city's pass-through fund, as defined in Section II (C), shall be returned to the City's pass-through fund, unless 3 06/10/99 " ~.:, the City no longer qualifies for a pass-through as provided in Section II.C.I., in which case the funds shall be returned to the County and Small Cities Fund. 3. Funds recaptured from a project funded through the County and Small Cities Fund, as defined in Section II.D., shall be returned to the County and Small Cities Fund. F. Unallocated or recaptured funds from 1987 and prior years (e.g., unallocated or recaptured "Population", "Needs" or "Joint" funds) shall be returned to the Consortium and be distributed to the Pass-through Cities and the County and Small Cities Funds based on their percentage of the Consortium's low- and moderate- income persons, as defined by HUD. Go Funds received by a jurisdiction or CDBG subrecipient generated from the use of CDBG funds, hereinafter referred to as program income, shall be returned to the fund which generated the program income as follows, unless an exception is specifically recommended by the Committee and approved by the Metropolitan King County Council: 1. That portion of the program income which is interest or fee income generated through Community Development Interim Loan (CDlL) and Section 108 loan guarantee projects (as provided in Section 108 of the Act), both of which use all or a portion of the Consortium's total avai1~ble CDBG funds, shall be returned to the Consortium. ífhe funds shall be used for the direct costs (e.g., staff, attorney, and bank fees, advertising costs, contract compliance costs), necessary for the marketing, negotiation, and implementation of the interim loan and 108 loan activities, and for other Consortium-wide or subregional capital projects or programs, including other Consortium-wide economic development projects or programs. Use of the funds shall be recommended by the Committee each year after review by an inter-jurisdictional staff group. 2. Program income generated from a project (including housing repair) funded through a city's pass-through fund, as defined in Section II.C., shall be returned to the City's pass-through fund, unless the City. no longer qualifies for a pass- through as provided in Section II.C.I., in which case the program income shall be]eturned to the County and Small Cities Fund. 3. Program income generated from a project (including housing repair) funded through the County and Small Cities Fund, as defined in Section lI.D., shall be returned to the County and Small Cities Fund. 4. Program income generated from projects funded in 1987 (except for housing repair) and prior years shall be returned to the Consortium and be distributed to the Pass-through Cities and the County and Small Cities Funds according to their share of the Consortium's 10w- and moderate-income persons, as defined by HUD. 4 III. USE OF FUNDS: GENERAL PROVISIONS A. The County and each of the Pass-through Cities shall specify activities and projects which it will undertake with the funds described in Section II. above. B. The County and each of the Pass-through Cities shall ensure that CDBG funds are targeted to activities which can document predominant (51 %) benefit to low- and moderate-income people and that the overall program meets or exceeds HUD's requirements for the percentage of funds spent to benefit 10w- and moderate-income persons in King County. C. Pass-through Cities may exchange their CDBG funds with other Pass-through Cities for general revenue funds. The use of general revenue funds obtained by a Pass- through City in this manner shall be consistent with the general intent of the community development program, but shall not be considered CDBG program Income. D. The County and each of the Pass-through Cities shall conduct the appropriate citizen participation activities as required by HUD regulations. E. Approval of projects must be secured through formal grant applications (proposals) to King County; approval of activities shall b~ secured when the annual program is approved or amended" F. General administrative costs incurred by Pass-through Cities shall be paid for out of the pass-through or from local funds. Costs incurred in administering specific projects may be included in project costs. IV. USE OF ADMINISTRATION FUNDS A. A Pass-through City may reserve a portion of its entitlement share to cover administrative costs of its local CDBG Program or to fund planning projects, however, this amount must be reserved by spring o(each year and will be based upon the City's proportion oflow- and moderate-income persons, as defined by HUD. B. In addition to the responsibilities outlined in Section X. Pass-through Cities may use additional Pass-through funds to cover part of their administrative costs if: 1. Planning ceiling (the maximum amount allowed by HOD for planning and administration activities which cannot exceed 20% of the annual entitlement plus program income) is available; 2. The City runs a competitive process for the distribution of the CDBG funds; and 06/1 0/99 5 '~, 3. City staff participate in Consortium-wide planning process.es such as development of the Consolidated H&CD Plan and the HOME Consortium Working Group. C. Requests from Pass-through Cities to use the balance of planning ceiling, if available, to cover additional administrative costs will take priority over requests for planning projects. D. Pass-through City staff who are supported with administrative funds would also be expected to assist in preparing and/or presenting information to the Committee. V. USE OF PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDS A Pass-through City may reserve a portion of its entitlement share to cover public service activities; however, the amount must be reserved by spring of each year and will be based upon the City's proportion of 10w- and moderate-income persons, as defined by HUD. VI. PROGRAM INCOME A. The participating jurisdiction must inform King County of any income generated by the expenditure of CDBG funds received by th~ participating jurisdiction. I B. Any such program income is subject to requirements set forth in Section II.G. of this Agreement. C. Any program income the participating jurisdiction is authorized to retain may only be used for eligible activities in accordance with all applicable CDBG requirements. D. King County has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any such program income and thereby requires appropriate record keeping and reporting by the participating jurisdiction as stated in the signed certification to receive "Pass-through City". status and in each city's contract to receive CDBG planning and administration funds. E. In the event of close-out or change in status of the participating jurisdiction any program income, that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in status shall be paid to King County Consortium. VII. REAL PROPERTY A. Participating jurisdictions owning community facilities acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds must comply with change of use restrictions as required by HUD and the policies adopted by the Committee as found in the Consolidated H&CD Plan. 06/1 0/99 6 B. The participating jurisdiction must notify King County prior to any modification or change in the use of real property acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds. This includes any modification or change in use from that planned at the time of the acquisition or improvement, including disposition. C. The jurisdiction shall reimburse King County in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. D. Program income generated from the disposition or transfer of property prior to or subsequent to the close-out, change of status, or termination of the cooperation agreement between the County and the participating jurisdiction shall be subject to the requirements set forth in Section II.G. and Section VI. VIII. JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS COMMITTEE A Joint Recommendations Committee shall be established. A. Composition. The Committee shall be composed of four County representatives and five Cities representatives. The four County representatives may be Department Directors or their designees, and/or citizen representatives from unincorporated commuirities. County representatives shall be specified in writing and should, where possible, be the same person consistently from meeting to meeting. The five partici- pating city representatives and their alternates will include city planning directors or comparable level staff, or elected officials. Two city representatives and their alternates will be from the north/east region of the County and two city representatives and their alternates will be from the south region of the County. An additional revolving position on this Committee shall be rotated between the HOME- only cities of Auburn and Bellevue. The revolving position will be non-voting, except on issues related to the King County HOME Consortium and other federal housing-related funds (excluding CDBG). B. Appointments. The King County Executive shall appoint the four County representatives (no more than one representative for each unincorporated community or Department). The Suburban Cities Association will select eight different jurisdictions, four to serve as members and four as alternates, who in turn, will assign representatives to this Committee. Terms of office shall be for two years. Priority for one of the positions will be for a small city representative. The revolving HOME position will be appointed annually by the respective jurisdiction. Members of the Committee shall serve at the pleasure of their respective appointing authorities. The chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Committee shall be chosen from among the members of the Committee by a majority vote of the members for a term of one 06/1 0/99 7 IX. 06/10/99 '0 year beginning the first meeting of the calendar year. Attendance of five members will constitute a quorum. C. Powers and Duties. The Committee shall be empowered to: 1. Review and recommend to the King County Executive all policy matters on the Consortium's CDBG. and HOME Program including the amount of administrative setaside, priorities governing the use of the public services setaside, and projects or programs to be funded with the program income from community development interim loans and Section 108 loan guarantees (as allowed in Section 108 of the Act). 2. Review, recommend, and endorse the Consolidated H&CD Plan required by HUD. 3. Review plan and program disagreements between the County and participating jurisdictions and offer recommendations to the King County Executive. 4. Review and recommend sanctions to be imposed on cities for failUre to meet responsibilities as contained in Section X of this Agreement. Any recommended sanctions will ensure that the City's 10w- and moderate-income residents continue to benefit from CDBG funds. Sanctions will be imposed to prevent the King County Consortium frorp. losing a share of its entitlement due to participating cities' inability to meet federal requirements. 5. Review and recommend projects for funding under the Section 108 loan guarantee program (as allowed in Section 108 of the Act). 6. Review and recommend projects for funding from the remainder of any new Pass-through City's funds ifthat new Pass-through City chooses to take only a partial pass-through as provided in Section II.CA. above. RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES OF THE KING COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STAFF Those King County Housing and Community Development Program Staff positions which are funded through the administrative setaside, hereinafter referred to as the Staff, serve as staff to all Consortium partners and the Committee and provides liaison between the Consortium and HUD. A. Responsibilities to the Joint Recommendations Committee. The Staff shall: 1. Solicit and present to the Committee all applicable federal and County policy guidelines, special conditions, and formal requirements related to the preparation of the Consolidated H&CD Plan, and related to administration of the programs under these plans. 8 06/10/99 2. Prepare and present written materials required by HUD and the Metropolitan King County Council as components of the Consolidated H&CD Plan to be prepared pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to: collection and analysis of data; identification of problems, needs and their locations; development of long and short term objectives; consideration of alternative strategies; and preparàtion of the administrative budget. 3. Prepare and present to the Committee policy evaluation reports or recommendations, and any other material deemed necessary by the Committee to help the Committee fulfill its powers and duties. 4. Collaborate with city staff working groups and present to the Committee specific sanctions to be imposed on cities which fail to meet their responsibilities as contained in Section X and as contained in specific annual agreements. B. Responsibilities to Jurisdictions Which are Parties to This Agreement. The County will develop strategic plans which will identify housing and community development needs and objectives to address high priority needs in the balance of the County in accordance with the primary goals and requirements of the Act. The Consolidated H&CD Plan, including the housing and community development objectives will meet the HUD requirement for ,a Community Development Plan. The objectives and any local program criteria outlined within the Consolidated H&CD Plan wì1l be consistent with local comprehensive plans being developed under the Growth Management Act. The Staff shall: I. Prepare and present to the King County Executive and Council material necessary for the approval of the County and Small Cities portion of the annual program. 2. Present to the Metropolitan King County Council the Consortium's annual program for adoption. 3. Distribute to participating jurisdictions, prior to any Joint Recommendations Committee decision based upon it, information concerning proposals having implications for Consortium-wide funding as provided in Section II.G.!. above. The County will incorporate jurisdictions' feedback in materials forwarded to the Joint Recommendations Committee or Metropolitan King County Council. 4. Provide regular written reports outlining the outcomes and costs of the Consortium wide Housing Stability and economic development programs such that this information is available for participating jurisdictions' review and comment prior to the Joint Recommendations Committee's decisions on the programs' budgets for the following year, and provide quarterly status reports to 9 the Pass-through Cities on those housing repair programs and capital projects which the County is administering on behalf of the Pass-through Cities. . - - 'x~ @ "~I '*1 - -' ,;1 'i 'j ~ 5. Administer the Consortium's CDBG Program: . help to identify needs in communities; . provide assistance-in interpreting HUD regulations; . provide technical assistance to cities as necessary to enable them to meet their responsibilities as partners to the Agreement; . assist in the development of viable CDBG proposals; . review all proposals for CDBG funding; . inform participating jurisdictions in a timely way of the amount of capital dollars available for distribution regionally and the requirements regarding eligibility for them. . develop. contracts for funded projects in a timely fashion; public (human) services programs have a high priority and will receive authorization to proceed within 15 working days of the beginning of the program year if all relevant information needed to prepare the contract has been submitted; . monitor subrecipient and city-funded projects; . monitor and enforce compliance with the federal wage and relocation requirements;1 . 'reimburse all eligible costs; . prepare and submit required documents and reports to HUD; and . provide oversight of the CDBG Consortium to ensure compliance with all federal requirements. 6. Upon request by a Pass-through City, staff will develop, administer, and implement a city's CDBG-funded contract. Additionally, multi- jurisdictional projects funded by King County and/or one or more cities will be developed and implemented by Staff. 7. King County shall determine, with the advice of representatives from small cities, the use of the County and Small Cities Funds in a manner consistent with the Consolidated H&CD Plan including its local program criteria. x. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS OF PASS-THROUGH CITIES In order to receive a direct share of the entitlement, Pass-through Cities participating in this Agreement shall have the following responsibilities and powers: 06/1 0/99 10 06/10/99 A. Pass-through City Councils may adopt local program criteria which will address community development and housing needs in coordination with the Consortium's time line for consolidated planning effort and which will be consistent with federal requirements, Consortium-wide policies and local comprehensive plans being developed under the Growth Management Act. B. Notify the County of the Citizen participation activities undertaken by local jurisdic- tions as well as any changes made by the jurisdiction to funded CDBG activities in a timely manner as referenced under Section III(D). C. Each Pass-through City shall exercise local discretion in determining the use of its pass-through funds in a manner that (1) is consistent with the Consolidated H&CD Plan, (2) recognizes the federal requirement at 24 CFR Part 570.2 that a minimum of 70% of the funds be spent on activities benefiting primarily low and moderate income persons, and (3) is in accordance with the Consortium's schedule for submission to HUD. D. City legislative bodies shall approve or disapprove via motion or resolution all CDBG activities, locations, and budgets submitted by Pass-through City staff. Notice ofthese actions are to be forwarded to the County in a timely manner. E. Pass-through City staff shall review all project proposals for consistency with federal threshold requirements and Consortium-wid~ policies prior to submission to the County, and ensure tbat all relevant information necessary to prepare a contract is submitted to the County in a timely manner. F. Pass-through City staff shall assist in the development of the Consortium-wide Consolidated H&CD Plan which includes housing and other community development needs, resources, objectives, and adopted projects. G. Pass-through City staff shall implement CDBG-funded projects within the program year and submit both vouchers and required reports to the County in a complete and timely manner. H. Pass-through City staff shall participate in other Consortium-wide planning activities such as HOME policy development and monitoring the Housing Stability Program. 