PRHSPSC PKT 03-12-2001r
City of Federal Way
CITY COUNCIL
PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
March 12, 2001
12:00 p.m.
AGENDA
City Hall
Mt. Baker Conference Room
1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
PUBLIC FORUM
3.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
4.
APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 21, 2001 SUMMARY
5.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
A. BPA Trail Phase III Bid Award
Action
Salloum
B. Domestic Violence Advocacy Request for Proposal
Action
Guenther
C. COPS More 2001 Open Solicitation
Info
Kirkpatrick
D. 2001 Interlocal Agreement for Waterfowl Mgmt Program
Action
Schroder
6. NEXT MEETING — Monday, April 9, 2001
7. ADJOURNMENT
Committee Members: Staff:
Jeanne Burbidge, Chair Jennifer Schroder, Director
Michael Hellickson Marj Currie -Hicks, Administrative Assistant
Dean McColgan 661-4041
City of Federal Way
City Council
PARKS RECREATION HUMAN SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY COUNCIL COMMITTEE
Wednesday, February 21, 2001
12:00 p.m.
SUMMARY
In attendance: Council Committee members Jeanne Burbidge, Dean McColgan, Mary Gates; Deputy Mayor Linda
Kochmar; Staff: David Moseley, City Manager; Bob Sterbank, City Attorney; Ann Guenther, Human Services
Manager; Camron Parker, CDBG Coordinator; Tom Chaney, Public Safety; Jennifer Schroder, Director of Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Services; Mary Faber, Recreation & Cultural Services Superintendent; Marj Currie -Hicks,
Administrative Assistant.
Guests: Chuck Glasford, David Kaplan, Joanne Piquette, Barbara Reid.
Chair Burbidge called the meeting to order at 12:00 noon.
PUBLIC FORUM
Barbara Reid reported that three contracts have been received for the Banner Program with four more expected by
the end of this week.
Richard Bye reported that the Human Services Commission has recommended allocating $27,000 towards Domestic
Violence Advocacy. Requests for Proposals have been sent out and some responses have been received. The
Domestic Violence Advocacy Request for Proposals will be brought to this Committee on March 12 for approval.
Joann Piquette reported that the Arts Commission Newsletter has been completed and will come out in March 2001.
APPROVAL OF SUMMARY
DEAN MCCOLGAN AND JEANNE BURBIDGE MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE
JANUARY 8, 2001 MEETING SUMMARY AS WRITTEN. MOTION PASSED.
BUSINESS ITEMS
Batting Cage Agreement at Celebration Park:
Jennifer Schroder reported the site location for the Batting Cage has been approved. The Mentinks will build the
six -cage batting facility that will be used for fastpitch and slowpitch, five of which will have dual -pitching
capability. The facility season will run from March 15 through September 30 and will be open from noon to 8 p.m.
Monday through Friday, and 10 a.m. tog p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Federal Way residents will be provided one
free hitting clinic, monthly, during months of operation. The Batting Cage Agreement will be a ten-year renewable
term agreement. The fee schedule is based on a minimum fee per month year-round. Payment would start from the
effective date of contract execution. In the event of sale, the new owner would have to adhere to the terms of this
contract.
MCCOLGAN AND BURBIDGE MOVED AND SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED
AGREEMENT FOR CELEBRATION PARK BATTING CAGE SERVICES AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE
"NON -TRANSFERENCE LANGUAGE" AND FORWARD TO FULL COUNCIL FOR CONSENT ON
MARCH 6, 2001. MOTION PASSED.
Horseshoe Pitches at Steel Lake Park Annex:
Jennifer Schroder pointed out on the site map for Steel Lake Annex that the pitches will be located away from the
pathway of activity and that people would bring their own horseshoes. The Parks and Recreation Commission
recommends the area west of Steel Lake Annex restroom/concession building for a horseshoe pitch facility.
Mr. Glasford said that the cost for six pitches would average about $500. Council Member McColgan suggested
PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES
& PUBLIC SAFETY COUNCIL COMMITTEE
Wednesday, February 21, 2001 Summary
Page 2
this could be an Eagle Scout project. Barbara Reid said she would like to see horseshoe pitches at Celebration Park
and French Lake Park. Council Member Gates pointed out this could be another part of tourism as well as a service
to Federal Way citizens.
MCCOLGAN AND BURBIDGE MOVED AND SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LOCATION
OF HORSESHOE PITCHES AT STEEL LAKE PARKIANNEX AND FORWARD TO FULL COUNCIL
FOR CONSENT ON MARCH 6, 2001. MOTION PASSED.
Arts Commission 2001 Work Program:
Mary Faber presented the Arts Commission 2001 Work Program. The full Commission will meet monthly and
operate with three working committees that would also meet monthly. The Arts Commission developed, reviewed,
and approved their 2001 Work Plan at their December 2000 Commission meeting.
MCCOLGAN AND BURBIDGE MOVED AND SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2001 ARTS COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM AND FORWARD TO
FULL COUNCIL FOR CONSENT ON MARCH 6, 2001. MOTION PASSED.
2001 Community Development Block Grant Contingency Plan:
Camron Parker presented the 2001 Community Development Block Grant Contingency Plan put together last year.
The first revision added $100,000, which enables all applications for capital projects to be funded. If $50,000 in
additional funding were approved, it would be awarded to the FirstHomes first -time homebuyer program. At its
January 22, 2001 meeting, Human Services Commission recommended revision of the current Contingency Plan to
eliminate the RFP process and grant additional funds to FirstHomes Program bringing their total grant to $150,000
and carry forward all remaining funds to 2002.
MCCOLGAN AND BURBIDGE MOVED AND SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE 2001
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT REVISED CONTINGENCY PLAN AND FORWARD
TO FULL COUNCIL FOR CONSENT ON MARCH 6, 2001. MOTION PASSED.
2001 One -Time Human Services Fundint:
Ann Guenther stated there is $12,000 available in one-time funding for 2001. Staff has requesting to carry forward
the unspent contract funds and employee donations from 2000 into 2001 for use in human services contracts.
Option 1 would use the Human Services Commission's recommendations for $400,000 base funding (Plan B) and
allocate the 2001 one-time funding to those programs that were not fully funded. Plan B represents the highest
priorities for funding developed and recommended by the Commission with $20,500 as total unfunded portion of
Plan B. Option 2 would allocate the $12,000 one-time funding until expended according to priorities outlined in the
2001-02 Contingency Plan. The Human Services Commission recommends Option 1.
MCCOLGAN AND BURBIDGE MOVED AND SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE OPTION 12001
HUMAN SERVICES ONE-TIME FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS AND FORWARD TO FULL
COUNCIL FOR CONSENT ON MARCH 6, 2001. MOTION PASSED.
City of Fife Jail Interlocal Agreement:
Tom Chaney stated the purpose of this agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions by which the City of Fife
would provide the Federal Way Department of Public Safety a place of confinement for the incarceration of Federal
Way inmates. This agreement would save both time and money. Fife would provide a minimum of 10 beds per day
and shall accept and house a minimum of 10 Federal Way inmates per day.
MCCOLGAN AND BURBIDGE MOVED AND SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE AND ACCEPT
THIS REQUEST FOR AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF FEDERAL WAY AND
CITY OF FIFE FOR THE HOUSING OF INMATES (JAIL SERVICES) AND FORWARD TO FULL
COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION ON MARCH 6, 2001. MOTION PASSED.
PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES
& PUBLIC SAFETY COUNCIL COMMITTEE
Wednesday, February 21, 2001 Summary
Page 3
In answer to David Kaplan's question, Chaney responded that the City of Federal Way would pay for 10 reserved
beds whether we use them or not, but would be reimbursed if another jurisdiction needs any of the City of Federal
Way's unused beds.
Chelan County Regional Jail Interlocal Agreement Amendment
Chaney presented the fust amendment to this agreement to reduce the compensation rate for housing City of Federal
Way inmates from $56.00 per inmate per day to $48.00 per inmate per day. An amendment to the section on
"Duration" would state the City agrees, prior to sending City prisoners to a jail outside King or Pierce counties, to
first contact Chelan County to offer Chelan County the opportunity to accept City prisoners should space be
available.
MCCOLGAN AND BURBIDGE MOVED AND SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE AND ACCEPT
THIS REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY AND CHELAN COUNTY FOR THE HOUSING OF INMATES AND FORWARD TO
FULL COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION ON MARCH 6, 2001. MOTION PASSED.
NEXT MEETING
March 12, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 12:50 p.m.
I:0221sum PRCC
GTY OF �C^
_ • W
vv �
Date: March 12, 2001
ITEM 5.A
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
To: Parks, Recreation, Human Services a Public Safety Council Committee
From: Marwan Salloum, Streets Managet, j
Via: David Wosele , y anager
Subject: BPA Trail Phase III, Bid Award
BACKGROUND
Eighteen (18) bids were received and opened on February 27, 2001 at 10:10 a.m. for the BPA Trail
Phase III Project. See attached Bid Tabulation. The lowest three bidders are as follows:
Total
Golf Landscaping, Inc. $ 483,990.00
Precision Earthworks, Inc. $ 526,490.40
Father and Son Construction, Inc. $ 531,883.20
Engineer's Estimate $ 557, 000.00
The lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Golf Landscaping, Inc. with a total bid of $483,990.00,
which is $73,010.00, or 13.11%, below the Engineer's Estimate.
AVAILABLE FUNDING
The available funding for the BPA Trail Phase III Project is $1,181,164.00, and is comprised of the
following:
Federal Grants $ 929,775.00
Reapprop BPA Trail Phase II $ 59,860.00
Mitigation Funds $ 30,529.00
Paths and Trail Fuel Tax $ 11,000.00
City Funds $ 150,000.00
Total $1,181,164.00
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
The estimated expenditures for this project are comprised of the following:
Design
$
147,090.00
Right of Way Cost
$
8,000.00
WSDOT
$
8,000.00
Low Bid (Golf Landscaping, Inc.)
$
483,990.00
10% Construction Contingency
$
48,400.00
Construction Management
$
85,000.00
Printing and Advertising
$
5,000.00
Total $ 785,480.00
The estimated expenditures are $395,684.00 less than the funding available.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following items be forwarded to the Council consent agenda:
1) Award the BPA Trail Phase III Project to Golf Landscaping, Inc., the lowest responsive,
responsible bidder, in the amount of $483,990.00, and approve a 10% contingency of
$48,400.00,
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.
APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT:
Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member
11 11
k:\prhsps\bpa phase 3 bid award.doc
m
88888888 888888888888988888898888888888888888v8888888888888 888i
o' St '99� 8 8S"'o8S^o 8 s ^±8 $Nfi
m"�
�a
sssgss�ssssss �sasassan�SS�gsasssss8:ssa8s„:sass�sasss8st8ass
o8»�«858 »»»w» »»»za«
8888888888888'.888
4
Na
�g $Ssx8888888888.88888888828888.8888888888888888$888
- ggZos$ag5osma%S�sxs�55 88ag98as �88g558g5$889%ryS$%
a
o
w 3
o F r r 3
mwa
588885p8p88888�8RS$88888S8SS8S888SSSN8�S�Q8Q888rv8888o8888Q888:8858�
0 0
%%'p»'%�%'�'�Xgo'r” « ~ »N»»w«»«»»w«$�gr.588m «$Mx»«» $$«»� 8n»»2fgrv"'» %%
w 13 » - » « « Z2
8888888888888888888888888288988988888888888888888888888888988
?
a
- 2%e855 82 rvg$o o� 8 R�9 Ng 882 Fa�$+~ngg~v$gag$$%
� w
O a
r r « » N « « » w » w « r « r » « « » « » w r » N «
» » «« N » w
To z
> -
' i 3
maE
s8g85�e8�se882888„88888"888n�88888888�8888888888888888888888
z�
m8«%58«888„oi n88»R ^
w» »wr»»«"» »« ..9.88 " .Swv7 li
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888,8888888
2
I.$$�%$.68 88 9898929 88$89 5888$r g9$688§%Se%a8
S
a
@
SgS.88888888882228888888888828.8888888812888.888888$$R8888888888888.8
mo
58%
N
6 » w r N N N« M«» M N N” N .
8888888888888s888s8228888888858888888888888888888888888888888
mwE
„.$
588$88ana88$88nn'`a8arinaaaaa8aaaa8aaau�iaaaa88�R8$$8888$8888&88888
«»rg8�8§8 $ w"»SS "�2ae4 $8«%M8%
8888885888885888888882888888888888888882888828882888888888888
R
- 884%284 8m$m88%%S8' 88„8 2 8882%8 $88 8.8mmM”-s as8%�2na%9
m
Oa
F«» » r« r w r« r ” » « « « »««» w » w w r« w « » w w» w w»« r r
Z
r
2 n ~ a
-0
O- i i z
m.eo
gg� eggs 5558$5555g8g9S�8888o8858SS8288g88888
i ~
rw w»
%`r" N »«r--wN«»m %g « w »
8882888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
8
rc
- 8g 9Sn %8 488m$8 '88hg<
6z;
8988 8 9 to 8 8 8 2 18 8 8 9 8 8 9 9 8 11 485 1. 82888
H-�
a
n »» »» w w w»»g»»
w r«
8$ 85 8 SSS 8 8 8$ 8 8 5 8 8 5 8 5 8 8 5 8$ $ 8 8 8 5 8 8 g 8 8 8 5 8 8 S 5 8 8
8
i
n 81 Z,
8 55 80 885 �oSS F88rgr� a%g gma$%SS' 58888$
S
o
U»
`
~ w w w N r N w » » w » r w w » N M » ~ N " M » «» r w» » » r» r ~
= V' W r a
O > > Z
mgr
5858 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8S 8 8 8 8 9 888 9 2 8 8 8 885 8 8 8 8 8 2 8 8 8 8 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8885888888
ID cP »w-Nww»»»» 9Sg
a
- EE E E
_ E b m _ V u
= E E
a a- r u ? E E E E A P N E E v o s r =
z°
w _
u_-' u u u A o x
m
cy6i
15 Eo
_____
aa
" E
E
E
y u u w o__ W c c- w a w- m _ H a__
m c c` o
E 'a t a E A E E E E N w? f _ X .E, _ E
O
U m m¢ a
___
u 0 l7 N Q N -= U U u p tt O O d a u
E
R«.«n.R«}w«aa»«Si$»si
88,888888888,85888, 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888 888889888
N
w
d R» » »NN »» « » N» «
8888888$:85�:88888R558858$ m88m8<88n88�858$85885onSm
is
= B���Spn ^a5 moaod��xo �SFRs�fmlo�r os�8��8
o
i
ozNyya
r > 3
m'Z�
888888:888 »an„:w �$o ^�SsaB�:„8�8R35ta8S�Mm88��88�”
p
d »» w »»» » »» » » » »N » «
sss.s,s,ss�ssss.mssssssss„sssrgssssssss88ssss88888888ssss8sssssss
m
0 3
n y
N««
. w»N »»«$» « »« » » SS « «a »$w« »$»»» « »» «�»
w
i
z y y a
mi3g
$Q$Q8$q8q$8888SSnogn$$8$$n$�o8S8888$gg8wo$�$$$n88QgQ$$$$n9 $$o$$$$
o y i> z
NNN.» N«w»« 8» ....