1. Pass-through City staff shall collaborate with County staff working group and present to the Committee specific sanctions to be imposed on cities which fail to meet their responsibilities as contained in this section and as contained in specific annual agreements. J. Each Pass-through City shall examine its role in recognizing and addressing regional or Consortium-wide needs and may participate in a coordinated funding approach with other jurisdictions and the County to serve their residents. 11 XI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHER CONSORTIUM CITIES Other Consortium cities must apply for funds through the annual County and Small Cities application process. The Small Cities shall: A. Coordinate with County Staff in identifying community development needs and local program criteria for addressing them. B. Prepare applications for CDBG funds to address local needs. C. Obtain city council authorization for proposed projects. D. Carry out funded projects in a timely manner. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALL P ARTICIP A TING JURISDICTIONS XII. A. Each participating jurisdiction shall fulfill to the County's satisfaction all relevant requirements of federal laws and regulations which apply to King County as applicant, including assurances and certifications described in Section XIV (D). B. Each participating jurisdiction or cooperating unit of general local government has adopted and is enforcing: I 1. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and 2. A policy enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of non-violent civil rights demonstrations within jurisdictions. C. Pursuant to 24 CFR 570.501 (b), all participating units of local government are subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, excluding the County's Minority and Women Business Enterprises requirements. The applicable requirements include, but are not limited to, a written agreement with the County which complies with 24 CFR 570.503 and includes provisions pertaining to the following items: statement of work; records and reports; program income; uniform administrative items; other program requirements; conditions for religious organizations; suspension and termination; and reversion of assets. D. All participating units of local government understand that they may not apply for grants under the federal Small Cities or State CDBG Programs which receive separate entitlements from HOD during the period of participation in this Agreement. Consortium cities which do not receive a direct pass-through of CDBG funds may apply for grants under the County and Small Cities Fund. 06/1 0/99 12 E. All units of local government participating in the CDBG urban county through this agreement understand that they are also part of the urban county for the HOME program, and may participate in a HOME program only through the urban county. XIII. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS OF KING COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE CONSORTIUM King County shall have the following responsibilities and powers: A. The Metropolitan King County Council shall have authority and responsibility for all policy matters, including the Consolidated H&CD Plan, upon review and recom- mendation by the Committee. B. The Metropolitan King County Council shall have authority and responsibility for all fund allocation matters, including the approval of the annual administrative setaside and the approval and adoption of the Consortium's annual CDBG Program. C. The King County Executive shall have the authority and responsibility to approve requested changes to the adopted annual CDBG Program in the following circumstances: 1. The requested change is to a Pass-through City's portion of the adopted annual pragram, and the change is requested by the legislative body of the Pass-through City; or 2. The requested change is in the County and Small Cities portion of the adopted annual program, and it is limited to a change of project scope or change of project implementor in a specific project, and it is requested by the subrecipient, and the change is made in consultation with the Councilmember in whose district the project is located. D. The King County Executive, as administrator of this CDBG Program, shall have authority and responsibility for all administrative requirements for which the County is responsible to the federal government. E. The King County Executive shall have authority and responsibility for all fund control and disbursements: F. Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Agreement, the County as the applicant for CDBG funds has responsibility for and assumes all obligations as the applicant in the execution of this CDBG Program, including final responsibility for selecting activities and annually submitting Action Plans with HUD. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as an abdication of those responsi- bilities and obligations. 06/10/99 13 - XIV. GENERAL TERMS 06/10/99 A. This Agreement shall extend through the 2000, 200 I, and 2002 program years, and will remain in effect until the CDBG funds and program income received with respect to activities carried out during the three-year period are expended and the funded activities completed. This agreement will be automatically renewed for participation in successive three-year qualification periods, unless the County or the City provides written notice that it wishes to amend or elects not to participate in the new qualification period by the date set forth by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in subsequent Urban County Qualification Notices. King County, as the official applicant, shall have the authority and responsibility to ensure that any property acquired or assisted with CDBG funds is disposed of or used in accordance with federal regulations. B. Pursuant to 24 CFR Part 570.307(d)(2), during the period of qualification no included unit of general local government may terminate or withdraw from the agreement while it remains in effect. C. It is understood that by signing this Agreement the jurisdictions shall agree to comply I with the policies and implementation of the Consolidated H&CD Plan. D. Parties to this Agreement must take all ~equired actions necessary to assure compliance with King County's certification required by Section 1 04(b) of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (Title III of the Civil Rights Act), the Fair Housing Act as amended, Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other applicable laws. E. No CDBG funds shall be expended for activities in, or in support of any participating city that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes the County's actions to comply with its fair housing certification. F. It is recognized that amendment of the provisions of this Agreement may become necessary, and such amendment shall take place when all parties have executed a written addendum to this Agreement. The City and the County agree to adopt any amendments to the agreement incorporating changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements setrorth in an Urban County Qualification Notice applicable for a subsequent three-year qualification period, and to submit such amendment to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Failure to adopt such amendment will void the automatic renewal of such qualification period. G. Calculations for determining the number of low- and moderate-income persons residing in the County and cities shall be based upon official HUD approved 1990 Census data, and on the official annual estimates of populations of cities, towns and 14 communities published by the State of Washington Office of Program ,Planning and Fiscal Management. H. Participating jurisdictions shall be considered to be those jurisdictions which have signed this Agreement. 1. Jurisdictions undertaking activities and/or projects with CDBG funds distributed under this Agreement retain full civil and criminal liability as though these funds were locally generated. J. King County retains environmental review responsibility for purposes of fulfilling requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, under which King County may require the local incorporated jurisdiction or contractor to furnish data, information, and assistance for King County's review and assessment in determining whether King County must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. K. Jurisdictions retain responsibility in fulfilling the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act under which King County has review responsibility only. CITY OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON I Signature of Chief Executive Officer for Ron Sims, County Executive Name and Title (printed) Date: Date: 06/10/99 15 ,> ./ HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between King County, an urban county pursuant to 24 CFR Subpart 92.101 and Subpart 570:3; hereinafter referred to as the "County," and the City of hereinafter referred to as the "City," said parties to the Agreement each being a unit of general local government of the State of Washington. RECITALS WHEREAS, a unit of general local government that is included in an urban county may be part of a HOME consortium only through the urban county; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan city or an urban county may be part of a consortium; and WHEREAS, the City and King County agree that it is mutually desirable and beneficial to enter into a consortium arrangement pursuant to and authorized by 24 CFR Part 92 and 42 USC § 12746 for purposes of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, hereinafter referred to as "HOME Program"; I NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES CONTAINED HEREIN, IT IS AGREED THAT: 1. This Agreement is made pursuant to the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, as amended, 42 USC § 12701 et. seq. (the "Act") and RCW 39.34, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. 2. The City and the County agree to cooperate to un<.iertake or assist in undertaking HOME Program housing assistance activities which are eligible under 24 CFR Part 92. 3. The County is hereby authorized to act as the representative member on behalf of the Consortium for the purposes of the HOME Program. The County agrees to assume overall responsibility for ensuring that the Consortium's HOME Program is carried out in compliance with federal requirements and the housing objectives ofthe City and the County as adopted in the Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan (Consolidated H&CD Plan). 06/10/99 The City agrees to cooperate fully with the County in the development and preparation of the Consolidated H&CD Plan, and to prepare and provide those elements specifically pertaining to the City. 4. This Agreement shall remain in full~force and effect for the period necessary to plan and carry out all activities that will be funded from HOME funds awarded for the 2000,2001, and 2002 federal fiscal years, the three-year qualification period that coincides with the Agreement for the Distribution and Administration of Community Development Block Grant, or until the County's designation as a participating HOME jurisdiction or an urban county is rescinded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, whichever is shorter. This agreement will be automatically renewed for participation in successive three-year qualification periods, unless the County or the City provides written notice it wishes to amend or elects not to participate in the new qualification period. Such written notice shall be given by the date set forth in an Urban County Qualification Notice applicable to subsequent three-year qualification periods and provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. 5. The City and the County agree to adopt any amendments to the agreement incorporating changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in an Urban County Qualification Notice applicable for a subsequent three-year qualification period, and to submit such amendment to the United States Department of Housing ~ and Urban Development. Failure to adppt such amendment wilI void the automatic renewal of. such qualification period. 6. During the term of this Agreement, neither the County nor the City may withdraw from' participation from their respective obligations under this Agreement. 7. By executing the HOME Agreement, the City understands that it may not participate in a HOME consortium except through the urban county, regardless of whether the urban county receives a HOME formula allocation. 8. This Agreement shall be executed in three counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, by the chief executive officers of the County and the City, pursuant to the authority granted them by their respective governing bodies. One of the signed counterparts, accompanied by copies of the authorizing resolutions from the County and the City, shall be filed by the County with the Region X office of HUD. A copy shall be filed with the Secretary of State and the Clerk of the King County Council, the County Auditor, and the City pursuant to RCW 39.34.040. 9. The County and the City both hereby agree to affirmatively further fair housing. 06/10/99 2 10. Joint Recommendations Committee Composition. The Committee shall be composed of four County representatives and five Cities representatives. The four County representatives may be Department Directors or their designees, and/or citizen representatives of unincorporated communities. County representatives shall be specified in writing and should, where possible, be the same person consistently from meeting to meeting. Five participating city representatives and their alternates will include city planning directors or comparable level staff, or elected officials. Two city representatives and their alternates will be from the north/east region of the County and two city representatives and their alternates will be from the south region of the County. An additional revolving position on this Committee shall be rotated between the HOME-only Cities of Auburn and Bellevue. The revolving position will be non-voting, except on issues related to the King County HOME Consortium and other federal housing-related funds (excluding Community Development Block Grant). 11. Appointments. The King County Executive shall appoint the County representatives. The Suburban Cities Association will select eight different jurisdictions, four to serve as members and four as alternates, which in turn, will assign representatives to this Committee. Terms of office shall be for two years. Priority for one of the positions will be for a small city representative. The revolving HOME position will be appointed annually by the respective jurisdiction. Members of the Committee shall serve at the pleasure of their respective appointing authorities. 12. The Joint Recommendations Committee will adopt HÇ)ME program policies, consistent with the Consolidated H&CD Pla,n, developed by the City and County staff working group. The Joint Recommc:ndations Committee will approve funding decisions. All funding decisions must be in accord with adopted policies. Once the policies are adopted, the City, as a representative member of the Consortium, shall also have the right to comment on any program changes prior to their implementation by the County. 13. The chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Joint Recommendations Committee shall be chosen from among the members of the Committee by a majority vote of the members for a term of one year beginning the first meeting of the calendar year. Attendance of five members will constitute a quorum. 14. The City shall participate jointly with the County in the development of the Consortium's HOME Program by participating in development of a HOME Program strategy sufficient to accommodate both the collective and individual housing objectives contained within local comprehensive plans or other adopted plans of both the City and the County. 15. Federal HOME funds, allocated to the Consortium, shall be used to fund housing assistance activities that are the subject of this Agreement. The City and the County shall cooperate In 06/10/99 3 " the establishment of budgets for separate HOME activities. The County intends to enter into contractual agreements with any city, nonprofit organization, or other entity that it selects to implement HOME activities. The County's administrative costs will be paid from the HOME grant, after review and approval by the Joint Recommendations Committee. . 16. This agreement applies to the Consortium's acceptance of other federal housing-related funds which may be allocated by formula to the Consortium. Allocation decisions for these funds will be subject to policies and procedures developed by the City and County staff working group and adopted by the Joint Recommendations Committee. This Agreement is legally binding and valid upon signature of all parties. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CITY OF Signature of Chief Executive Officer for Ron Sims, County Executive Name and Title (printed) I Date: Date: 06/1 0/99 4 July 7, 1999 John Peters, Director US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Washington State Office Office of Community Planning and Development 909 First Avenue, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104-1000 Dear Mr. Peters: Since 1994, the City of Federal Way, a metropolitan city with a population of more than 50,000, has chosen to participate in the King County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consortium. The City's current joint agreement with the County Consortium ends this year, and must be renewed for the years 2000 to 2002. It is my understanding that HUD requires all metropolitan cities to notify HUD and King County of their chosen status for the next three-year period, 2000-2002. Metropolitan cities have the following options: 1) accept designation as a metropolitan city eligible to receive entitlemen.t status; 2) defer designation as a metropolitan city and participate in the urban county; or 3) accept or maintain designation as a metropolitan city and have a joint agreement with the urban county. The City of Federal Way chooses the third option, which is to maintain the City's entailment status and administer its CDBG funds through a joint agreement with King County urban county consortium. This status is consistent with how the City has operated for the past six years. It is my understanding that once the City signs the joint agreement with King County for 2000-2002, that the City must remain in this status for the full agreement period. The City Council authorized this action at their regular meeting on July 6, 1999. Sincerely, Kenneth Nyberg City Manager cc: Linda Peterson, Program Manager, King County Housing and Community Development Program Item 5B CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL , PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Date: June 23, 1999 David Wilbrecht, Deputy Director(Y~ Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department From: Subject: Blueberry Farm Operation Background: For the past several years, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department has operated the Blueberry Fann as open space property purchased by the City. The usual operations included irrigating the plants in the spring and summer, clearing brush and blackberry vines from blueberry bushes, minor weeding, , and mowing. At harvest time, one seasonal staff has been assigned to the park to sell berries. The following is a summary ofthe annual operating costs and revenue for the property in 1998: Expenses: Staff Costs Supplies and Materials: Irrigation charges Irrigation repairs: Total: : $3,355 (233 hours) $ 700 $3,288 I $2.000 $9,343 Revenue: Difference: Recovery Ratio: $3,400 ($5,943) 36% After reviewing the costs and benefits of operating the fann for the past two years, Park Operations has implemented changes in an attempt improve the recovery rate and reduce expenses. We have found it impossible to generate enough revenue to cover the cost of basic operations. In 1997, the City paid for all expenses to maintain the property and split the revenue with a contractor. The contractor did not make enough money to break even and refused future contracts. In 1998, we went back to hiring a seasonal employee to sell blueberries. As shown above, the subsidy to operate the fann is $4,760. Staff Recommendation: This season, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department recommends that the Blueberry Fann be treated like all other open space properties within the city and be open to the public on an unrestricted basis. Park Operations would continue to support volunteers through Mr. Swan. All other maintenance operations support except safety-related work would be discontinued. This recommendation would reduce the cost of managing the property from $9,343 to approximately $2,000 annually. Committee Recommendation: Staff requests a recommendation of approval to City Council on the meeting scheduled for July 6, 1999, to: 1. Authorize staff to discontinue fann operations and maintain the Blueberry Fann at the same level of service as other open space properties. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REI)ORT: " ";' " ,";' ":', ' Committee Chair Committee :Member Committee Member Item 5C CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL , PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE From: June 22, 1999 Dave Wilbrecht, Deputy Director ~ Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Date: Subject: Fees and Use Policy Schedule/Celebration Park Background: This past spring, the City received requests to increase youth access to the sports fields at Celebration Park. Currently, Girls Fast Pitch uses the batting fields for five tournaments during the season that runs from May until July and youth soccer enjoys nearly exclusive use of the soccer fields from August to November. In response to these requests, the Parks Commission is scheduled to review the field use policy and develop a recommendation for Council Committee consideration for the allocation of fields. The current allocation of fields is based on the report completed by the Sports Field Committee in July 1997. The committee included eleven Council-appointed citizens representing various sports and recreation interests in the city. The Sports Field Committee met many times revising the park master plan and construction cost estimates in addition to revenue projections based on youth and adult leagues and tournaments, maintenance and operation cost estimates and fields use. This information was included in the final report. I The report was submitted to the Civic Investment Advisory Committee (CIAC) for consideration. The CIAC reviewed the plan and forwarded it to the City Council for approval. Important considerations were the economics of the project. The economics are based on several factors such as the number of adult teams scheduled for leagues and tournaments. This modeling results in the ability of the park to pay for a major portion of the maintenance and operating costs. (The CIAC also considered the forecast for increased revenue for downtown businesses based on the park attracting teams and players from outside the city). Policv Review Process: The Parks and Recreation Commission and subcommittee will review Celebration Park's revenue and expense model approved by the City Council in 1997 and compare this information to the actual revenue and expenses to date. With this information, the commission will be able to formulate and recommend a use and fee policy to the Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety Council Committee. The Parks and Recreation Commission has implemented the following schedule to complete this task: . The subcommittee will meet Wednesday, June 23, 1999 to be refreshed on the revenue and expense model approved by the City Council, current fees, use and signage. They will develop and forward a recommendation to the full commission. The Commission will review the information and recommendation from the sub- committee at the July 8, 1999 meeting and forward their recommendation to the Council Committee meeting on July 26, 1999. . Item 5D City of Federal Way Service Organization Recognition Program Draft Proposal The Service Organization Recognition Program creates a process for the City of Federal Way to recognize the efforts and contribution of service clubs and organizations to the welfare of the Federal Way community. Over twenty organizations are active with local chapters in Federal Way. An additional option to consider would be including the volunteer arms of local businesses such as the Weyerhaeuser W.A.V.E.S. in the program. Service clubs and organizations perform a major role in community life in Federal Way. They provide a positive network for Federal Way residents to come together in many ways. Many of the groups are key leaders in raising funds and volunteers to benefit community projects or needy individuals or City of Federal projects. Recent examples of their efforts include the Federal Way Elks raising several hundred dollars for the proposed Skate Park and the Kiwanis donating the huge American flag for Celebration Park. Pro~ram Outline . I Local citizens or the service organizations themselves would submit a one page nomination application citing a particular project or program of a service organization deserving recognition. . The City Council would present a recognition plaque either once a month, once a quarter or yearly to a meritorious group. If the program recognizes more than one group a year, each group would be limited to one award per year. Recognition would be at Council Meetings and/or the annual Community Service Recognition Dinner. . The Diversity Commission could be recruited to act as a panel to judge nominations under their theme of "A City for All of Us." . Projects could be judged by their size and impact; the extent that they involved the community and brought people together; their uniqueness or ingenuity. . A simple, one page brochure would be produced and sent to community groups and articles would be sought for the local newspapers to publicize the program. Item 5E CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Date: July 6, 1999 From: Jennifer Schroder, Director Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Subject: Soroptimist Flag Display Background: In 1989, the Federal Way Soropimists began a campaign to install 50 flagpoles along Campus Drive in front of the Aquatic Center. The poles fly the American flag and one each of the 50 state flags. All 50 states are represented. The Soroptimist raised the funds and completed their goal on June 14, 1990. Every year since the dedication of the display in 1990, the Soroptimists organize and conduct the Flag Day ceremony. As part of the ceremony, new American flags and new state flags are raised. The poles are located within the right-of-way. The Soroptimists made application to King County for a Special Use Permit in September of 1989. The permit was executed in February 1990. The City passed resolution 90-15 that stated the Council's intent to honor the right-of-way use permit issued by King County to Soroptimist International of Federal Way. The program's annual cost is approximately $5,000. The costs involve electricity, purchase oflOO flags annually (50 American/50 state) and on an as-needed basis, replacement bulbs. Over the last five years, the Soroptimists have requested $2,500 in grant funds to cover the expenses for this program f~om the City of Federal Way and from King County. These two $2,500 grants have bren awarded each year. Proposal: The Federal Way Soroptimists would like to transfer the ownership of the flags pole to the City of Federal Way. Council Committee reviewed the Soroptimist proposal on January 11, 1999. At that meeting, Council asked staff to work with the Federal Way Soroptimists to look at the possibility of the City and King County sharing in the cost of owning and maintaining the flag poles and the flag program. Staff Report: Staffta1ked with King County Parks on the history of the flags and informed the County of the Soroptimist's interest to see the ownership of the flags transferred to the City. King County Parks, recognizing the added benefit to their facility in having the flag display continued and maintained, is willing to enter into an interloca1 agreement to share the maintenance with the City of Federal Way. The Soroptimist orgainzation would transfer the ownership of the poles to the City of Federal Way for $1. In addition, Soroptimist is willing to continue coordination of the annual Flag Day ceremony. Committee Recommendation: Motion to full Council to direct the City Manager to execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City of Federal Way and Federal Way Soroptimist for the ownership of the 50 flag poles located on the City's right- of-way on Campus Drive for $1, and draft an interloca1 agreement between King County and the City of Federal Way for the shared maintenance of the flag pole display. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORJ': ' '.~...:1~':;i;:"~,i"3 Committee Chair Committee Member CommiUee Mem~er'. . ". . . . . . '\"""""""';.)...:.r..\ú<Hh¡~,~,V"", Item gF CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CTIY COUNCIL PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITrEE Date: June 28, 1999 Derek Matheson, Assistant to the City Manag~ From: Subject: Public Safety Dispatch Services Bac~round: Last month, staff briefed the Committee on an offer by the four owner cities of Valley Com to become a fifth owner of that public safety dispatch agency in exchange for an equal contn"bution to the agency's new facility and~the purchase of a new computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system. Concurrent with that proposa1, the Federal Way Fire Department asked the City to again consider the option of partnering to develop a revamped police/fire dispatch agency at the FIre Department before making any long-tenn decision on police dispatch services. An interdepartmental staff team copsisting of Assistant to the 'City Manager Derek Matheson, Deputy Public Safety Director Brian Wtlsofl, and Management Services Director Iwen Wang has analyzed public safety dispatèh alternatives currently available to the City. The alternatives and staff recommendations are summarized below and discussed in detail in the attached report. .. Option 1 - Ownership in Valley Com. Contribute up to $3 million toward the cost of a new. facility and CAD system at Valley Com in exchange for equal (one-fifth) ownership in the agency. Although this would require an initial capital outlay, the lower owner rate would more than offset the capital contribution, producing a significant cost savings for the City. .. Option 1B - Ownership in Valley Com plus Partnership with Fire Department. This option is identical to Option 1 above, but invites the Fire Department to join the City as a partner at Valley Com. Although the Fire Department's legal status would be as a contract agency, it would enjoy many of the benefits of an owner agency - such as the owner ratè - due to its unique status as the City of Federal Way's fire service provider. This option would address . the Fire Department's request to partner with the City for dispatch services, reduce the City's up-front capital costs by sharing them with the Fire Department, and significantly reduce the Fire Department's operating expenditures for dispatch services. .. Option 2 - Partnership with Fire Department at South Com. Establish a joint police-fire dispatch agency at the Fire Department. This would involve establishing a new governance structure for the current dispatch center, addressing key operational issues, and purchasing a new CAD system and related equipment. .. Status Ouo. Continue to contract with Valley Com. Members of the Fire Department's Board of Commissioners will be present at the meeting to discuss the two options (Option IB and Option 2) t1ud involve parlnering with the Fire Department The Board has preliminarily endorsed Valley Com Option lB. . Staff/Committee Recommendation: Direct and authorize the City Manager to pursue Option IB (Ownership in Valley Com plus Partnership with Fire Department) by negotiating and bringing back to Council a) an interloca1 agreement with the Cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton; and Tukwila to provide for Federal Way ownership in Valley Com, and b) an interlocal agreement with the Fire Department to address the Department's relationship with the City and transition to Valley Com. In the event the Fire Department turns down the City's offer to partner at Valley Com, direct and authorize the City Manager to pursue Option 1 (City Ownership in Valley Com without Fire Department participation.) . . , II .. .¡ ~ ',4 ., ...Z¡ :/f\1 i~~: .:. '1".:'. "'" ~?i . .!".. ,~ ..~ " .' MEMORANDUM DATE: June 28, 1999 TO: City Council Derek Matheson, Assistant to the City Manage~ FROM: '1 SUBJECI': Staff Report on Public Safety Dispatch Services .~ . ) 'j 5 " HISTORY OF POLICE DISPATCH IN FEDERAL WAY .f :.i The City of Federal Way has contracted with Valley Com, a public safety dispatch agency jointly owned by the Cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila (the "Valley cities"), for police dispatch services since 1996. As a contract agency, the City pays a higher per-ca1l dispatch fee and does not enjoy a pennanent seat on the agency's Administration Board (which consists of the mayors of the owner cities and provides general policy direction) nor the Operations Board (which consists of the police and fire chiefs of the owner cities and exertises day-to-day control over Valley Com's operations). . I With the tennination 'ofthe City's police serviceS contract with King County in 1996, staff studied alternatives for providing police dispatch, including a partnership with the Federal Way Fire ~ , Department at its in-house dispatch center, commonly known as South Com. It was felt at the time that Valley Com offered the lowest costs in the long tenn, had the most experience with police dispatch, and could best service the City's technology needs. Over the past three years, the City has been largely pleased with Valley Com's services and has benefitted from close and effective working relationships with the other large mwúcipal' police departments in South King County. CURRENT ISSUE Earlier this year, the City ofFederaI Way was approached by the Valley cities with an offer to make Federal Way a fifth owner of Valley Com in exchange for an equal contribution to the agency's new facility and the purchase of a new or upgraded computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system. ConCUITent with that proposal, the Federal Way Fire Department asked the City to again consider the option of partnering to develop a reconfigured police/fire dispatch agency at the Fire Department before making any long-tenn decision on police dispatch services. - The City Manager directed a staff team consisting of the Assistant to the City Manager, Deputy Public Safety Director, and Management Services Director to thoroughly analyze the City's public safety dispatch options. This report summarizes the options and provides a staff recommendation to the City Council. 