8888888m :8$$8885�8Q85�858�8Q8$59SR8:n�o88m n8:,n8888S88�88n588�85R��8
N
^Ava�n8883iSF FY8:o8gaSp68vbo"ro3 7�Rm,ig7`�+ER��o^
w�wz
mm:
asses.sssssaos��8ss.s.ss.8a���s�s�-msm.mss:assgssss.�ss���ss��as�
0 a
Zg»
'sga� a »» «»«»»w»»»»»» os: ».. m.„sod»»
- » »
88888888s88888s88888888888888888888888888,88888888888888888888
8
a
Z
z o W W a
o H > > 3
pE
mW
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
»wN»R»N»N»
s�o� �3�8�Ro�e8r r�Ns°�a'a
U
« r»»»» »» »»Nw »»»�» « ««««» » »
ma
»» « » « « « » w»
o�
'm0,
888S8�S888$ m5i� �$$$88�5858888�808588: $888 585 5888��88
Zy
88'i
asase gza
v a
'i 'im -c
» » » » » 8 » » » » » » « « » » » » » » N » »
8 w
O c
O
ma
8 888 8 8 9889888888882885 8 $88588888$88
'0
Q8898ss8g8888$882889888228888
------------ e N 5 ..
pz
8888888 58888 8 888 8 8 9 8 8885885: 8888885888888888885888888858888
(9
$ �_ n $o r �i n a g m 5 g o vi n v$
a a
« w « » « « » « » » « » « « « » « « w «
N « « N w « N N « « « « « »
w
ry o
Z N y y a
O i i i
9
m��
z
$Q$Q0$8$5$8$55 m8555 �8n 58 r888888R8o858558888N o0 08$80 $$
2�
8888888888558888880888888888888588888888888888.888888888888888
8
�8 w8555 �Sm8�rvo8.n8888
S o
z
06 > > 3
888888"88 88888888888 8888888888888888 8885885 888
a
_ $8»088
8S 888 88888888888 88888 888 888
0
o m8vo�a o8� mea m85 08o
p
a
n
u w y a
O - > s 3
m E
v 88885_888885 2 2 8 8 885 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8888878 889 n 9885 8 8 888 9 888888
p
a w w w w w w w« « w
88888 2 8$8 2 2 2 2 2 8 9 9 8 8 2 2 2 9 9 2 2 9 8 9 9 588 2 58958528&88 n 2 8 8 8 2 8 2 9 8 8888
p999
Z
8o n o8m - �
p
Q
w
Uq
vN i i
z
m J G
Q w
w wa$ 5 v O$ 5
n w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w « w w w w w w w w w
O z
ITEM S.B
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES, AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
Date: March 5, 2001
From: Camron Park r, CDBG Coordinator
Via: David ;no
ele anager
Subject: 2001-02 Dome is Violence Advocacy RFP
Background
The 2001-02 Human Services Funding Plan (adopted by Council on 11/21/00) reserved
$27,000 to contract for domestic violence (DV) community advocacy services with an agency to
be named later. The Human Services Division released a Request for Proposals (RFP) on
January 10, with proposals due January 26, 2001. Five proposals were received and copies
were mailed to Human Services Commissioners and placed in the City Council office on
January 30, 2001.
If you have any questions regarding the DV RFP, please contact me at cam ronp(a--)fedway. org
or (253) 661-4153.
RFP Analysis
Human Services staff have reviewed each proposal and have developed the following tools to
assist in the Council's review. The first is a matrix summarizing the services proposed by each
agency and the performance measures offered. This chart can be used to compare and
contrast each proposal. The second tool is a two-page detailed review of each proposal. This
records the staff review and incorporates comments given by two guest reviewers, representing
the King County Community Services Division and the Federal Way office of the state
Department of Health and Social Services (DSHS). Staff also received comments on the
proposals from the City Prosecutor's Office.
The remainder of this memo will provide a brief summary of each proposal (in alphabetical
order), followed by a staff and Commission recommendation.
Catholic Community Services (CCS)
This agency proposes to offer case management, emergency shelter, and advocacy to
domestic violence victims and their families. They also offer community education to increase
awareness of domestic violence issues. CCS is a well-respected service provider in the South
King County area. However, they do not have direct experience in domestic violence advocacy
and focused much of the proposal on provision of emergency shelter. Shelter provision was not
included in the RFP scope of work, as the City already funds emergency shelter services
through several other contracts.
Domestic Abuse Women's Network (DAWN)
This agency proposes to offer crisis intervention (through a 24-hour telephone hotline),
community advocacy and case management to DV victims. Their proposal includes a
community education program. The agency also provides confidential shelter and transitional
housing. DAWN has historically provided community advocacy services to the City of Federal
Way. Due to concerns with quality of services for the past two years, the City chose not to
contract for advocacy services with this agency in 2001-02 through the Human Services
General Fund process. The City maintains a contract for confidential domestic violence victim
shelter services.
The Executive Director position is currently vacant and the Board of Directors has increased
from 6 to 13 members in the last three months. Significant changes are taking place at the
agency, but concerns with quality of service have not yet been resolved.
Federal Way Youth and Family Services (FWYFS)
This agency proposes to expand their current advocacy program to meet the requirements of
this RFP. The services proposed include community advocacy, case management, and a
community education program. FWYFS has a long established DV perpetrator treatment
program and has recently began offering community advocacy to victims in conjunction with the
Federal Way DSHS office. The agency is highly involved in the Federal Way Domestic
Violence Task Force and has five service locations in Federal Way where the advocate can
meet with victims in a safe environment.
Valley Cities Counseling and Consultation (VCCC)
This agency proposes to create a new community advocacy program to complement their
young DV perpetrator treatment program. Their proposal includes community advocacy, 24-
hour crisis response, therapy and victim support groups. VCCC has been providing services to
victims of violence (domestic and otherwise) in Federal Way for seven years. The agency does
not have direct experience with DV community advocacy, but does regularly attend the Federal
Way Domestic Violence Task Force.
YWCA
This agency proposes crisis intervention, community advocacy, case management, support
groups and a community education program. YWCA is building a sub -regional advocacy
program and has secured contracts with Kent, Tukwila, Renton and Covington for similar
services. The agency has experience in community advocacy, but has not previously offered
direct advocacy services in Federal Way. From offices in Renton and Kent, advocates would
travel to Federal Way to meet with clients at pre -arranged safe locations.
Staff Recommendation
In analyzing the proposals received, staff considered several criteria. These included the
agency's response to the given scope of work, the agency's professional experience in the field,
the cost of service, the amount of time necessary to begin service provision, and the level of
service accessibility for Federal Way residents.
Of the five proposals offered, the FWYFS and YWCA proposals met the scope of work given in
the RFP, are prepared to begin services immediately, and have the experience necessary to
provide a high level of service quality. Considering this, either agency would be a viable
contractor.
The primary difference between the two proposals is the geographic scope of services. The
YWCA proposes a sub -regional approach, by contracting with a number of South King County
cities for similar services. FWYFS proposes a local service, available only to Federal Way
residents. Because domestic violence victims are mobile (for safety reasons) and often
homeless, a sub -regional approach can be beneficial. However, service coordination for
victims must occur at a local level — with human service providers and criminal justice agencies.