1 '.. ""'>"'~"--"""'. PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH OPTIONS In response to proposals ITom Valley Com and the Fire Department, City staff began analysis of three options: (1) ownership in Valley Cotp, (2) partner with the Fire Department on a reconfigured police/fire dispatch center at South Co~ and (3) the status quo (continuing to contract with Valley Com). Staff also developed a variant of the first option, known as option lB. Option (lB) would allow the City to become an owner at Valley Com and partner with the Fire Department. The Fire Department would shift its dispatch services to Valley Com, where it would legally be a contract agency and not a owner) but would nonetheless receive many of the benefits ofan owner. The Valley cities supported this departure 1Ì"om standard practice because Federal Way would be the only owner city without in- house fire services and hence cannot itself take advantage of the fire dispatch services that other Valley Com owners enjoy. '" :'l Option 1: Ownership in Valley Com Background and Governance Valley Com is a cooperative public safety dispatch agency set up by an interlocal agreement among its owner cities in the mid-I 970s. It is .governed by an Administration Board made up of the owner cities) mayors) and an Operations Boar~made up of the owner cities) police and fire chiefs. The agency currently operates oilt of a small building on Kent) s East Hill with an annual operating budget of $5.3 million, 101 FTEs, and dispatches approximately 350,000 police and fire calls per year. Last year, the Valley Com cities began discussions on constmcting a new communications center with upgraded technology. The cities' màyors agreed to a $15 million cap ($3 million each, if Federal Way were included) on tótal cost that would also include property acquisition. Valley Com has made an offer on a parcel ofland in Kent and is working with an architect to design a new facility~ The goal is to receive approval trom all the owner city councils to go folWard with the project by the end of 1999 and have the new facility go online in 2001. In early 1999, the Valley cities approached Federal Way with an offer to become a fifth owner of the agency, in exchange for an equal contribution to the $15 million facility and new/upgraded CAD system. As an owner, Federal Way's mayor would gain a seat on the Administration Board and the Public Safety Director would gain a seat on the Operations Board) giving the City greater control over the cost and quality of services. Cost Analvsis Option 1 is the least expensive option. The total annual operating costs under this option total $744,301, which is $238,009 less than the current contract with Valley Com. However, as an owner city, Federal Way would also be responsible for debt service on the construction of a new dispatch facility and the purchase of a new or upgraded CAD system. This annual debt service would amount to $122,890, for a total operating and capital cost of$867, 192. Even with the addition ofthese capital 2 " ".."""",,,,"":,:"'" ",' costs, the total annual expenditures for this option would still be $115,118 less expensive than the, current contract for service. ' The debt would be issued by a public development authority (PDA) owned and governed by the five member cities. The interest rate for the debt would be based upon the interest rates of the five cities. The debt service would be equally allocated to the five owner cities on an annual basis and paid to the PDA, which then pays the principal and'interest on the bonds, , Operational Analvsis From an operations standpoint, there are a number of benefits to becoming an owner of Valley Com. In addition to being the lowest cost option, ownership this option would allow greater city influence in the budget and operations of a public safety dispatch agency ,with an excellent fiscal and operational record. Valley Com is the only option that offers significant police dispatch experience, proven policies and procedures, and a flexible labor agreement that allows for staffing to fluctuate as needed to address peaks in call type and call volume at various times during the day. It is also important note the value of continued interagency cooperation among police departments in call response and the sharing of infonnation. . " '~ '~ Valley Com offers the newest facility and technology. The agency has used proven technology that effectively links with the City's record systems and is also exploring the possibility of a common records system, among Valley Com owners that would reduce costs and increase the flow of infonnation among police agencies. Due to its economy o(scale, Valley Com is well positioned to meet new dëmands for teclmology.l for example, Valley Com is also the only option that offers mobile data tenninal (MDT) services in-house, a technology current installed in all of the City's patrol cars. The only disadvantage of any significance is that Federal Way's police and fire selVÎces would continue' to be dispatched out of different disp~tch centersl. Nonetheless, coordination between the two agencies is effectively accomplished at present, and firelEMS calls can be instantaneously transferred fTom Valley Com to South Com. Implementation Implementing this option would require staff to negotiate, and Council to approve, an interlocal agreement with the four Valley cities to provide for Federal Way to become a fifth owner of Valley Com. In future months, Council would also need to officially authorize the fonnation of a PDA to be owned and governed by the Valley Com owner cities. Option IB: Ownership in Valley Com plus Partnership with Fire Department Background and Governance Option IB is essentially identical to Option 1 above (City, Ownership in Valley Com). The primary difference is that, in addition to the City becoming an owner of Valley Com, the City would invite the 1 Option 18, a variant of this option, addresses this issue. 3 " .'~',' ,'. ' Federal Way Fire Department to be a partner with the City at Valley Com. Under this arrangement, the Federal Way Fire Department's legal status would be as a Valley Com contract agency. However, the Fire Department would enjoy many of the benefits of an owner agency due to its unique status as the City of Federal Way's fire service provider. The Fire Department would pay the owner rate for dispatched calls for service and its Administrator would have a seat on Valley Com's Operations Board, like the chiefs of Valley Com's municipal fire departments. The Fire Department would not, however, have a seat on the Administration Board, as this is a privilege afforded only to the mayors of owner cities. The City and Fire Department would need to arrange a means for Federal Way's mayor to consult with hislher counterpart (the Board of Commissioners chair}at the Fire Department prior to Administration Board meetings so that the mayor may be fully ~ware of both police and fire issues prior to making policy decisions for Valley Com. Cost Analysis This option would slightly increase the. operational cost of Option 1 above (City Ownership in Valley Com), but would reduce the City's debt service payments, as the Fire Department would contnoute 15% of the capital cost based on percentage of dispatched calls for service. The City's annual operating costs for this option would total $783,650, but its debt service costs would drop trom $122,890 to $104,263 annually with the Fife Department's contribution. Therefore the total annual cost of this option would equal $887,912, which is still $94,398 less than the current Valley Com contract, and only $20,720 more than the option of buying into Valley Com alone. , Like Option 1, this mant IB would also require the fonnation of a PDA This option would also reduce the Fire Department's dispatch costs by upwards of $300,000 to' $400,000 annually that could be reallocated to firfillghter positions and help the Department better meet its Strategic Plan goals. Operational Analvsis Operationally, this option would build on the benefits of Option 1 (City Ownership 'in Valley Com) by allowing the City to enjoy all the benefits of ownership at Valley Com, plus bring the added benefit of, ~' improving coordinatiónbetween the Public Safety Department and Fire Department by dispatching both services out of the same communications center. This option has two major impacts on the Fire Department. First, it would require the Department to close down its South Com dispatch center and redeploy or layoff its 12 FfEs. Secondly, the Fire Department has also expressed concern about dispatch times at Valley Com. To address the issue of employee layoffs, Valley Com has agreed to give preferential consideration to South Com employees who meet Valley Com's minimal hiring qualifications. In addition, the Fire Department is exploring th~ possibility using its cost savings to convert dispatcher who have expressed interest and who meet minimum qualifications to firefighter positions. Between these two approaches, it is unlikely that significant layoffs will be necessary. As for the issue of dispatch time, the Fire Department has stated its intent to, via its seat on the Operations Board, advocate for a new perfonnance measurement system. 4 ,~~ -'-". c, ,,'" ";'",. Implementation The steps needed to implement this option would be the same as for Option 1. However, in addition, staff would need to negotiate, and Council approve, an inter1ocal with the Fire Department to arrange for the Fire Department's capital contribution; the payment of operational dispatch fees to Valley Com via the City; and an arrangement by which the Mayor will consult with the Fire Department prior to Administration Board meetings. OImon 2: Partnenhip with Fire Department at South Com Background and Governance The Federal Way Fire Department has operated a dispatch center since the 1960s and has been a regional dispatch service provider since the 1970swhen it entered into contractual relationships with other fire protection districts like North Highline and the City of SeaTac. The center is managed by the Department's administrator and has an annual operating budget of$831,019, employs 12 FfEs, and dispatches 23,814 calls per year. 8,996 of these calls are attributable to Federal Way. Since 1997, South Com has also dispatched the Nonnandy Park Police Department's 4,020 calls per year. ' -~f , ¡I ,', y ;¡~ <", , f" , ,'% :.,. " ::: The Fire Department is proposing to reconfigure its cwrent South Com operation into a joint police/fire dispatch center owned and controlled by the City and Fire Department Like Valley Com, the center would'be governed by an Administration Board composed, of two City Council members or their designees and two Fire Departmenl board members or theii designees, and an Operations Board composed of tWo representatives apiece for the Public Safety Department and Fire Department. Cost Analvs;s This option is by far the most expensive of the options studied. An analysis of this option shows the City's annual operating costs at $1,007,497, and its annual capital costs2 at $92,506, for a total annual cost of $1,100,003. This is $117,693 more expensive than the current contract with Valley Com, and $232,811 more expensive than being an owner at Valley Com. It is also worth noting the actual costs to operate the dispatch center are much higher than the $20 per police call and $25 per fire call proposed by the Fire Department, as the dispatch center would require a significant subsidy trom the . Fire Department. ' Operational Analvsis This option presents a number of concerns for the City trom an operational standpoint. Currently, South Com's experience with police dispatch is limited to three-years experience providing dispatch services to the Nonnandy Park Police Department. Because South Com has been primarily a fire dispatch center, any joint effort by the City and Fire Department at South Com would require a major 2 The capital costs tmder this option relate to the physical reconfiguration of the current dispatch center, upgrade of the CAD system, and purchase of technology necessary to move toward the level of service currently available at Valley Com. For the purpose of comparison with other options, staff allocated the capital contribution over a multi-year period; in actuality the contribution would be up-front - 5 .~.., ".. "'"" "'~"'¡";';l"",_"'i~,...:'~,,. review of all operations and the development of new policies and procedures for neady every aspect of the center's operation. These policies would need to address evel}'thing from call handling to training to complaint resolution. Police dispatch would be bound by the Fire Department's labor agreements for dispatch services and the Public Safety Department would lose opportunities for cooperation and contact with other police agencies in South King County. Technòlogically, there is concern with the ability to inter1àce the Fire Department's systems with those of the City. South Com is unable to provide MDT service in house and would have to contract with an outside agency like Valley Com for the service. With a limited call volume, the cost of future capital improvements and technology upgrades will present a significant challenge. As the City would comprise 67% of the total ownership3, the City would likely be responsible for an overwhelming majority of costs. There are, however, advantages to this option, including an upgraded CAD system, the consolidation of dispatch services into" one com center, the co-location of that com center with the community? s Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and having only two owners of the com center as opposed to splitting ownership five ways at Valley Com. Implementation To implement this option, Council would need to tenninate the City's interloca1 agreement with Valley Com and authorize the negotiation of an interlocal with the FlI'e Department to address the governance and development of a joint policeJfire dispatch center at Soutp Com. Prior to tlûs Council action,. the City and Fire Department would need to develop a transition plan covering timing, facility upgrades, technology upgradeg, staffing enhancements, and other issues. It would likely be 1 ~ 1/2 to 2-1/2 years before full implementation could occur. ., Option 3: Status Ouo - Continue to Contract with Valley Com B ackgroundl Gave man ce As noted above, the City has contracted with Valley Com for police dispatch services since the inception of the Public Safety Department in 1996. The City has no pennanent seats on the agency's Administration Board nor Operations Board, but is eligible for election to a single seat on the Operations Board that is set aside for contract agencies. Cost Analvsis This option is the middle ground with respect to cost, being slightly more expensive than becoming an owner agency (Option 1 or IB), but significantly less expensive than the South Com option (Option 2). The City's annual operating costs under this option total approximately $982,310. There are no capital costs. This option is $115,118 per year more than the cost of become an owner alone, and $94,398 more than the cost of becoming an owner and partnering with the Fire Department at Valley Com. However, this option is $117,693 per year less than the cost of the South Com option. 3 Or 850/0, if contract agencies are not included in the total number of calls. 6 The status quo option includes an increase over the City's current costs due to the fact that the cost of the new facility and new/upgraded CAD will be passed along to subscribers via the rate structure. Operational Analvsis This option reflects the current level or-service at Valley Com. The only advantage of the status quo is that it allows the City the flexibility to evaluate other dispatch options in the future. In addition, because this option does not provide for a pennanent seat on the agency's Administration Board or the Operations Board, it would continue to limit the City's ability to influence the agency's policies, operations, and budget. Implementation No action is necessary to implement this option. The City's current interlocal with Valley Com automatically renews on an annual basis. " ; ',;, '. STAFF RECOMMENDATION City staff recommend that Council approve Option 1B, which provides for the City to become an owner at Valley Com and invite the Fire Department to join the City at Valley Com as a partner entity. , In addition to being a low cost oPJion that would save the City $94,397 annually over the current contract, this approaCh allows the City to continue to receive quality services from Valley Com, gives the City greater policy and operational control at Valley Com, allows for continued cooperation between the Public Safety Department and its counterparts in the Valley, and allows new opportunities' for cooperation with the Federal Way Fire Department. This recommendation is consistent with the preliminary position of the Fire Department's Board of Commissioners. APPENDICES . Cost Analysis Spreadsheet - "Federal Way Dispatch Service Options Summary" Exhibit 1- "Valley Com Capital Requirement Projected Range" . Exhibit 2 - " Valley Com Membership Program Rates" Exhibit 3 - " Dispatched Calls for Service" Exhibit 4 - "10-year Cost Projection" Operational Analysis Table Letter ITom Valley Com to City dated June 15, 1999, addressing Fire Department conditions for transitioning dispatch functions to Valley Com Letter ITom Fire Department to City dated June 17, 1999, transmitting Board of Commissioners positions on dispatch services Fire Department proposal for consolidated dispatch center at South Com . . . 7 ".' , """",~,."...'~,;->'J__...._.;, '::iJ:;' ! Federal Way Dispatch Service Options Summary Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Projection based on 1999 Cost Data 1 A: VC partner 1 B: VC partner S. Com Partner Status Quo w/Fire Capital Contribution 1 $' 1,459,323 $ 1,238,120 $ 928,533 $ - Per Call Rate, based on 1999 Budget2 $ 14.78 $ 15.56 $ 20.00 $ 19.50 Annual Cost: Average Dispatched Calls 3 50,375 Cost for Dispatch Services $ 744,301, $ 783,650 1,007,497' $ 982,310 Annual Debt Service on Capital Amount 4 122,890 ,104,263 92,506 - Estimated Annual Cost $ 867,192 $ 887;912' '$ 1,100,003 $ '982,310 Compare wI Status Quo: Overage (Savings) (115,118) , (94;397) 117,693 - 10 Year Total: 5 $ 9,567,598 $ 9,822,154 $ 12,212,432 $ 11,005,191 Compare wI Status Quo: Overage (Savings) (1,437,592) (1,183,037) 1,207,241 ' " - VC: Valley Communication Center. Note: This analysis contalnes a number of assumptions and Is based on Infonnatlon that are currently available. The results could change as better Information becomes available. /! The maximum total capit~1 commitment is $3 million per member cities, or $15 million In total. This is based on a $8.7 million facility cost and a $6.3 million equipment cost, withouticonsidering the $4 million cash reserves available. The alternative estimate represents the more likely capital needs for both the building and the equipment. See Exhibit 1: Projected Capital Contribution Requirement. 2 Projected rates are based on Valley Com and South Com's 1999 budget/unit cost and the respective necessary capital requirements. The resulting per call rates under Valley Com partnership options are based on project's Federal Way cost divided into the projected Federal Way calls. See Exhibit 2: Projected Valley Com Contract and Member Rates for more detail. 3 Average Dispatched Call for Service for Federal Way Police. See Exhibit 3: Federal Way Dispatched Call for Services. 4 Under South Com. option, the City will issue bond independently for the startup and equipment/technology upgrade. Assume 10 year bond at 5.5%. 5 Simple straight line projection with annual inflationary adjustment of 2.5% on operating cost is used. See Exhibit 4: 10 Year Cost projection. Vc options 6/22/99 12:38 PM . . Exhibit 1 : Valley Com Capital Requirement Projected Range Capital Needs ProJected Costs: Facility (26.600 sq ft) (20 Yr Bond @ 6%) Land Structure Project Management (10% of structure) Max/mum: Facility at $289.5Isf. Eq. At 100% Total Capital Per Member Alt. Estimate: Facility at $220/sf, Eq. at 80% Total Capital Per:Member $ 8,673,101 $ 1,734,620 $ 6,637,200 $ 1,327,440 $ 200,000 7,702,819 770.282 $ 200,000 5,852,000 585.200 Technology Equipment (10 Yr bond @5.5%) CAD System Upgrade Only Other systems. replacement Contingency (15%) Subtotal - Capital Requirement $ 6,248,625 $ 1,249,725 $ " 4,998,900 $ . 999,780 $ 475.000 4,958,587 815,038 $ 380,000 3,966,870 652,030 .. .. .... . .. $ 14,921,726'$ 2,984,345 $ 11,636,100 ::$.::/~.aZ1.220 .. $ $ (1,378,524) (1,874,456) (1,086,506) $ . "" ('~.~ r~IÌ~ 7,296,614 $.:-')1;459~323 PrqJected Funding Available ContingencylReserves Available 2 Replacement Reserves Available 3 E911 Funding Net Capital Costs $ $ (1,378,524) (1,874,456) (1,086,506) $ (4,339.486 $ .(~~7~~r .. .... . 10,582,240 $ ..:.2,1~6;448 The maximum capital contñbution is $3 million per member cities, or $15 million in total. This is based on a $8.7 million building cost and a $6.3 million equipment cost. The alternative estimatøepresents the more likely capital needs for both the building and the equipment. Note: 1. Valley Com proposes that Federal Way to receive 1/5 of the aedit from the reserves and oth~r available sources same as other member cities. 2. Projected contingency reserve balance at yearend 19å9 ($698.178 capital chargel$857.346 contingency) less $177,107-operating contingency. 3. Projected replacement reserve bal'ance at the end of 1969. . Vc Exhibit 1 - Capital 6/21/99 3:22 PM ,,"",'P'r,"" "~",,, '"n... ~ , "',' """"""""~",~",<.",,,~,"""""""~:' Exhibit 2: Federal Way Valley Com Membership Pro Fonna Rates 1999 pro forma (1) Option 1 Option 1 B (2 Option 3 1998 Actual 1997 Actual Police Only Partner Police & Are Partner Status Quo FW as Member FW as Member Operating Expenses Personnel (2 $ 5,249,672 $ 5,749,672 $ 5,249,672 $ 4,191,330 $ 4,014,757 Operating Supplies 55,220 55,220 55,220 in maintenance 51,873 Other Operation and Maintenance 400,858 400,858 400,858 1.069,630 353,450 Depreciation 223,000 223,000 223,000 221,500 166,748. Designated Cost Center CAD, riet of pass through revenue 63,231 63,231 63,231 in maintenance 60,413' Infrastructure/MDT, net of pass through revenue 25,780 25,780 25,780 in maintenance 76,948 800 MHz, pass through only - - - - Other Revenues:' 911 reimbursement (199,204) (199,204) (199,204) (298,000) (250,000) Operating Fund investment interest (57,290) (57.290) (57,290) (45,000) (45,000) Operating Contingency (3% of Exp) 177,107 177.107 177,107 161,586 114,100 Projected Debt Service on Proposed Improvement Building (this equates to $18.50/sq It) @6%, 20 Yrs. 458.475 458.475 458,475 Equipment, @5.5%, 10 Years. 270,369 270.369 270,369 Total Operating Expense $ 6,667,218 $ 7,167.218 $ 6,667,218 $ 5.301,046 $ 4,543,289 Total Estimated Call Volume (3) 340.600 361.508 340.600 336.345 339,511 Per Call Expenditure 19.57 " 19.83 19.57 15.76 13.38 Subscriber Contract Rate With New Improvements . 19.50 19.75 19.50 18.50 18.50 , Projected Subscriber Call Volume (wlo ~ 53.457 53,457 103,832 53,309 53,605 Subscriber Pay $ (1,042,412 $ (1,055,776 $ (986,217) $ (991,693) Undeslgnated Beginning Fund Balance (681,704) (681,704) - - Capital Reserve 106,618 107,210 Amount To be allocated to Members - $ 4,943,103 $ 5,429,738 $ 4,421,448 $ 3,658,807 Member Calf Volume (w/~ Per Adopted Budget 287,143 308,051 236,768 283,036 285,906 FW Police DCFS: 50,375 50,375 50,375 50,779 53,649 FW DCFS as % of total Member DCFS 17.54% 16.35% 17.94% 18.76% Federal Way Operating Cost wlo Debt ServicelDepreciation 744,301 783.650 982,310 793.244 686.559 Federal Share of Debt Service 122.890 104,263 - - Federal Way Cost as Member 867.192 887,912 982,310 793,244 686.559 Federal Way Cost as Subscriber. 982.310 994.903 982.310 939.412 992.507 Estimated Cost Savings 115.118 106,991 - 146,167 305,948 Note: (1) Pro rorma is based on 1999 Valley ComAdopted Budget with the proposed capital financing added. (2) Under option 1 B. no detailed analysis has been performed at this time to evaluate the cost and operating impact 10 Valley Com in their assumption ot South Com's calls. The amount shown assumes 10 additional FTEs and S5OO,ooo additional operating costs, allocated to all dispatched cans, These assumptions could change depend on the actual personneVcost requirement and Valley Com's rate setting policy. (3) Assume all South Com calls win be !ransfe<red to Valley Com with the exception or Normandy Park Police. The OCFS will be !ransferred to VC: 20,908 The estimated total Valley Com caR volume to<' 1999 is 3% less than the number shown in Valley Com's budget to reflect the tower call volume expected to<' Federal Way. Vc Exhibit 2 . Projected Rates 6/22/9912:38 PM . , , ,.., , . d,. . ,,' '..",'. . ' .. ,_..""._.,~..,-..,.._~.."-..:...;..._.,....;"..""",~~.¡,,,. ,,'.. Exhibit 3 City of Federal Way Dispatched Call for Services Year DCFS 1997 Actual 53,649 1998 Actual 50,779 1999 Projected, based on Jan-May calls 46,697 Average: 1 50,375 Note: 1 The aduaJ call volume in the past three years shows a declining trend, but the three year history is not sufficient to establish the trend therefor average' is used for the analysis. . , II Vc Exhibit 3 - FW DCFS 6/21/99 3:22 PM '._"<-"~ , ....' ..~, . Exhibit 4: Federal Way Dispatch Service Options 10 Year Cost Projection Inflation Factor: 2.50% Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Projected Operating Cost 1 A: VC partner 1 B:VC S. Com Partner Status Quo partner w/Fire 1999 ' - $ 744,301 $ 783,650 $' 1,007,497 $ 982,310 2000 762,909 803,241 1,032,685 1,006,867 2001 781,982 823,322 1,058,502 1,032,039 2002 801,531 843,905 1,084,964 1,057,840 2003 821,570 865,003 1,112,088 1,084,286 2004 842,109 886,628 1,139,891 1,111,393 2005 863,162 908,793 1,168,388 1,139,178 2006 884,741 931;513 1,197,598 1,167,658 2007 906,859 954,801 1,227,537 1,196,849 2008 929,531 978,671 . 1,258,226 1,226,770 10 Yr Operating Cost $ 8,338,694 $ 8,779,526 $ 11,287,375 $11,005,191 10 Yr. Debt Service: 1,228,905 1,042,628 925,057 - Grand Total over 10 Years: $ 9,567,598 $ 9,822,154 $ 12,212,432 $11,005,191 , , II VcExhibit 4. Projection6/21/993:22 PM Operational Analysis Table: Advantages and Disadvantages of Public Safety Dispatch Options Option 1: City Ownership of Valley Com Option IB: City Ownership of Valley Com plus Partnership with Fire Department Option 2: Partnership with Fire Department at South Com Option 3: Status Quo - Continue to Contract with Valley Com Advantages to City . Lowest operating cost (slightly less than Option lB) . Second lowest capital cost ~ . . Capital costs paid on annual basis. No up-front contribution required (FDA issues debt). . Expanded opportunities for regional law enforcement coordination . Continued cooperation among police departments . Police dispatch experience . Established policies and procedures . Flexible labor agreement . New facility . NewlUpgraded CAD system . Possible future linked records system . In-house mobile data tenninal (MDT) service . . . Second lowest operating cost (Slightly more than Option 1) . Lowest capital cost . Capital costs paid on annual basis. No up-front contribution required (FDA issues debt) . Combines poliœ/fire dispatch at an established communications center . Expanded opportunities for regional law enforcement coordination . Continued cooperation among police departments . Police dispatch experience . Established policies and procedures . Flexible labor agreement . New facility . NewlUpgraded CAD system . Possible future linked records system . In-house mobile data tenninal (MDT) service - .... . Police and fire dispatched from same com center . Police and fire dispatch co-Iocated with EOC . Would only have two owners (City and FD), as opposed to five owners at Valley Com . Upgraded CAD system . . Additional advantages appear in the Fire DeparÞnent's proposal (attached). They are not delineated herein as many are applicable to all dispatch options under consideration. . Maintains future flexibility - no pcnnanent tie to any dispatch center Disadvantages to City . Police and fire continue to be dispatched from separate com centers . Less flexibility than contracting . Less flexibility than contracting . Requires Fire Department. cooperation (but Option 1 above can be pursued if Fire Department declines) . Requires Fire Department to close down South Com (12 FTEs) . More expensive than Valley Com options . Minimal police dispatch experience . Requires up-front contribution of$850K + which may require bond issue . Policies and procedures would need to be established for most areas, e.g., call handling, complaint handling, training, transfening routine calls, etc. . Unknown ability to interface with City information systems . Unknown automatic call receiving capabilities . Would need to contract for MDT . Bound by current Fire Department labor agreement . More difficult to collaborate with other South County police departments on technological and operational issues . More expensive than becoming an owner . Due to new facility &. CAD upgrade, fees will rise to higher level than if tho City were an owner city . Ownership option may not be available in future ~, ~ , "",' MANAGER'S OFF 23807 - 98'AVE S . KENT, WA 98031 . (253) 854-4320 . F~ (253):~-?9-5736 l WAY ~ JUN f 6 1999 June 15, 1999 Ken Nyberg, City Manager 'i: 33530 1 st Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 , ,,' RE: Response to Questio~JÌ"om May 25th Valley Com/Federal Way Meeting '"" ",;::';:)i,;:,:-"':;; :;¿.,"" '" "".."'.'. ' , ' ,', , ' ' Dear Ken, "F .., :~f¡¡':}¡\ , ' , . '." , ..,' , ',!' "l~:X;;:: ~ , '~\~tJ~L: }~~¡:~t rveconsulteéI"Witþ,~ur{oÿV11er:::cities:'on the issues Jim Hamilton raised règardirig:the>' possibility of¡FêdeÎàltWãY:¥Irê:bep~b1..ènt partnenng With¡thêt~ity'ofFêdèkI WåYå:s ' potential Valley CoDi:oWner:Listed below are the results'åfour discussions regärding'! the critical issues. 'I' " ' ' '", 1. Ownership Status: The Mayors of our owner cities were not 'concemedwhen presented with the scenario <?f the City of Federal Way and the Federal Way Fire .. ' . ' DepartmentdevelÇ>ping~ å 'þärtQ.ership 'agreement :astä:þotentiaJ.,V allèy:'èôm: o:wner~' Th~ Fire: 'Department; would '.have'~, the, rights ~ md' -. resþónsibi1ities~ öf:ai1: :'owneicliy : fire departmentand,the :Mayor,ofFederalWay'would 'actOIÙhe',:Fiiê' Dëparlnient's' behalf at -an Administrative Board l~vetY;This 'airaD.gemerit'betWëen1:liê'CitÿofFêdemt:Wàyand the Federal', Way FirêpepartmenLwould need to be tranSparént' andriòt create any inconsistencies in the current administration or operation of the Center. ' , ' " ~' " ' , ' , ' , , , 2. Current South Com Employees: As I indicated at thenieètirig, Valley Com would be willing to give preference to current South Com employees ~lorig as they meet thê'same qualifications that our other eIJlployees metin order ,tobehired~ AlL Valley Com employees ai-esubjèct ~~~' ~tprobàtionary periôdÓfonb'year;~d Sou~'Comdispàtcíi6rs, ' will not be able to trallsfei'théir currentbenefiìS to Valley Coq¡> ,:', " ' . :,'f"'" , ,~ , ,j~~,~',? ..",'", ','" 3. Response Time Standards: Attached is a recent history of ValleY Com's response times on the highest priority, calls (the majority of fire/EMS calls fall in this category). The elimination of the transfer time between the Primary PSAP and South Com as the Secondary PSAP will be beneficial. Although there was som~e interest in establishing a specific standard and we see the value in that, such a standard has not been established ~ith our agencies to date. Without a thorough evaluation,' it wåuldbë 'premature to commit to a standard that may be operationally unrealistic. ': With 'that sàid~ however, we will endeavor to continue decreasing our response times throügh training and procedural modifications and hope to exceed Federal Way Fire Department's stated exp~(;tations.' . :~; ,* 'c,. ". , 4. Contingency Dispatching Services:&:;COIitract, Agencies: As you know, we' ~}',~ti,::;~::::~:' ( ,;".develop41ga plan for a new facility and we'anticipa.teèOmpletion in July 2001. It wo1Ì1d!;;j~;,>,\;,:;,~ be our ~4ttent to integrate the F~era1 :WayFiÍeDèpartiDènt into our operation on.ce "Y~' ',;,. have,a4equate space in the new facility.: Howevçr,wewould be willing to work With ,fuerÏ1 iri':¡the event they require dispatching serviCes more quickly than we are ready'!t~', :ìmaket1Jlf,petmànent transitionintò our'Í1êw:ràCility: ~TJ1ère are short tenn solutionStt;äfr::'\:: ': " bauld ;i~e: arranged if a more pennanènt'coiDmitnleiìt was made to V a1leyè~îrt.! ' , !, ,;¡;:,¡Regardirig the,otherpubIic safety agencieS:South:eoni:cÙ1Tently supports, we would nêèa;",r;~<¡,¡); ,.to detenrrlne the impact to Valley Com,arid gaiIÎ:approvåi:for a contract relationship trotñ ",our Adntin Board, but we support a long'term:stra~êgy of hàving the entire Zone , ..~~~~~~ ,'," " 'ChrisElscher.""~', ',' ",¡""ú.;:- ,~ ' , ", """"DIrect~~:?"""':' , "":}i;;:)¡~~r\i:,' " ' " ',", ' " ", '" ì\ f ,,' " ':j(' . ~. ' ' ,,¡]~y, Covmgton,Renton CityMaJ;1ager:;x;~ü:!:i': ,~ , ,.:."j)i~è Supler, Aubùiri!Finåñce:MtÛlåg~~~i~~¡:::\:, j'!~}~:;;~~,,>. ~rtmt McFall, Kent Directo~<>f9PÞpi#,ÖJ1S":<Ù,', j~pnMcFarland, Tukwila,Citý.¥~~g~r'::;:", ..:~;~¡>" ' I)erek Matheson, Assistant to the ~edera1 Way, Citÿ Manager ;~~an Wilson, Federal Way:p~~,:P#'~w:.qu~rt¡:rí~t::. " : ",{~ ~amilro~ 'F~ W a~~1;¡:3.:i,¡:, , "::..',...:,r:~.;,'~",'¡,'~,:,',-'" .i';,:.:(" ",' .. ,. - , , .. .' -';:, 100 90 80 fn -C 70 c: 0 60 0 CI) en 50 40 30 Priority E & 1 Call Processing Time ~~Ik~~ "i::::I~~:¡;!!::¡:,::,~f-- ;,-: ,---------_u ------ :~;.-- - - -,' - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9.> 5?> ~Oj ~Oj -..\9.> 5?> ~Oj 5?> 5?> ~Oj ~5?> 9.> - ~ ~ ~Oj ~ ~ ~r¿;.~ «.~ ~qj ~ ~qj.J ':,v~. )'J. ~v~ <::y0Ç" OV ~o <:)'IP ~r¿;.~ «.~ ~qj ~Ç. 1- Answer to Entry ----- Answer tQ Dispatch I .. FEDERAL WAY FIRE DEPARTMENT ." "-- ¡ 31617 1st Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003-5201 Ken Nyberg, City Manager City of Federal Way June 17, 1999 Dear Mr. Nyberg, I want to thank you for the opportunity for the Federal'Way Fire Department to work with the City of Federal Way to evaluate proposals for public safety dispatching. . Admjnjstrator Hamilton has noted that your staff, especially Mr. Matheson, have been very professional and helpful in this endeavor. 'C": As you are aware, our staff have developed a proposal'for joint development of a local public safety disp~~ch center bÝ'the City of Federal Way and the Federal Way Fire Department. That " proposal is attached. We have also included a response to your"June 14 letter seeking clarification of a number of issues. I believe that you will find that this proposal identifies the creation of a high quality public safety dispatching operation for the citizens of Federal Way. Our staff have identified operational and governance models that would provide both the City and the Fire Department with a high level of control over how dispatching operations are performed "for their agencies. We have also evaluated, per your request, an option of partnering with" the City of Federal Way in an owner/member role with Valley Communications. While we have some issues that will need additional clarification prior to making a final decision, we have found that the Valley Communications responses to our questions have made this a credible alternative. Although we still have concerns with a lack of performance standards regarding dispatch processing times, we were pleased to see that this has become an issue of importance to Valley Communications and that they are taking steps to improve this important performance issue. The economic implications are substantial to the Fire Department, resulting in a $300,000 - $400,000 annual savings compared to the local dispatching center option. J ,Co;, Phone: (253) 839-6234 or (253) 927-3178 . E-mail: info@federalwayfire.org . Fax: (253) 529-7206 An Equal Opportunity Employer r~ ~ c ( We realize that time frames for making this important decision are somewhat limited due to the need for Valley Communications to move forward with its construction program. Therefore, to assist in your decision making process, the Board of . Commissioners are providing you with our positions on the dispatching models. These positions are preliminary and wiD need some fmalization of details prior to a fmal decision by the Board of Commissioners. . It is the position of the Board of Commissioners that a City/Fire Department partnership for dispatching services should be pursued. Both models (the local dispatch center and the Valley Communications models) appear to be viable. Based on our experience with our local dispatch c~nter, we believe that the local dispatch model could provide a higher quality of service, but at a penalty in cost. . It is the position of the Board of Commissioners that the City/Fire Department partnership at Valley Communications would best benefit the citizens of the Fire Department over the long term, and based upon the preliminary information available, we find this option to be preferable. If the City of Federal Way elects to move forward with the option of becoming a member/owner of Valley Communications, the Federal Way Fire Department would seek to work towards a partnership with the City in that endeavor. It . It is the position of the Board of Commissioners that if the City finds that the member/owner role with Valley Communications is not appropriate, we would seek.' to work towards a partnership with the City in establishing a new local dispatch center as outlined in the attachment. We are planning to attend the June 28 meeting of the ParkslRecreationIHuman Services/Public Safety Committee to address any questions the City may have regarding the local dispatch proposal and/or the Valley Communications proposal. Sincerely, .