Human Services staff recommend contracting with Federal Way Youth and Family Services for
the 2001-02 biennium. The agency has a solid reputation in the Federal Way community and
pre-existing working relationships with local referral sources including the City of Federal Way
Prosecutor's Office, the Public Safety Department, the Federal Way DSHS office and the Multi -
Service Center. Unlike any other proposal, FWYFS can offer five service locations in Federal
Way (and will meet with clients outside of city limits, if safety demands). While unable to offer
the YWCA's sub -regional approach, FWYFS plans to take part in County -wide data gathering
and on-going sub -regional DV system planning. Additionally, the agency will participate in
regional DV trainings to learn of and network with area service providers.
Commission Recommendation
The Human Services Commission discussed this issue at their February 26, 2001 meeting.
After interviewing each applicant, the Commission voted to recommend Federal Way Youth and
Family Services as the contractor for domestic violence community advocacy services.
Committee Recommendation
1. The Committee recommends selection of Federal Way Youth and Family Services to
provide domestic violence community advocacy for the 2001-02 biennium, as
recommended by the Human Services Commission. This recommendation is forwarded to
the full City Council for consideration at the March 20, 2001 meeting.
2. The Committee recommends selection of to
provide domestic violence community advocacy for the 2001-02 biennium. This
recommendation is forwarded to the full City Council for consideration at the March 20,
2001 meeting.
APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT:
Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member
X
RS
G
c
O
CO
.`
cu
Q
O
a -
LL
U
cu
U
O
Q
(D
U
C
O
U
cn
a)
0
0
N
O
r
O
O
N
�I
U
U
U
U
U
O O) U O
> c 3 U —
U) Q) 3 C
C i>, 0 O cn
3 Q) ,r- a)
3 0 3 V- d 0
EUE0C)
O •c O 3 m U
0ooU)C 0
> >
T c 0 c
U a) O— m
U
CO 4) (II U O N
mL .V U O U d C
O
> c O_ Z 3— U>, O
�_- -0 C
a) 73.�0 TO OCU
.0DUC
3EO
C: C c0a)rn-O co(�U r
v
ENoE) 000)
E'cnt E CY CL70M
0U 'c O m in 3 a) .—
UUcv E0a_BU)LL 3 ca
> — c 0
U C (0 U
O (1) U O
>'-' 3 —
(U n. ami c
c
4 0
C L C
3 U 3 d 0
Ea, E.U0-
E: c Esc
O 3 .a) 0 (U U)
UO oun. B
U 0—
Co
N U
0 0 C U O
0 _ 3
c9 .N (L)cn
C
0
j
.Z •Q V
EDE'��
E- E��c
04OmU)
U(NUn-2
Cl) >
O N
v u0) O
U a C
L U Q 3 C
U O- 0 0
3 '- 3 0)
> E �. 0 •OU O
�EEo'.x
2iU(i(n�
rn
cocn
L Y (D a) v
O C
O U O N N
(Oj(0 — al C
L O (D fn C U L U L N U
> > O O 0)(7
O 3 O O O O Y C O .O
0 I w 3rn •Ca
m C N O N m Y 3 E
(0 •O d) C `) Q 0O (Uj to U (L6
`(uC U _
N O
in (0 W C wU 0 a
M U)
3 T m m
70
CA -0 c (n ��
d'C Tr O O Q _ UO O
3 CU _ �L N
—00 E :O a) 3 a) O) N
00
a) U EO L a) V U O U
D(n a U.. �Ez
N U a) N T . O Z (0 m a)
0� 3�
mUE Y c (n Y�U
m�Oco �)c
a) C U 0� Y 0 ._ O (U
Q
Ea)> a)cnmcn.=2E
Z L (0 Z) 0 3:(nLL c -r-
0 C 3 U) a)
c m EU
m.— cn E
E
E Uv�
>' U c cc T
mu- a)tn0 a,
a) tf U) U (0
L O U >+"a
a) }' d — '— 0 a)
-0 In 0_ N W E
O 3 3 U (D a)
I 0
"0Q)
E—
a) (UO C
0(D 0
3 ..3. C 3
O E d :_ C .� () O
0)O cocu (33
Y-0• a) .r*T O 5 0
0 > U 0)
a) � c "a a) a) to w
3,0 a) cuE3�:�
ino0m Of.—J--
U >� 'D
c — cn = N vi C
Q�LL CL 0 m
N C C a) U a3
LL u3ic ami 0 --w—)—)
O `a 0 m U 0.-< cn0
0 cU cu
L O U Q va)) 0)U U
U T O U U J_
0c.> CU CU ---> aN0>�
c_
Mn
ti N CUU
a) a) Q Q
, C 3
O J O Y N
a) t U
a) 3
0 U N 3 V U
cinZ N ca
to O
EQ N T> L
a0 m_0L CL
I —
o 3
2 U
N a) a)
OOp
E. cu
a) a) 0
mYv- a) C
.0 a)2 J
OO O
(n LL U O_ C
U7 (O a0 O
aD M
O
r— Cf)
00 64
O
�r 00 C) 0
O
O N r N b4 .-
64
U')
O M O M
O (V N M
O O LO p
O M O � Ci
V94 CO vi
r U)
ti
O a0 � M 604 O
.3
I
C c
c
3 0
o� Et
U
!n
(n 0 0
U
N a) U 0_
CL
O
N 0 (D 0
m
Q a) c O
o E >
Y
Z .— -c m
U >� 'D
c — cn = N vi C
Q�LL CL 0 m
N C C a) U a3
LL u3ic ami 0 --w—)—)
O `a 0 m U 0.-< cn0
0 cU cu
L O U Q va)) 0)U U
U T O U U J_
0c.> CU CU ---> aN0>�
c_
Mn
ti N CUU
a) a) Q Q
, C 3
O J O Y N
a) t U
a) 3
0 U N 3 V U
cinZ N ca
to O
EQ N T> L
a0 m_0L CL
I —
o 3
2 U
N a) a)
OOp
E. cu
a) a) 0
mYv- a) C
.0 a)2 J
OO O
(n LL U O_ C
U7 (O a0 O
aD M
O
r— Cf)
00 64
O
�r 00 C) 0
O
O N r N b4 .-
64
U')
O M O M
O (V N M
O O LO p
O M O � Ci
V94 CO vi
r U)
ti
O a0 � M 604 O
U
O
a)
U
a)
U
E
ca
a)
U
Q
fn
0
is
00
d
-0
C
y a)
—
2 3
O
L
T
a
a)
+�
U
TL
O
`
•
N
-0
O
n. dU
d
w
C
"'•'
3 .-.
_0
O
in
E
m
w
U)
>
E
Z
U
� U
Q U
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION
2001-2002 DV Request for Proposals
Review
Agency: Catholic Community Services (CCS)
1. Does the proposal adequately address the full scope of work? Yes I No Why or why not?
No. Proposal broadly describes services for domestic violence victims including many services
outside of the scope of work such as emergency shelter, children's services and support
groups. Proposal does not adequately address the scope of the community advocacy services
specifically or in depth — instead focusing on provision of shelter. The proposal does not
address safety planning, crisis call response, how victims' safety will be protected, or what kind
or level of training their staff has regarding domestic violence. Regarding education, the
proposal noted that two trainings will be provided each month, but does not describe the content
of the community education.
2. Does the agency have adequate experience providing DV community advocacy services? Does
the agency have an established record in providing this service (question 4)? Explain
No. The agency has experience in providing general case management, motel vouchers, and
transitional housing for homeless individuals (which often include domestic violence victims).
CCS does not have documented experience providing community advocacy services as defined
in the scope including safety planning with victims, crisis intervention, and community education
services.
3. How accessible will services be to Federal Way residents — geographic, culturally, linguistically,
etc (question 5.7,9)?
Application states that services will be provided in Kent and does not give any provisions for
serving those who cannot get to Kent.
CCS has linguistic capacity and participates in regular cultural diversity training.
4. Will the City be receiving a good level of service for the amount requested (question 10,15)?
Does the budget seem reasonable for the level of service proposed? Is this program cost-
effective? Does the agency have a diverse funding base?
Annually, the program will serve 84 Federal Way residents at $321 per client. The agency has
offered to provide 60 advocacy hours for the 84 residents — this translates to a cost of $255 per
hour of advocacy (comparing 60 hours to personnel and operating costs of budget). Of the five
proposals, this is the least cost effective in terms of hours of advocacy.
The budget is for 10 months only - meaning the 12 -month budget would be $32,400. How will
the agency fund the $5,400 in 2002?
Agency has diverse funding base (although only 26% of the listed revenue sources are currently
secured). The City is requested to pay for 28% of the program, with 72% requested or secured
from other sources.
5. Note 3-4 strengths and weaknesses of this agency's proposal.
Strengths
Weaknesses
1. Has established a working relationship with
1. Proposal is more shelter focused than
the FW Public Safety Department through the
advocacy focused. It does not adequately
after-hours voucher program.
address the scope of work.
2. CCS has more than 12 years experience
2. The agency's domestic violence training and
serving Federal Way residents.
expertise is not adequately described.
3. CCS is an established provider with positive
3. No 24-hour crisis response system.
working relationships in the community. Shares
office space in Kent with specialized service
providers who are involved in DV advocacy for
minority populations.
4. Has connection to a broad range of existing
4.
CCS human service programs.
6. Please provide your overall thoughts on this proposal. Then, ranking all the proposals
reviewed, in your opinion, what rank order would this proposal fall?
The proposal does not adequately address the scope of work. The proposal does not
adequately address the agency's experience and qualifications to provide domestic violence
advocacy services, though the proposal states that agency staff have domestic violence
training, it is not clear what that training is. A significant portion of the budget is devoted to
shelter provision, which is outside the scope of the RFP. The City funds emergency shelter and
specifically domestic violence shelter through other programs.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION
2001-2002 DV Request for Proposals
Review
Agency: Domestic Abuse Women's Network (DAWN)
1. Does the proposal adequately address the full scope of work? Yes / No Why or why not?
The proposal adequately addresses the scope of work. Federal Way residents would be served
by a minimum of five agency advocates working in a pool (rather than one advocate taking all
Federal Way cases). The community education curriculum is detailed.
2. Does the agency have adequate experience providing DV community advocacy services? Does
the agency have an established record in providing this service (question 4)? Explain
The agency has provided community advocacy services for a number of years. However,
changes at the agency in the past year and a half have greatly impacted the level of services
per client and the quality of services provided. Though the proposal states that the program
currently has no waiting list for services, it notes that at times the agency does have a waiting
list of three weeks for advocacy services. During 2000 the service year, city staff was told
several times that the agency had a three-week wait for services.
3. How accessible will services be to Federal Way residents — geographic, culturally, linguistically,
etc (question 5-7,9)?
The main agency site is located in a confidential South County location, outside of Federal Way.
The proposal does not emphasize geographic accessibility, but does say that advocates
frequently accompany clients to court (located in City limits). Advocates are also available to
meet with clients at any safe pre -arranged location.
The program has brochures in Spanish and cards in Braille with the crisis line phone number.
DAWN utilizes volunteer interpreters.
4. Will the City be receiving a good level of service for the amount requested (question 10,15)?
Does the budget seem reasonable for the level of service proposed? Is this program cost-
effective? Does the agency have a diverse funding base?
DAWN's revenue projections include state funding, United Way and private foundations. The
agency has recently lost $362,000 in funding from cities due to concerns about quality of
service, contract performance, and agency operations. Future funding from cities and the
County is uncertain. The proposal does not address what impact this loss will have on the
agency's ability to provide services.
The proposal states that 36 Federal Way residents will be served at $750.00 per client. This
rate seems very high. They propose to offer 360 hours of client advocacy (10 hours per client).
In 2000, DAWN averaged 3-4 hours of advocacy per Federal Way client. It is not clear what
factors contribute to the difference between the level of service proposed for the RFP and actual
past practice.
5. Note 3-4 strenqths and weaknesses of this agency's proposal.
Strengths
Weaknesses
1. The agency provides the full range of
1. The agency is in transition with a high
domestic violence services including shelter,
number of new board members, a vacant
crisis line, and advocacy.
executive director position, and few public
funding sources.
2.
2. Most services are provided outside of the City
at a "central" South King County location.
3.
3. The agency often has a 3 -week waiting list for
advocacy services.
4.
4.
6. Please provide your overall thoughts on this proposal. Then, ranking all the proposals
reviewed, in your opinion, what rank order would this proposal fall?
In 2000, the quality of agency services declined and public funding was significantly reduced.
The agency's Executive Director resigned in February 2001.
This agency is a community-based DV agency that has experience serving Federal Way
residents. It should be noted however, that this agency made an application for this same
service for the 2001-2002 biennium. They were not recommended by the Human Services
Commission, nor did they receive an award from the City Council. Instead, funds for domestic
violence community advocacy were reserved for this RFP process.
Several significant changes have occurred at the agency since they submitted their 2001-02
General Fund Human Services application. The Board of Directors has increased from six to
thirteen, and in February 2001, the executive director resigned. Due to this high level of
transition, an uncertain funding base and quality of service concerns, staff does not recommend
funding this program at this time.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION
2001-2002 DV Request for Proposals
Review
Agency: Federal Way Youth & Family Services (FWYFS)
1. Does the proposal adequately address the full scope of work? Yes / No Why or why not?
The proposal addresses the full range of the scope of work including specifically describing the
advocacy services to be provided.
2. Does the agency have adequate experience providing DV community advocacy services? Does
the agency have an established record in providing this service (question 4)? Explain
The agency is a new domestic violence community advocacy service provider. Federal Way
Youth and Family Services has provided domestic violence advocacy services since the fall of
2000, in partnership with the Federal Way office of the State Department of Social and Health
Services (DSHS). The DSHS contract manager reports a high level of satisfaction with the
FWYFS program and staff.
The agency has experience in providing domestic violence perpetrator treatment and support
groups for victims.
3. How accessible will services be to Federal Way residents — geographic, culturally, linguistically,
etc (question 5-7,9)?
Services will be very accessible to Federal Way residents, given that the agency has five
locations in Federal Way. The agency has multi-lingual and multi -cultural staff including
Korean, Hispanic/Latino, and Russian/Ukrainian. The agency has a solid relationship with the
City of Federal Way Prosecutor's office and the Victim Assistance Unit of the Public Safety
Department. The agency has made a priority of coordinating service provision for Federal Way
DV victims.
The agency does not have an immediate crisis response system in place — although they can
respond to calls for service within a 24-hour period.
4. Will the City be receiving a good level of service for the amount requested (question 10,15)?
Does the budget seem reasonable for the level of service proposed? Is this program cost-
effective? Does the agency have a diverse funding base?
The City will receive a good level of service for the funding requested. The proposal states that
200 Federal Way residents will receive 700 advocacy hours, which is $38.57 per hour or $135
per client. This is a reasonable cost per client. However, the number of service hours to be
provided to each client is 3.5 hours. This seems like a low level of services for each client and
may be an issue to address with the applicant during the interview.