¿jd~ Bill Martin, Chairman, Board of Commissioners Cc: Board of Commissioners \..,' c (, Proposal for Partnership between Federal Way Public Safety ~ and Federal Way Fire Department for Local Public Safety Dispatching June 28,1999 Prepared by: The Federal Way Fire Department Ç...,<" c ( Table of Contents Table of Contents....... ................ .......... ................... Overview..................................... ~............o............ Existing Dispatch Center Prof"de................................. South Com Staff . Daily Operational Staffing Levels Dispatch Processing Time Customers Served Existing Dispatcher Profll.e........................................ Proposed Dispatching Center Prof"de............................ Normal Operations..................... .................... .... ..... Additional Personnel Needed...................................... Center Operations/Console Al"I1ingement/Floorplan......., /I Cost Allocation....::............ ............................... .... Value and Service Added......................................... Governance........................ ............ ... ... ... ............ Administration Board........... ................................. Operating Board................ ........... .................. ..... 2 3 3 3 7 8 9 10 13 15 16 16 18 '" ."...., p"" ...".............~.._- 2 ~ " ~ , .~ ~ .\ ì: 3 Overview: This report has been prepared to examine the possibility of Federal Way Public Safety joining together with the Federal Way Fire Department in developing a partnership for local public safety dispatching. This proposal identifies methodologies to utilize our community's current investment in capital and staff as a foundation for dispatching services customized to the specific needs of Federal Way. This could be an exciting time for all participating agencies, enabling both police and fire agencies with the ability to specifically detennine the level of service that they would like to have provided for themselves and the community they serve, both today and in to the future. This docwnent will also identify the operational aspects of having a combined center in Federal Way, as well as the value and services that could be enhanced by combining fire and police into one center. Personnel requirements, technological upgrades, and associated costs over a twenty-year timeframe have been analyzed within this report. Existin2 Dispatch Center Profile: (~ The Federal Way Fire Department has operated an emergency dispatch center since the mid- 1960's. The center initially only handled fire and EMS calls for service in the Federal Way community. The addition of other agencies in the center began the mid-1970's. The current location of the dispatch center, which was named South Com by consensus of the participating agencies in the center the early 1990's, occurred in 1979. Ever since that time, the dispatch center has been located in the Fed~ral Way Fire Department headquarters station at 31617-1 Avenue South in Federal Way. I The dispatch center currently handles emergency responses for a nwnber offirelEMS agencies, one police agency, and two of the King County Medic One paramedic units. The following gives an overview of the current staff and agencies dispatched out of South Com: South Com Staff . 9 Dispatchers . 4 Communications Supervisors (who also provide dispatching services) . 1 Deputy Chief (who currently oversees the center among his departmental responsibilities) Daily Operational Staffm2 Levels . Dayshift (6:30 am to 6:30 pm): minimwn staffing of3 maintained (one call receiver, one EMS/fire dispatcher, one police dispatcher) . Nightshift (6:30 pm to 6:30 am): minimwn staffing of2 maintained (one call receiver/police dispatcher, one EMS/fire dispatcher) . Staffing levels are occasionally above the minimum established level ( ,~~~ C' co, 4 Dispatch Processin2 Time . The average dispatch processing time for fire and EMS emergencies in the Federal Way community for 1998 was 43.05 seconds. Dispatch processing time is measured fÌ'om the moment a phone 'call is answered by a South Com dispatcher, to the moment help is dispatched via radio. ' J Customers Served I) Federal Way Fire Department Population Served: 100,000 Stations: 6 1998 Calls for Service: 8,946 2) North Highline Fire District (White Center) Population Served: 43,000 Stations: 2 1998 Calls for Service: 4,529 3) Nonnandy Park Police Department Population Served: 7,200 Officers: 18 1998 Calls for Service: 4,020 , . .. 4) City of SeaTac Fire Department Population Served: 23,000 Stations: 3 1998 Calls for Service: 3,413 5) King County Medic One Population Served: approx. 200,000 Stations: 2 1999 Estimated Calls for ServiCe: 3,590 An additional 339 calls were dispatched for Lakehaven Utilities in 1998, bringing the total alarm load for South Com in 1998 to 23,764. Existin2 Dispatcher Profile: The Federal Way Fire Department currently employs 13 dispatchers to cover 12 F.T.E. positions. One of the positions is a 'job share", where two dispatchers cover the one position. Several of the current dispatchers bring both firelEMS and police dispatching skills to the current center. The following gives an overview of the current dispatch personnel: Beasley if Conner Everett f Fuller Graddon ( 5 Began as a volunteer FirefighterÆMT in King County Fire District 26. Began dispatching police and fire for Des Moines Police. Reserve police officer at Des Moines PD. Drove ambulance part-time. Has been a supervisor for 10 years at Des Moines Police and South Com. CJTC Basic Dispatch, Officer Survival, AA level computer programming and Administration of Justice course work. CAD system specialist. Experienced in UNIX, VB, BASIC, Pascal, and various applications. ACCESS Level II Certified. Employed with South Com since 8/11/84. Began dispatching at Reno Communications Center as a Fire Dispatcher. Dispatched Fire and Police as well as supervised for 9 years. Dispatched at Valley Com for 6 months prior to coming to Federal Way. Supervisor for 6 years at South Com. Holds a National Fire Academy Instructor 1 certificate. In second year (of four) of National Fire Academy Executive Fire Officer Program. NF A courses in Instructor 1, Course Development, . Public Education (2), Training Program Management, Fire Service . Organization. BS in education. AA in Liberal Arts and AA in Fire Science. Currently working toward MS in Human Resource Management. EMD Instructor certificate (was on the original team that developed the EMD program for King County). ACCESS Level II Certified. Employed with South Com since 7/10/87.. lias been a resdrve officer for Lodi Police. Spent 4 years rotating between Clerk, Jailer, ill Tech, and Court Officer. Prior to South Com has dispatched at Lodi Police and Valley Com. CJTC - Hostage Negotiations, Domestic Violence, and Dispatcher Roll In Officer Survival. Holds CISM certification (Critical Incident Stress Management). Has been Peer Support Counselor and Emergency Medical Dispatch Trainer. Currently an acting supervisor. ACCESS Level II Certified. BA in Criminal Justice. AA in Electron Microscopy (forensics). Employed with South Com since 8/27/91. Began as volunteer firefighterÆMT at King County Fire District 13 (Vashon) and continued at King County Fire District 26 (Des Moines). Began Dispatching for Des Moines PD and continued at Normandy Park PD until Normandy Park was absorbed by South Com. Acting supervisor at South Com. Has been a member on both APCO Law Enforcement Services and Fire and Rescue committees. ACCESS Level II Certified. Employed with South Com since 12/18/95. Began as a volunteer firefighterÆMT and dispatching for King County Fire District 2 (Burien) at 16. Has been a full time firefighter at King County Fire District 43 (Maple Valley). Has been a Fire Captain and a supervisor at Valley Com and is currently a supervisor at South Com. CJTC - Hostage Negotiations. Has been involved in King County Search & Rescue (Operations Team Leader). State Certificate in emergency (~r Heier Hugo Kalmbach c. Lawson Parise VanDiver ( .. .. .. ~ .. 6 vehicle operation. Operates Gray Dawn Motor Escort Service. ACCESS Level II Certified and the ACCESS Tenninal Agency Coordinator. Employed with South Com since 1/13/86. Began as a volWlteer tirefighterÆMT and dispatcher at King County Fire District 11 (White Center). Worked full time Wltil absorbed by South Com. Involved in amateur radio and ARES (Amateur Radio Emergency Service) for 7 years. ACCESS Level II Certified. Employed with South Com since 3/22/93. Began as volWlteer fuefighterÆMT at King COWlty Fire District 26 (Des Moines). Reserve Officer for Pacific PD. Extensive experience dispatching ambulance for Shepard and fixed-wing and rotary for Airlift Northwest. Acting supervisor at South Com. ACCESS Level II Certified. Employed with South Com since 1/11/88. Began as a dispatcher/clerk at Benton COWlty Sheriffs Office. Has dispatched at Kennewick EDC, Oregon City Police, and Valley Com prior to Federal Way. Has been a lead or acting supervisor at each of these (including South Com). Attended Oregon Police Academy and Washington State Patrol Academy for Communications. Married to WSP Lieutenant. ACCESS Level II Certified. ,Employed at South Com since 11/16/87. I ' Began as explorer with Seattle Fire Department. Volunteer FirefighterÆMT with King County Fire District 11 (White Center). Completed their dispatchers class and began working as a part time dispatcher. Worked full time until absorbed by Federal Way Fire. Past Fire Service Training Center instructor. Acting supervisor at South Com. ACCESS Level II Certified. Employed with South Com since 3/22/93. Began as volWlteer fuefighterÆMT at King COWlty Fire District 10 and a full time dispatcher at Control1 0 (KCFD 10). Graduated from Renton V oc- Tech and holds a certificate in Emergency Dispatching. 1 Y2 years as a supervisor at Control 1 O. Prior to working at South Com, dispatched for Shepard Ambulance (ambulance, fixed wing, and rotary). APCO certified trainer, Fire Service Training Instructor, National Fire Academy Leadership I & II. ACCESS Level II Certified. Employed with South Com since 5/20/98. Began as firefighterÆMT with Seattle Fire Department and volWlteer at King COWlty Fire District 26 (Des Moines). Retired on disability and began dispatching at Federal Way. Holds a certificate in Telecommunications Management. Supervisor at South Com for 6 years. Emergency Management for 6 years. ACCESS Level II Certified. Employed with South Com since 8/22/85. . 7 Wilcox " Extensive police background (work experience and training), beginning as an Explorer in Red Bluff, CA. Full time as police clerk/records! warrants/jailer and reserve police officer in Red Bluff. Acting Supervisor at Red Bluff and South Com. CLETS Trainer. ACCESS Level II Certified. Married to Federal Way PD Detective. Employed with South Com since 4/28/97. Zielke Began as a FirefighterÆMT for Bridgeport Fire Department and Moses Lake Fire Department. Worked at Benton County Sheriff's Office, Valley Com and Normandy Park Police prior to South COM. King County Search & Rescue for 14 years (Operations Leader), FCC Amateur Technician-Plus License (Amateur Radio), CITC Basic and Advanced Dispatch Academy, Hostage Negotiation, Suicidal Callers, Dispatcher Role in Officer Safety, Crime Scene Recognition, Substitute Instructor Renton Technical College. Acting supervisor at South Com. ACCESS Level n Certified. Employed with South Com since 4/19/96. The experience and dedication of the dispatchers should help to make the partnership between Federal Way Public Safety and the Federal Way Fire Department a smoothly operating venture. ( Proposed Dispatchine Center Pr.ofde: , I , , Discussions with a workgroup made up of cwrent Supervisors and Dispatchers, many of whom have several years of experience in the field of both police and fire dispatching, have allowed the . development of a staffmg methodology combining both police and fire dispatching in the center. Using an operational model of true assignments, the workgroup has identified the need for 26 dispatch personnel to accomplish the goal of providing four (4) dispatch consoles (2 police and 2 fire) and two (2) call receivers staffing the peak hours. Off-peak hours will have three dispatch consoles (2 police and one fire), one (1) call receiver and one (1) call receiver/fire dispatcher. South Com currently has four (4) shifts, which are assigned the numbers of AI, A2, Bl and B2. The dispatchers work twelve (12) hour shifts as a team. In order to provide the required staffing to adequately handle all current agencies emergencies, as well as the addition of Federal Way Public Safety, the staffing required would look like this: Al Shift-Daytime Peak Hour Team: I-Supervisor S-Dispatcher/Call Receivers I-Relief Dispatcher 8 ~ Bl Shift-Daytime Peak Hour Team: I-Supervisor 5-Dispatcher/CaU Receivers I-Relief Dispatcher A2 Shift-Nie:ht Off Hour Team I-Supervisor 4-Dispatcher/CaU Receivers I-Relief Dispatcher B2 Shift-Nie:ht Off Hour Team I-Supervisor 4-Dispatcher/Call Receivers I-Relief Dispatcher During peak hours, this model has ideritified two (2) POLICE dispatch consoles, two (2) FIRFÆMS dispatch consoles and two (2) call receivers. During .off peak hours, this model has identified two (2) POLICE dispatch consoles, one FIRFJEMS dispatch console, one (1) call receiver and one (1) call receiverlFIRE dispatch console. The total staffing required would be 26 personnel. ( For key performance of all personp.el, the Supervisor woulq D'pically rotate all personnel through all of the different staffed positio~ on a regular basis, such as having each dispatcher work each position once a month. This will maintain operational readiness to be able to staff any assigned position. The same would be true for the Supervisors, who would rotate through all of the positions on a normal basis to maintain their operational level of training. Continuity would be ~ . provided, however, during each shift by not rotating positions of assignment except for needed breaks. . Normal Operations: . The operation of the center would include the aforementioned call receivers and dispatchers providing the highest level of community based services to each agency as requested by that agency. The following establishes how calls would be processed to ensure that each call is handled quickly and efficiently: 1) Calls would come into the call receiver positions via 9-1-1. The call receiver would ask if the caller is reporting a "Police, Fire or Medical Emergency". 2) If it is a fire or medical emergency, the caller is immediately transferred to the dispatchers working the FIRElEMS consoles for interrogation and processing. This will minimize call receiver time on FIRElEMS calls and maximize the time available to handle POLICE calls. It will also maintain FlREIEMS processing times at our accustomed 43 seconds. 3) If it is a police emergency, the call receiver will gather the necessary information and enter it into the CAD system. Once the necessary infonnation has been entered, the c. ,# 9 call receiver will folWard the CAD infonnation to the appropriate POLICE console for processing. 4) The call receiver will immediately transfer joint calls involving both FIRFÆMS and POLICE to the FlREIEMS consoles for interrogation and dispatching of appropriate units, including POLICE. The gathering of infonnation for the POLICE dispatcher shall also be handled during the interrogation. 5) In the off-peak evening hours when there is only one call receiver, the secondary FIREÆMS console dispatcher will act as a second call receiver from the console position should traffic pick up. The aforementioned methodology should ensure that calls are processed quickly and efficiently for all types of responses. . Additional Personnel Needed to Provide These Services: The following addresses the personnel needs required to provide dispatching services to all of the agencies Federal Way Fire currently dispatches for, as well as adding Federal Way Public Safety: C' ( 1) 2) A full-time director will be required to manage, coordinate, and provide customer servIce. A full-time techni<äan to manage and repaiÍ- 'technical components not otherwise covered by contracted services. The technician would: a. manage/repair phone systems b. manage technical issues related to operating the CAD and data systems c. manage the VHF and 800 MHz radio systems Two (2) call receiver positions available during peak hours to handle the volume of calls being answered at South Com should Federal Way Public Safety decide to partner in the center with Federal Way Fire. The addition of the two call receiver positions would: a. Maintain the standard of perfonnance that no more than 10% of the 9-1-1 calls go unanswered for more than 10 seconds. Provide two call receivers during the peak telephone traffic periods, which is typically during the daytime hours. The evening hours, which are slower, could be staffed by one single call receiver, with any overages being covered by FIREÆMS dispatchers working the console positions. Four (4) dispatch consoles staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The console positions would be staffed as follows: a. One console shall be assigned as Federal Way Police primary dispatch. b. One console shall be assigned as Federal Way Police secondary dispatch and Normandy Park Police primary dispatch. One console shall be assigned as Fire!EMS primary dispatch. One console shall be assigned as FirelEMS telephone interrogation and secondary dispatch. 