5. Note 3.4 strengths and weaknesses of this aqencv's proposal.
Strengths
Weaknesses
1. Established provider with 27+ years in FW
1. Agency is a new DV advocacy service
and multiple service locations. Very accessible.
provider with less than one year of experience.
2. Agency is already providing this service for
2. Advocacy hours per client seem low.
the local DSHS office.
3. Proposal effectively addresses scope of work.
3. Community education not specified.
4. Proposal noted that agency staff would
4.
continue to increase their domestic violence
knowledge and community connections by
attending DV specific trainings and conferences.
6. Please provide your overall thoughts on this proposal. Then, ranking all the proposals
reviewed, in your opinion, what rank order would this proposal fall?
This is a strong proposal. The proposal adequately addresses the scope of work and
specifically addresses domestic violence specific issues such as safety planning, confidentiality,
power of control wheel, and crisis intervention. The agency is accessible through multiple
service locations in Federal Way. The agency's multi-lingual and multi -cultural staff is also a
strong asset for the community advocacy program, as the agency has an ability to serve people
from a diverse range of cultures and with diverse languages. Existing relationships with the
Prosecutor's office, Public Safety Department, and DSHS office are a plus and would likely lead
to a high degree of local service coordination.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION
2001-2002 DV Request for Proposals
Review
-Agency: Valley Cities Counseling & Consultation (VCCC)
1. Does the proposal adequately address the full scope of work? Yes I No Why or why not?
The proposal adequately addresses the full scope of work including crisis intervention, safety
planning, and specific criminal justice system advocacy, counseling services, community
education and task force participation. In addition, the application offers support groups as part
of this proposal, which is beyond the stated scope of work.
2. Does the agency have adequate experience providing DV community advocacy services? Does
the agency have an established record in providing this service (question 4)? Explain
The agency provided advocacy services for victims of all forms of violence (including but not
limited to domestic violence) from 1997-99 through a DSHS contract. Since 1992, the agency
has offered the Survivors Support and Therapy program, which provides mental health services
designed to assist with the recovery and to stop patterns of abuse and family violence. In 1999,
the agency began offering domestic violence perpetrator treatment.
While the agency has experience that is related to domestic violence community advocacy
services, they do not have specific domestic violence advocacy experience. It also not clear in
the application what experience and training agency staff have regarding domestic violence.
3. How accessible will services be to Federal Way residents — geographic, culturally, linguistically,
etc (question 5-7,9)?
The proposal describes a geographically accessible program. The agency has a Federal Way
office and the community advocate will meet with clients in their homes and other community
locations, and accompany clients to court (as appropriate). In addition, the agency has a pre-
existing 24-hour crisis response system through a telephone messaging service.
Regarding cultural and linguistic accessibility, the agency contracts with a number of specialized
providers to serve diverse populations including Asian Counseling and Referral Service,
Consejo, Seattle Indian Health Board and services for the deaf and hard of hearing. Staff
participates in annual cultural diversity training.
4. Will the City be receiving a good level of service for the amount requested (question 10,15)?
Does the budget seem reasonable for the level of service proposed? Is this program cost-
effective? Does the agency have a diverse funding base?
Agency will serve 27 clients and provide 270 hours of community advocacy for the $27,000
requested. An average of ten hours of advocacy will be provided to each client at a cost of
$100 per hour. Though the number of hours to be provided to each client seems like a
reasonable level of service, the cost per hour seems high.
The budget provided in the proposal is incomplete and difficult to interpret. The listed revenue
sources King County and "Private pay and insurance." This agency did apply to the two other
cities participating in the RFP (Tukwila and Kent). These revenue sources, including the
Federal Way RFP amount should be included in the proposed budget. As presented, the
budget shows an annual deficit of almost $8,000. It is not clear why the agency is proposing to
start an advocacy program that may not be self-supporting.
5. Note 3-4 strengths and weaknesses of this agency's proposal.
Strengths
Weaknesses
1. Agency has served and counseled victims of
1. Hourly rate of $100 seems high.
violence in Federal Way for seven years.
2. The proposal adequately addresses the
2. Though located in Federal Way, the agency
scope of work.
is less visible in the human service provider
network.
3. The proposal describes accessible services -
3. No specific domestic violence community
geographically, culturally, and linguistically.
advocacy experience.
4. 24-hour crisis response system.
4. Proposed budget incomplete and unclear.
6. Please provide your overall thoughts on this proposal. Then, ranking all the proposals
reviewed, in your opinion, what rank order would this proposal fall?
The proposal adequately addresses the scope of work. The agency has no specific domestic
violence advocacy experience and has not submitted a viable program budget. While a
community advocacy program would complement their relatively new perpetrator treatment
program, other agencies have a more established track record for provision of advocacy
services.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION
2001-2002 DV Request for Proposals
Review
Agency: YWCA of Seattle/King & Snohomish Counties
1. Does the proposal adequately address the full scope of work? Yes / No Why or why not?
The proposal addresses the full scope of work, and includes additional services that are not in
the scope such as support groups and victim -defendant services. The proposal also addresses
outreach to domestic violence victims through court and other locations. The proposal
emphasizes safety of the client and accessibility of services.
2. Does the agency have adequate experience providing DV community advocacy services? Does
the agency have an established record in providing this service (question 4)? Explain
The YWCA is an established provider in South King County and has a range of domestic
violence services. The YWCA recently began providing domestic violence advocacy for the
cities of Kent, Tukwila, and Covington and will begin service provision to the City of Renton in
April 2001. The agency provides specialized community advocate services for African-
American residents, which is partially funded by King County. The YWCA also provides
domestic violence transitional housing and case management through their Anita Vista facility.
3. How accessible will services be to Federal Way residents — geographic, culturally, linguistically,
etc (question 5.7,9)?
Services will be provided in Federal Way locations that are accessible to clients with emphasis
on safety. Services will be coordinated from the agency's Kent or Renton offices.
The program will work with specialized providers to serve diverse ethnic and cultural
populations and use interpreters as needed. Agency staff participates in diversity training. As
noted above, the YWCA has a domestic violence community advocate who specializes in
working with African-American clients.
The agency has not previously had a significant presence in Federal Way as a social services
provider. They do, however, provide case management services for the Federal Way
Community Caregiving/FUSION transitional housing program.
4. Will the City be receiving a good level of service for the amount requested (question 10,15)?
Does the budget seem reasonable for the level of service proposed? Is this program cost-
effective? Does the agency have a diverse funding base?
The program will serve 70 Federal Way residents at $386 per client. The agency has offered to
provide 888 advocacy hours for the 70 residents — this translates to a cost of $30 per hour of
advocacy. Of the five proposals, this is the most cost effective in terms of hours of advocacy.
The agency has a diverse funding base, of which almost half has already been secured. City
funds would pay for 25% of the services to be provided to Federal Way residents. This proposal
provides the best opportunity to leverage other funds supporting services to Federal Way
residents.
5. Note 3-4 strengths and weaknesses of this agency's proposal.
Strengths
Weaknesses
1. Proposal adequately addresses the scope of
1. Though the agency is an established provider
services.
in South King County, the YWCA is less visible
in Federal Way.
2. Agency is an experienced and established
2. No 24-hour crisis response system.
domestic violence service provider and has
recently begun providing advocacy and other DV
services for other South County cities.
3. This program has recently requested United
3.
Way funding specifically to increase their ability
to serve all South County residents.
4.
4.
6. Please provide your overall thoughts on this proposal. Then, ranking all the proposals
reviewed, in your opinion, what rank order would this proposal fall?
This proposal provides the best opportunity to maintain a sub -regional approach to provision of
domestic violence advocacy services. The agency is currently working with a number of other
South King County cities and is building a strong community advocacy program.