3) b. 4) c. d. 10 ~ A total of fourteen (14) new dispatching positions would need to be filled to cover the call receiver and dispatch positions explained above. In addition, a director and technician would provide the management and technical support the center would require. Center Onerations/Console Arrane:ementIFloorolan: The proposed floorplan for the center is attached to this report. It shows four (4) console positions for .actual dispatching, all of which have access to both VHF and 800 MHz. In addition, there is a standby or backup console available for use should it be needed for training or when a technician is servicing another console. The two (2) call receiver positions are located adjacent to the dispatch consoles in an attached room, which provides for easy access to the call receivers should the need dictate. Federal Way Public Safety would be provided the opportunity to have direct input into the floorplan arrangement. . To migrate into the new partnership being proposed between Federal Way Public Safety and the Federal Way Fire Department, there would be a need for capital expenditure to upgrade the system currently in use. ( Additional Canital Outlay: A specific explanation of technoJþgical upgrades desired ånd needed is attached in an excerpt. from a report to the Federal Way Fire Department by Adcomm Engineering. The following gives an overview of the technological upgrades as recommended by AdComm Engineering, as well as the South Com operational workgroup, to enable the communications center to provide. the highest level of community-based service possible to all user agencies. 1) Upgrade the C.A.D. system to a state-of-the art system. a) Upgrade to include the ability for Mobile Data Terrilinals, Mobile Computer Terminals, records, tone and alphapage interface, and an interface to the NCICIW ACIC Access program. b) Cost will be approximately $950,000 up front expenditure, and approximately $9,500 annually in upgrade costs. 2) Upgrade current logging recorder to 24 channel P.C. based recorder. This will be a $45,000 up fÌ'ont expenditure, and approximately $4,000 annually in maintenance costs. 3) The use of data communications to provide Federal Way Public Safety with at least the same level of technology they are currently utilizing will need to be provided either through contracting with Valley Communications to access their current system, or by changing over to C.D.P.D. digital technology. Adcomm Engineering has estimated that $75,000 in up fÌ'ont costs would provide the link fÌ'om the new CAD to Valley Comm's system: with an ongoing annual cost of$lO,OOO to access the system. c. \t".¡4J c ( 11 4) Automatic Vehicle Location (A VL) can be provided with an up front expenditure of $25,000, and an ongoing annual cost of $1,500. This utilizes the current MDT system technology to provide A VL back to the new dispatch CAD ~ystem. . 5) The current facility will require the following upgrades: a. card/swipe door system for all doors at approximate cost of $2246 b. exterior camera system with 2-cameras at approximate cost of $1896 6) Facility Upgrade The electrical systems will be upgraded by the FWFD. A new emergency power generator was recently installed. An on-line UPS will be installed as part of the preparation for the CAD upgrade. Security glass will be installed. Costs for these facility upgrades will be borne by the FWFD. 7) The current console/radio system will require the following upgrades and additions: a. Additional radio positions at current OP4 position, as well as one that could be located at a backup console position. Two of the radio positions would be set up as CRT-type of radio consoles. The CRT positions would be in the Federal Way primary and backup radio console positions. The total rest for this upgrade, including the radio system and associated console furniture, would be $141,180. Three (3) additional console furniture positions. Two (2) of which will be for call receiver positions, and the third for a potential backup console. The cost of this furniture is included in the aforementioned cost. Two (2) additional phone positions for the call receivers will be required to be linke4jnto the Positron system:' d. :. The addition of additional 9-1-1 trunk lines from the King County E-911 . system. It is projected that the current system in South Com will expand from four (4) 9-1-1 trunks to six (6) 9-1-1 trunks. This would be ~ coordinated through King County E-911. b. c. Annual Costs: The annual costs for a Federal Way dispatch center have been identified below. These costs are based upon 1999 wages, benefits, etc. Capital reserves are based upon the additional capital outlay. 12 ~/ \!t~; <:J;;~~~~~~t~i~~~:~f- ..~ -;--.< '. '-~-~j~(; REGULAR HOURS OVERTIME HOURS TOTAL PAID HOURS HOLIDAY SELL-BACKS REGULAR SALARIES OVERTIME SALARIES TOTAL SALARIES 61,152 4,728 65,880 17,982 1,201,434 137,112 1,356,528 LIFE INSURANCE LABOR & INDUSTRIES MEDICAL/DENTAL PENSIONS FULL TIME SAVINGS MEDICARE SOCIAL SECURITY. TOTAL BENEFITS 3,468 4,510 133,307 90,109 34,800 15,877 282,071. @.'-;'\'~' \... ; DIRECTORIES MAPS & MAP SUPPLIES REFERENCE BOOKS UNIFORMS MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES h 615 300 500 3,600 5,015 EQUIP/REPAIR REPAIR PARTS . . 800 800 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP/UPGRADES TAPES/RECORDING TELEPHONE/CELLULAR SMALL EQUIPMENT TOTAL EQUIP. & SUPPLIES 22,000 2,050 24,050 29,865 WSP ACCESS FEES OTHER SERVICES 8,100 8,100 OUTSIDE TRAINING TRAVEL OUTSIDE TRAINING 17,690 2,050 19,740 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP EQUIP/REPAIR NON-CONTRACT REPAIRS MAINTENANCE TOTAL PURCHASED SVCS. 81,581 4,000 6,445 92,026 119,866 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES: CAPITAL RESERVES: TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES: 1,788,330 140,046 1,928,376 ( 13 ( \ Cost Allocation: In order to provide a good comparison to existing costing structures, the allocation of ongoing costs have been allocated on a cost/call basis. There was also a recognition that fire dispatching consumes more resomces on a per-call. basis than police dispatching. For that reason, police dispatching costs were set at $20.00 per call and fire dispatching was set at $25.00 per call. Total revenues for this proposal are currently inadequate to cover all costs, and the Federal Way Fire Department will provide a subsidy to balance income with expenses. This is not a new concept, since the Federal Way Fire Department has been providing a subsidy to the current dispatch center for many years. The fundamental premise behind this subsidy is the value of services that the Department receives from having a local dispatching operation, and in particular, in the quick dispatch processing times that we receive. Due to distance and traffic congestion issues in Federal Way, time is an essential element in dispatching services. As noted above, the current center provides a dispatch processing time of 43 seconds. Long response times for the fire service are typically resolved through the building of additional stations, at a cost of over $1 million per year in annual operating costs and $1.5 million in facility costs. An investment in the front end of the system at the dispatch center can actually save taxpayers significant expense over the long term. In this proposed Federal Way dispatch center, the subsidy could be reduced over time as call volume increases exceeded inflation. The cost allocation resulted in the .following costs for Fede~ Public Safety: ( "('."'. »"'.i;t~~~~:~;i:!~~~~~',~:~~i~J!~¿a;'oI{U-,~::';'; .'1 INCOKE ! KCEMS Dispatch KC 911 Fees North Highline Dispatch SeaTac Dispatch Normandy Park Dispatch Federal Way Fire Dispatch Federal Way Police Dispatch TOTAL! 70,005 48,625 113,225 85,325 80,400 223,650 1,015,560 1,636,790 DISPATCHED CALLS! North Highline Dispatch Cost/Call : SeaTac Dispatch Cost/Call: Federal Way Fire Dispatch Cost/Call: Federal Way Police Dispatch Cost/Call: Normandy Park Police Cost/Call: KCEMS Dispatch Cost/Call: 4,529 25.00 3,413 25.00 8,946 25.00 50,778 20.00 4,020 20.00 3,590 19.50 Total Calls! 75,276 Total Revenue: 1,636,790 Total Expenses: 1,928,376 ( Federal Way Fire Subsidy Needed: 291,586 ç~ f:' \.,. ~;~~. _.' ,. ... .. ,.' ..... -~..~ .. 14 Although the existing investment will be leveraged to significantly reduce the cost compared to building a new facility in Federal Way, there will be some startup capital costs for establishing this center. Those costs are identified below: r-'--~-,~;~~~~~~~,i~~~:~~'~;~~f~;ié~;~~'.'~'-~'-...~- .. ,,-~~~~.~-~. -¿);;~~i~;~------~;~i~;;;:;';£¡--1 Logging Recorder CAD New Consoles Paging Card Access Camera System AVL MCT Total: 45,000 950,000 141,180 25,000 2,246 1,896 25,000 75,000 1,265,322 6,429 95,000 20,169 3,571 321 271 3,571 10,714 140,046 The Federal Way Police dispatched Calls would be equal to 67.46% of the total. We have utiliZed that ratio to allocate the original capital costs required to upgrade to existing' dispatch center. Based upon this allocation model, the one-time capital costs would be as follows: -,-- '1'f;IJ ~;c7î¡!~\I~-,-!:~'Z£§~-:,: .,:~~~~:¡'::~~-- ._~-~ .. ,. --~-~--~ti;g;i?~~l, .---, '~Dg-R~~. '~;:;¡;\.'r,~;\J;¡ii~~.::r:l:U~'~;"" " FEDERAL WAY FXRE~ FEDERAL WAY PUBLØjC SAFETY Total: 411,789 853,533 1,265,322 . . There will also be someone-time transition costs for Federal Way Public Safety when they move from Valleycom to a Federal Way dispatch center. Those costs are identified below: POLXCE TRANSITIONAL COSTS TO PARTNER AT FEDERAL WAY FXRE DATABASE DEVELOPMENT 50,000 LXNKAGE TO RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 25, 000 TOTAL: 75,000 There are a nwnber of capital facility and operating services that will also be provided to this proposed center at no additional cost by the Federal Way Fire Department including the following: . A dispatch facility with an adjacent Emergency Operations Center Backup emergency power Uninteruptable Power Supply Payroll services Insurance . . . . 15 Valoe and Service Added: The communications center being operated by the Federal Way Fire Department can provide added services and overall value to Federal Way Public Safety. The following list examines those increases to the CUlTent level of service being provided to Federal Way Public Safety. Should Federal Way Public Safety partner with the Federal Way Fire Department in expanding the existing community investment in local dispatching, they will be provided with: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) ( 6) 7) 8) 9) (' , ',.. 10) A dispatch center located within the City of Federal Way, as opposed to another community or city. This will help to keep control right here in Federal Way. Community-based dispatching from dispatchers who are intimately knowledgeable of the Federal Way community. Improved communications and coordination between Federal Way Fire Department and Federal Way Public Safety_"_personnel on all emergency responses. The ability fór Federal Way Public Safety to have direct input and control over how they are dispatched, how incidents are coordinated, and the level of dispatching service they wish to provide to the Federal Way community. The ability to have access to all digitized complex maps, covering apartment complexes and commercial structures, utilized by the Federal Way Fire Department on emergency responses. The ability to a1ph~umerically page any officer, police or fife, as needed to pass along information: I a. . business in nature b. related to an emergency incident A local facility established for joint police and fire emergency operations. This includes an emergency operations center (B.O.C.) that is adjacent to the dispatching center. A radio system infrastructure that includes 800 MHz and VHF. Both systems would be available at the center, which provides for emergency backup to one another should either system fail during a major event such as an earthquake. Improved coordination of emergency responses involving fire and police units, to include: a. motor vehicle accidents b. assaults c. incidents involving weapons d. bomb threats e. civil disturbances f. fires g. major windstorms h. earthquakes i. natural disasters All dispatchers are ACCESS level II certified. This allows them to enter and maintain wanted and stolen data. C~r 11) 12) 13) 14) Governance '~'--""'.n',_",-~, 16 Elimination of the time it ~es for the transfer of emergency calls from one P.S.A.P. to another. This will have an effect of reducing response times for fire and EMS. Very little turnover of experienced personnel. The current dispatcher profile shows that dispatchers who are employed and trained at South Com have an average tenure in Federal Way of8 years I month. The fact that Federal Way dispatchers have binding arbitration, eliminating the potential for labor problems such as strikes. The opportunity to develop a performance standard with ongoing monitoring. The development of a center with both police and fire allows for standards to be set and monitored for all participating agencies. Since this will be such a si~cant enhancement to the existing dispatch center, the Federal Way Fire Department remains open to various governance structures. The model identified below is based on investment by the City of Federal Way in the one-time capital costs identified above. A Center Director that serves at the will of an Administration Board would manage the center. The Administration Board would be empowered to make broad-based policy decisions. An Operating Board would be formed to advise the Center Director on day-to-day operational issues. The following is a hypothetical model of a governance structure: . 0, (, I¡ ADMINISTRATION BOARD There is hereby established a Federal Way Dispatch Center Administration Board (Administration Board), initially consisting of the participating city of Federal Way and the Federal Way Fire Department. Said Administration Board shall have the responsibility and authority, among others, for managing emergency service communications and functions incidental thereto, for thepwpose of communicating and dispatching in the furtherance of public safety and emergencies within the aforementioned member agencies. In addition thereto the Center may serve other municipal corporations (subscribing agencies) existing within the logical, physical service area and which are in need for emergency service communications. The affairs of the Center shall be governed by a Administration Board composed of elected officials (city councilmembersldistrict commissioners) or staff, with two members from the City of Federal Way and two members representing the Federal Way Fire Department. Each Board member shall have an equal vote and voice in all Board decisions. Unless otherwise provided, Roberts Revised Rules of Order shall govern all procedural matters relating to the business of the Administration Board. The Dispatch Center shall be governed by the Administration Board, which powers shall include, but not be limited to the powers listed below. A. Recommend action to the legislative bodies of the participating members. c.. B. Review and approve budget expenditures. (~ ( H. I. J. K. L. M. 17 C. Approve or disapprove budget expenditures recommended by the Center Director and Operations Board. D. Establish policies for expenditures of budget items for the Center. E. Review and adopt a persOlUlel policy for the Center. F. Conduct regular meetings as may be necessary. G. Detennine what services shall be offered and under what terms they shall be offered. Authorize agreements with third parties for goods and services necessary to fully implement the pwposes of this Agreement. Establish rates for services provided to other members, subscribers or participating agencies. Direct and supervise the activities of the Operations Board and the Center Director. Authorize agreements with and receive and distribute funds from any federal, state or local agencies. , , I To make and. alter bylaws tor the administration and regulation of its affairs. Authorize contracts with future participating members and subscribers to provide. communications services. ~ ( < 18 OPERATING BOÄRD There is further established an Operating Board which shall consist of two (2) members of each participating agency's Public Safety Department(s), including the head of such Department(s) and/or their designee(s). The purpose of the Operating Board shall be to advise the Center Director on operational issues. The recommendations of the Operating Board are not binding on the Center Director. Each Board member shall have an equal vote in all Board decisions. . Unless otherwise provided, Robert's Revised Rules of Order shall govern all procedural matters relating to the business of the Operating Board. It is understood that the Administration Board is the Governing Board of the Center. The position of the Operating Board is to oversee the day to day. operation of the Center and advise and make recommendations to the Administration Board. The Operating Board is also charged with the following responsibilities: A. Recommendi?g to the Administrative Board a person to serve as Director. B. Presentation of a Proposed Personnel Policy to the Administration Board. c. Presentation of the Budget to the Administration Board. D. Supervision of the Director. /¡ Approval of disbursement of funds by the Director. E. F. Recommending policy changes to the Administration Board. G. Other responsibilities as delegated by the Administration Board. Equipment Room Communications Office 5 .....;y CUff en t D!i ~~ D ~ ~I I II~. ~ D q~ ~(() D Kitchen - . . u 000 0 0 0 Emergency Ops Center 0 0 0 \:..J Equipment Room Call Takers J Proposed - Fire Dispatchers . . v 000 0' 0 0 10 0 10 Emergency Ops Center .:/ NO~THWrB§T m~ ~~ L Z WI May 12, 1999 Federal Way Fire Department King County Fire District #39 31617 1st Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 ATTN: Tom Batten Facilities Supervisor RE: Seismic Evaluation of Fire Station #2 3167 -1st Avenue South EWN #99007002 Mr. Batten: Introduction (' , As you requested, I have reviévyed the architectural and structural plans which you loaned to us for Fire Station #2 in Federal Way. The building was constructed in two phases; The first phase consisting of a building with approximately 9200 SF of ground floor area and 4700 SF of second floor area. This was built about 1976. No dates were found on the drawings forthis phase except where the electrical engineer dated his professional stamp. The second phase which was constructed in 1984 consisted of two levels of approximately 1200 SF each. Both phases were connected by a common wall. I assume that because of the age of this building and the much pUblicized finding of new seismic faults below Puget Sound, you began to question the seismic adequacy of the Station #2. It is for this reason that you forwarded us the drawings for review and evaluation. Qualifications ENW is a structural engineering firm specializing in commercial buildings. Since the early 1960's, ENW has been involved in the design of thousands of new structures as well as the evaluation, and many times rehabilitation of existing structures. While most projects are located in the northwest states, we currently provide structural services throughout the United States as well as Canada. ENGINEERS NORTHWEST, INC. P.S. - STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 6869 WOODlAWN AVENUE N-E- SEAITLE. WA98115 (206) 525.7560 FAX (206) 522.