The agency has the requisite experience to provide the service. However, the YWCA has not
had a great deal of previous experience providing services in Federal Way. For that reason,
some start-up time may be required for the agency to build a referral network and develop a
coordinated service approach among local agencies.
ITEM # 5.0
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Date: March 12, 2001
To: Parks & Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety Council Committee
From: Anne E. Kirkpatrick, Chief of Police(
Via: David Mosele a ager llllll������
Subject: COPS More 2001 Open Solicitation
Background: The Federal Way Department of Public Safety has had the good fortune to benefit
from two Department of Justice's (DOJ) COPS More grants and renewals (Community Oriented
Policing Making Officers Redeployed Effectively), once in 1996 ($143,424.00) and again in 1998
($80,041.00), for a total of $223,465.00. This opportunity has presented itself once again.
Congress has approved up to $81 million in grant funding to U.S. law enforcement agencies for
the purchase of information technology systems during the federal fiscal year of 2001 (ending
9/30/01). COPS More (CM) 2001 is intended to support an increase in time that an agency's
officers are denloved in a community policine capacity due to technological enhancements and
subsequent gains in efficiency.
Grant awards will fund only one comprehensive, stand-alone, technology system and no consortia
applications will be accepted. A financial cap for each CM 2001 award is determined by the
applicant's service population, therefore, our City may apply for a maximum of $500,000 in
Federal funds. Local jurisdictions are required to provide at least a 25% cash match for grant
funds they are awarded. A retention period of one complete budget cycle beyond the expiration
of the grant is required (The technology acquired as a result of the grant, and the level of officer
redeployment achieved by that technology must be maintained for at least one of the grantees _
complete budget cycles beyond the end of the grant period). Additionally, CM 2001 grantees will
be required to develop a redeployment -tracking plan and implement actual redeployment.
The grant will be used to purchase the following system:
Spillman — Mobile Display Computer (MDC) Linkage
The Department benefits realized are as follows:
• Maximize police officers time spent in the field/community by allowing the technology to
query the Spillman database from patrol vehicles. This is a measured requirement for the
COPS More 2001 Technology Grant.
• Maximize records specialist time by relieving them from processing Spillman database
queries from police officers.
• Maximize the technological potential between Spillman and MDCs, which are currently
operating as independent units.
1/1 AlIRA/M.q/A(,PN1)A/P.0/(1312(11/a„n1 dor.
COPS More 2001 Open Solicitation
Page 2 of 2
The associated costs are as follows:
• Estimated start-up cost $90k -$100k consisting of the following:
• Implementation software upgrade — approximately $10,000.00
• Connectivity components ($2,000.00 per Mobile Display Computer [MDC]) —
approximately $80,000.00.
• Projected monthly maintenance cost using cellular technology, approximately $50.00 per
MDC for a monthly total of $2,000.00 or radio technology, which could result in capital cost
to improve radio air frequency band width or site coverage.
Potential Funding Sources:
• Discretionary Funds: -Department Training Budget
-Traffic School Revenue
-Drug Fund
• Projected Year-end Savings from the Department Baseline and/or Interfunds.
• Hiring Freeze.
We are requesting approval to pursue this opportunity, which closes March 23, 2001. It is our
intent, once research has been completed, to link the Spillman Records Management System to
the mobile data computers (MDC's) currently installed in patrol vehicles. Officers will be able to
write citations, field contacts, and process inquiries independently. This will prevent officers
from having to return to the station to access Spillman and/or complete paperwork and allow
more officers to remain deployed in the community.
For Your Information Only
Once we have completed our research, we will provide a follow-up memorandum detailing costs
and other pertinent information.
vi AURA/M.C/nc1=NDA/P.C/n,1201/cin0I doc.
ITEM 5.D
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 6, 2001
TO: PRHSPS Council Committee
FROM: Jennifer Schroder, Directo
VIA: David Mose an er
SUBJECT: 2001 Interlocal Xgreement for Waterfowl Management Program
Background:
Canada Geese populate the beach at Steel Lake Park and in Celebration Parks wetlands and sports fields.
The geese increase our cost to manage the parks and pose a health and safety risk to the park user. Some
of the most measurable impacts are the increased labor costs to keep the beaches and picnic areas clean,
risk to the water quality of Steel Lake for swimming and pose a threat to the success of the wetland
plantings are a few examples.
The most significant tool to manage the Canada Geese population is the Interlocal Agreement for
Waterfowl (Canada Goose) Management Program. Currently 10 city's, including Seattle and Federal
Way, Boeing, Seattle Public utilities and the University of Washington make up the Oversight Committee
to monitor this program.
Purpose
The purpose of this agreement is to provide the joint funding to contract with the Wildlife Services
Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (WS) to manage the Canada Geese population within
King County. The plan will include an egg addling program, lethal control, population monitoring and
census: mainly of Canada Geese, within King County.
Scope of program
2001 will be the ninth year of an egg addling program and the second year utilizing "lethal control". In
addition, educational programs will be initiated to inform the public about urban Canada Geese and the
associated health and safety problems.
Responsibilities
Each party, represented on the Waterfowl Management Committee will share in the ongoing review of the
programs carried out by WS.
Compensation
The City's contribution will be limited to $1,550.
Term
The term of this Agreement is from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001.
Deliverables
WS will make every effort to conduct a 2,000 — 2,500 egg -addling program. Lethal control will be
implemented as necessary and total numbers will be established by the U>S> Fish and Wildlife Service
Permit. Participants will receive a report on the number of eggs addled and geese euthanized in 2001.
Committee Recommendation:
To move a "do pass" to the City Council to approve the 2001 Interlocal Agreement for Waterfowl
(Canada Goose) Management Program.
APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT:
Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member
For Your Action
2001 Interlocal Agreement for
Waterfowl
(Canada Goose)
Management Program
Please Note:
Final Form Ready for Your Submittal for Signature and Funding Authorization
n: sta ffosp\dh\waterfwl\agreemnt\lnter2000
2001 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR WATERFOWL (CANADA GOOSE)
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34.040 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act) permits local government
units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other
localities on a basis of mutual advantage and thereby to provide services in a manner pursuant to
forms of government organization that will accord best with recreational, park and natural
resources and other factors influencing the needs and development of local communities and
WHEREAS, the various agencies, cities, counties, Washington State and agencies of the Federal
Government listed in Exhibit A - Page 4 of this Agreement, desire to manage waterfowl,
especially Canada Geese; and
WHEREAS, all parties require assistance from the Wildlife Services Program of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, to reduce negative impacts on water quality, minimize resource
damage, ensure safety from disease for park visitors, and enhance other property managed; and
WHEREAS, information dating to a 1989 Waterfowl Research Project done by the University
of Washington and current data indicates a large surplus of geese and other waterfowl species in
the greater Seattle area; and
WHEREAS, this program will be an ongoing resource management activity attempting to
maintain a manageable number of birds on a year-to-year basis; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants herein, it is mutually agreed as
follows:
SECTION I - PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to provide joint funding for an egg addling program,
lethal control, population monitoring and census; mainly of Canada Geese, within King County.
This program will assist each party in maintaining and managing public and selected and
approved private sites that are impacted by a surplus of waterfowl.
n:staffosp\dh\waterfwl\agreemnt\Inter2000 2
SECTION II - SCOPE OF PROGRAM
Wildlife Services (WS) will receive funds from each participating member for the
continuation of an egg addling program, lethal control and evaluation during spring and summer
2001.