ô€98 C", ~íJ C,. (:,' (, " ; , May 12, 1999 Federal Way Fire Department Seismic Evaluation of Fire Station #2 Page 2 of 5 Our staff of 35 employees includes 17 structural engineers. Their education and experience provides a considerable base of knowledge on which to draw. Projects in Seattle's aging Pioneer Square district as well as numerous rehabilitation jobs coupled with experience in post-earthquake evaluation and preparation of many seismic reports for buildings throughout the West Coast states provide a strong background for this study. Documents Reviewed 1. Drawings A-1 to A-12 and S1 to S5 prepared by B&B Building Designers entitled "Fire Station #9 for King county Fire Protection District #39" drawings probably completed in October 1976. (Although the drawings say Station #9, it is actually Station #2). Drawings A-1 to A-4 and S1 to S3 prepared by Ridenour and Cochran Architects of Bellevue, Washington entitled "Remodel and Addition to Station #2 - King County Fire Protection ,District #39n dated Octoq,er 1984 - Structural design by Gary Swenson. I .2. ReQional Seismicity The puget Sound region is a seismically active area. About sixteen moderate to large earthquakes have occurred in the Puget Sound and northwestern Cascades region since 1872. The larger recorded seismic events have included the magnitude 7+ North Cascades earthquake of 1872, the magnitude 7.3 Vancouver Island earthquake of 1946, the magnitude 7.1 Olympia earthquake of 1949, the magnitude 8.1 Queen Charlotte Island earthquake of 1949 and the magnitude 6.5 Seattle earthquake of 1965. In addition to puget Sound seismic sources, a great earthquake eyent has been postulated for the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) along the northwest Pacific coast of Oregon, Washington and Canada. The current risk of a future CSZ event is not known at this time. Published reports have indicated recurrence intervals for a CSZ event to range from as little as 100-200 years to as long as 1000+ years and the time of the last event is reported to have been about 300 years ago. King County requires consideration for seismic design of an earthquake with a ground acceleration level that has a 10% change of occurring within a 50 year period. In essence, an earthquake of this magnitude is expected to occur at least once 'every 475 years. Based on an analysis of historic seismic events recorded from 1872 to 1995 within the Puget Sound/North cascades area an average 475-year recurrence ground acceleration was calculated to be about 0.24g peak for the general Puget Sound region. ENGINEERS NORTHWEST, INC. P.S. - STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 6869 WOODLAWN AVENUE N,E, SEATTLE, \'JA 98115 (206) 525.7560 FAX (206) 522.6698 t" May 12, 1999 Federal Way Fire Department Seismic Evaluation of Fire Station #2 Page 3 of 5 Analysis The governing design code for the Western United States is the Uniform Building code (UBC) which is revised every three years, however, some municipalities may not adopt revised additions of this code until several years after they have been published, therefore, it is difficult to tell which issuance of the UBC governed the design of this fire station. The 1976 phase of construction was probably designed under the rules of the 1973 USC and the 1984 phase under the rules of the 1982 UBC. c " , After each major earthquake, the seismic portion of the UBC becomes more restrictive and more requirements dealing with details and design procedures are added. In 1973, requirements were added to the 1973 UBC dealing with the anchorage of floors and roof to exterior walls. This resulted from findings after a major California earthquake in 1971. , I There have beeo, many major é'arthquakes since 1971, usually in California, which have influenced the seismic requirements of subsequent USC codes. The 1994 and 1997 UBC, the codes in use today along the West Coast, have had dramatic design revisions added. Certain buildings and types of construction which may have been used in the early 1980's are today forbidden in high seismically active areas. Fortunately, Fire Station #2 in Federal Way is not one of these buildings. The methods of design and construction that would be used for a station like this today are very similar to those used at the time of the actual construction of this facility. This facility is basicaliy "box type" construction with reinforced concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls and precast concrete second floors and roofs. The only timber construction is over the apparatus room. The requirements for this type of construction have not changed significantly since 1973. The overall total seismic lateral load for this type of building is commonly referred to as "base shear" and it has not increased since 1982. Both the 1982 and the 1997 UBC have an importance factor added to the base shear load for essential facilities such as fire stations. This increases the building base design shear by 50% and hopefully assures that an essential building will remain standing after the non-essential buildings have collapsed. 1'- ; " ENGINEERS NORTHWEST, INC. P.S- - STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 6869 WOODU\\VN AVENUE N.E SEATTLE. WA 98115 (206) 525~7560 FAX (206) 522~6698 r'" ~. E..: c. May 12, 1999 Federal Way Fire Department Seismic Evaluation of Fire Station #2 Page 4 of 5 The 1976 original construction under the 1973 UBC had a base shear of only 67% of current design code requirements because it did not recognize an importance factor for essential buildings. However, my analysis and review of the original construction documents furnished to us by you showed that the 1976 original building'still has enough reserve strength to resist the current code base shear for an essential building. I foresee no problem with either the 1976 or the 1984 portion of this fire station safety resisting the current 1997 UBC design required loads. Summary My review of the original contract documents, a site visit on May 11, 1999 and a cursory design analysis based on the original contract documents showed that: . 1. The foundations were ~dequately sized. , , 2. I ' The 8n CMU exterior wálls are heavily reinforced and have adequate strength to resist seišmic forces both perpendicular and parallel to the walls. There is adequate vertical reinforcement at the ends of walls and adjacent to openings to resist any seismic overturning tensile forces in the wall. 3. The walls are adequately tied to the floor and roof diaphragms with embedded reinforcing dowels (Note: this is an important code requirement). 4. The mansard roof seems to be well detailed and adequately secured to the' concrete roof planks. 5. The timber roof over the apparatus room appears to be well anchored to the CMU exterior walls with embedded plate connections tied to the main glu- laminàted beams and with embedded purlin anchors at the side CMU walls which also support the second floor and concrete roof. The purlins are also strapped across the first main glu-Iam beam at each side of the apparatus room. 6. My site visit showed that the CMU walls are in excellent condition. Minor cracking has occurred in some areas around the truck doors, but this was due to damage from trucks and not seismic activity or foundation settlement. I saw no evidence of any damage from previous earthquakes or overloading due to gravity. ENGINEERS NORTHWEST, INC. P.S. . STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 6869 WOODLAWN AVENUE NE SEATILE, WA 98115 (206) 525.7560 FAX (206) 522.6698 ( May 12, 1999 Federal Way Fire Department Seismic Evaluation of Fire Station #2 Page 5 of 5 Recommendations: There are only two items which should evidently be corrected. First, the gas heaters suspended from the underside of the apparatus room should be diagonally braced so that they will not sway during an earthquake. The electrical and gas lines connected to these units are flexible and can withstand the swaying motion. However the exhaust ducts would probably come apart. ( '- The second item deals with the wood roof over the base tower. No structural details or framing were shown for this area on the drawings, however the architect did show tongue and groove decking holding up the roofing. I suggest that in the future when this small roof area is to be reroofed, remove the old roofing and add a layer of 1/2" plywood over the existing wood decking. This will make the top of the hose tower a little more rigid. Other than these two minor iteJ1i1s I can not think of any '~ther items that need seismic upgrading. It appeared that all the critical electronic gear within the building was adequately anchored to the floors and walls. Besides being an attractive building, it is one that has excellent seismic resistance. All my seismic concerns were well addressed during the original design so that recent increases in seismic design loads and restrictions are not a problem. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, ENGINEERS NORTHWEST, INC. P.S. /'-) ¡'.-' / L t. Richard F. Janke, . . Senior Engineer RFJ:jl ENGINEERS NORTHWEST, INC. P.S. - STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 6869 WOODLAWN AVENUE N.E. SEATTLE. WA 98115 (206) 525-7560 FAX (206) 522-6698 r FEDERAL WAY FIRE DEPARTMENT 31617 1 st Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003-5201 Ken Nyberg, City Manager City of Federal Way June 17, 1999 Dear Ken, We have reviewed your request for more detailed information regarding our proposal for public safety dispatching. Our responses ~e provided below. With regards to the questions of past history, 1. think it is important to keep in perspective that our proposal is not for the City of-Federal Way to become a subscriber to our existing dispatching operation (South Com), but to develop a new dispatching operation that will utilize some of our existing investtnent in capital and human resources. Decisions regarding actual operations, funding levels, rates, etc. would be determined by the Administration and Operations boards of this n.ew dispatch center. . , C'. I I The questions and:3:Ssociated responses are identified below: . The ability of your proposed staffing model to service fluctuating types of calls (as opposed to simply volume of calls) during peak and non-peak periods, and its 'ability to service calls during vacations, sick leave, and training. Stafimg was determined bothoperatlonally and mathematically, with average vacations, holidays and sick leave usage added to the equation. In order to cover the dispatch center with a stafimg level of 6 on during peak. hours, and 5 on during off peak hours, the total staff required was . determined to be 26. This takes into account vacation, holiday and sick leave coverage by providing one relief dispatcher for each shift, or a total of 4 relief dispatchers. An overtime budget of $137,112 has also been built into the budget to make up for any poten:tial stafimg shortfall, although it is anticipated that the stafimg of 26 should adequately cover stafimg needs and that the fmal budget will probably reduce the oyertime allocation resulting in a cost savings to the City and the Fire Department. Phone: (253) 839-6234 or (253) 927-3178 . E-mail: info@federalwayfire.org . Fax: (253) 529-7206 An Equal Opportunity Employer c Ongoing training will be conducted on duty as much as possible. Overtime shall be utilized if training requirements dictate that working dispatchers leave the center for their required training. This is currently being handled by conducting a minimum of one-half of training on duty every dispatch shift, with additional required training being handled with overtime (such as mandatory CBT training, etc.). StafTmg during peak and off-peak alarm loads can be established as per the request of Federal Way Public Safety. The current contract between IAFF Local #2024 and the Federal Way Fire Department covering the South Com dispatchers allows for peak call period coverage, and even spells out the "EMPLOYEES may be assigned to a (12) hour overlap shift to cover peak . call periods". The exact hours of choice would be determined by Federal Way Public Safety to meet their needs. . A definition of which calls are billable. C' The calls used in the proposal for actual billable incidents were the same as used by V alley Communications Center. In c;Iiscussions with Derek Matheson, the actual aall volume presented for Federal Way Public Safety in 1998 was 59,000. However, the actual billable calls were only 50,778. The excess numbers of calls .were incidents that were quickly handled by Valley Com and passed along to Federal Way_bblic Safety to handle as a non- incident. The proposal assumes that the defmition and allocation of billable calls will be identical to the allocation formula utilized by Valleycom. . Your intent to recover capital costs through the rate structure at any point in the future. There is no intent to recover the up front capital costs through the rate structure. The rate structure does, however, include a capital reserve component that will be utilized to build a capital reserve fund to replace the capital included in this proposal (CAD, recorders, consoles, etc.) It is important to note that the Administration Board of the center, not Federal Way Fire, would actually make this decision. c r" . South Com's historical rale changes and operating cost changes. As I noted earlier, our proposal is to develop a new dispatch operation that is jointly managed by Federal Way Fire and Federal Way Police. During the past decade, there have been a number of additions and deletions to the South Com customer base that have caused some fluctuation of costs and rates, and it is questionable whether the past history of South Com would be a good predictor of future costs/rates for the proposed dispatch operation. The past records for rates were not maintained (the contracts are for a fIXed amount based upon the prior year's call volumes, providing exact annual contract amounts and predictable budgeting processes). Our costs to other fire agencies have remained fairly constant at approximately $30 per call. The operating budget for the dispatch center from 1994 to present is shown below: C': Budget 1994: $733,330 1995: $689,404 1996: $823,147 1997: $781,656 1998: $814,130 1999: $833,118 Rates $30.00 II $28.18 , , ~. . Whether the Fire Department is willing to cap the capital charges to the City at the level estimated in the proposal. The fmal capital costs would be determined by actual equipment selected and bids provided, which the Administration Board would establish. Ad Comm Engineering provided the estimates provided in the proposal. The major item of potential variance is the selection of a CAD system. The proposal includes a budgeted amount of $1,000,000. If the actual amount varies, the costs or savings would be split between the City and the Fire Department based upon the allocation formula identified in the proposal. . Whether the currellt dispatch facility will meet a seismic four earthquake resistance level. Please see the attachment from Northwest Engineers. , , c. (~ ( ',- I hope that this answers your questions regarding the proposal. Do not hesitate to contact me if you would like any additional clarification. . , 1/ .. R.)ceived: 6/15/99 3:58PM; 206 522 6698 -> FEDERAL WAY FIRE DEPARTMENT Page 2 06/15(~9 15: 58 FAX 206 522 6698 ENW INC ~OO2 NORTHWEST r~ z 1===1 ~ Z 00 June 15, 1999 Federal Way Are Department King County Are District #39 31617 -1st Avenue South FedenalWay. VVA 98003 ATrN: Tom Batten Facilities Supervisor ( Seismic Evaluation of Fire Station #2 31611 -1st Avenue South Federal Way, Washington Mr. Batten: , ' RE: I / I am wñting thiS:letter as you requested to summarize my May 12, 1999 report to you regarding the apparent seismic resistance of the above referenced fire station. .' Seattle. Washington is in UBC 1997 Seismic Zone 3. This zone covers western Washington, western Oregon and north central California and is one zone less than the most severe seismic zone, Zone 4. Zone 4 occurs only in the most sever seismically active areas such as coastal California, the Anchorage area of Alaska and the Big Island of Hawaii. It appears from my inspection of Fire Station #2 and my cursory analysis of some of the cmical structural elements of that structure, that FIre Station #2 can safely withstand an anticipated Seismic Zone 3 earthquake with a 50% increase in anticipated loading due to the fact that this station is a critical facility that is required to be functional after an earthquake. Sincerely, J ~~ Richard Janke, .E. Senior Engineer / .' '- RJ:ld ENGINEERS NO RTHWEST, INC. P .$. - STRUClURAL ENGINEERS