Using best management practices WS will carry out an egg addling program, seeking as
many accessible nesting areas as possible and will make every effort to minimize damage to the
surrounding environment.
WS will also implement a program of "lethal control' as requested by the Waterfowl
Management Committee, subject to the terms and conditions of a permit to be issued by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. This will be done on a case by case basis in situations where an over
population of Canada geese may result in an impact on human health and safety, such as potable
water contamination, bird aircraft strikes, disease transmission of other situations as determined
by WMC members.
Agency and corporate participants acknowledge that their participation includes a request
to WS for direct assistance through the removal of Canada geese, and will rely on the experience
and expertise of WS to identify locations where goose removal is appropriate. Participants may
identify locations where control is not to be carried out.
Approved by:
Date:
for
Agency
WS will provide an annual report to the members of the WMC which will include
information regarding egg addling, the general location of nests and number of eggs addled,
number of geese removed, difficulties encountered and whatever other information would be
valuable to the WMC.
2001 will be the ninth year of an egg addling program and the second year utilizing
"lethal control". All methods and tools utilized to accomplish addling and "lethal control'
activities in 2000 will again be used in 2001.
A census of urban Canada Geese will be conducted during 2001, however as in 2000
these census counts will be expanded using staff from local agencies and participants at times
and places to be specified.
Where possible, educational programs will be initiated to inform the public about urban
Canada Geese, the associated problems, and the efforts of this committee at addressing those
problems.
SECTION III - RESPONSIBILITIES
Each party, represented on the Waterfowl Management Committee, as shown on Exhibit
"A", and incorporated by reference herein, will share in the ongoing review of the programs
carried out by WS.
Each party agrees that if necessary, an Oversight Committee will be appointed to monitor
and report back to the general committee on a regular basis. Three members of the Committee
will make up the Oversight Committee chaired by the City of Seattle representative.
SECTION IV - COMPENSATION
The total cost of the 2001 waterfowl management program shall not exceed
Twenty -Six Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Dollars and No/100 ($26,370).
Each party shall contribute to the financial costs of the program as shown in Table I.
SECTION V - TERM AND EXTENSION
The Term of this Agreement is from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001. This
Agreement may be extended in time, scope or funding by mutual written consent from all parties
referenced herein.
SECTION VI - TERMINATION
This agreement may be unilaterally terminated by any of the parties referenced herein or
Wildlife Services upon presentation of written notice to the Oversight Committee at least 30 days
in advance of the severance date shown in Section V.
Should termination of this agreement occur without completion of the egg addling, each
party shall pay only its pro rata share of any expenses incurred under the agreement at the date of
the termination, and each party shall receive copies of all products resulting from the addling
activities up to the time of the termination.
SECTION VII - DELIVERABLE
Wildlife Services will make every effort to conduct a 2,000 - 2,500 egg addling program.
Field conditions or changing conditions may increase or decrease these numbers.
Lethal control will be implemented as necessary and total numbers will be established by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Permit.
2001.
Participants will receive a report on the number of eggs addled and geese euthanized in
4
SECTION VIII - FILING
As provided by RCW 39.34.040, this agreement shall be filed prior to its entry and force
with the City or County Clerks of the participating parties, the County Auditor and the Secretary
of State, and, if found to be necessary, with the State Office of Community Affairs as provided
by RCW 39.34.120.
SECTION IX - LIABILITY
Each party to this agreement shall be responsible for damage to person or property
resulting from the negligence on the part of itself, its employees, its agents or its officers. No
party assumes any responsibility to another party for the consequences of any act or omission of
any person, firm, or corporation not at party to this agreement.
5
EXHIBIT A
WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS
Boeing Company/Pacific Resources Group................................................................... Steve Goetz
Cityof Bellevue................................................................................................................
Pat Harris
Cityof Bothell................................................................................................................Clark
Meek
City of Federal Way................................................................................Jon
Jainja
Cityof Kent........................................................................................Rick
Weiss
Cityof Kirkland.........................................................................................................Mark
Johnston
City of Mercer Island..............................................................................................
Glenn Boettcher
Cityof Redmond.........................................................................................................Teresa
Kluver
Cityof Renton..............................................................................................................
Al Dieckman
Cityof SeaTac...................................................................................Kit
Ledbetter
City of Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation
..................................................Donald Harris
City of Seattle Public Utilities..................................................................................Mike
Bonoff
Cityof Tukwila...........................................................................................................
Chuck Morris
City of Woodinville..............................................................................Brian
Meyer
KingCounty Parks....................................................................................................Terrance
Brady
University of Washington...................................................................................
Charles Easterberg
U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services ........................................................John
Houben/Keel Price
U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service...............................................................................Brad
Bortner
6
TABLE I
AGENCIES
CONTRIBUTIONS
Boeing
1,550
City of Bellevue
1,550
City of Bothell
1,550
City of Kent
1,550
City of Kirkland
1,550
City of Mercer Island
1,550
City of Redmond
1,550
City of Renton
1,550
City of SeaTac
1,550
City of Tukwila
1,550
City of Woodinville
1,550
King County
1,550
Seattle Department of Parks and
2,335
Recreation
Seattle Public Utilities
2,335
University of Washington
1,550
TOTAL
$26,370
All checks will be made payable to the USDA -APHIS -ADC, earmarked for the Wildlife Services and
sent to the following addresses:
Mr. J. Gary Oldenburg
State Director -Wildlife Services Program
U.S. Department of Agriculture
720 O'Leary Street Northwest
Olympia, Washington 98502
(360) 753-9884
In case of procedural questions regarding this project, please contact:
Cindy Carney, Administrative Officer
Wildlife Services Program
(360) 753-9884 FAX: 753-9466
For questions regarding implementation of control measures and census, please contact:
Keel Price
(360) 337-2779
SECTION X. - SEVERABILITY
7
...If any section of this agreement is adjudicated to be invalid, such action shall not affect the
validity of any section so adjudged.
This agreement shall be executed on behalf of each party by its authorized representative. It shall
be deemed adopted upon the date of execution by the last so authorized representative. This
agreement is approved and entered into by the undersigned Federal, County and local
government units, university and other private parties.
City of Bellevue
By:
Patrick Foran, Director of Parks and Community
Services
Date:
City of Bothell
By:
Rick Kirkwood, City Manager
Date:
City of Federal Way
By: _
Jennifer Schroder, Director of Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services
Date:
City of Kent
By:
John Hodgson, Director
Date:
City of Kirkland
By:
David Ramsey, City Manager
Date:
City of Mercer Island
By:
Rich Conrad, City Manager
Date:
City of Redmond
By:
Rosemarie Ives, Mayor
Date:
Approved to form:
Robert Sterbank, City Attorney
City of Renton
By:
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
Date:
City of Tukwila
By:
Steve Mullet, Mayor
Date:
City of SeaTac
By:
Calvin Hoggart, City Manager
Date:
City of Woodinville
By:
Donald D. Rose, City Manager
Date:
King County
By:
Craig Larsen, Director of
King County Parks System
Date:
Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation
By:
Kenneth R. Bounds, Superintendent
Date:
Seattle Public Utilities
By:
Diana Gale; Managing Director
Date:
University of Washington
By:
Karen VanDusen
Director of Env. Health & Safety
Date: '
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 8, 2001
TO: PRHSPS Council Committee
FROM: Jennifer Schroder, Director Zp-o"
SUBJECT: 2001 Interlocal Agreement f9ir Waterfowl Management Program
Attached is a revised 2001 Interlocal Agreement for Waterfowl Management (Canada Goose)
-Management Program which replaces the interlocal agreement included in the March 12, 2001 PRHSPS
Council Committee package and dated March 6, 2001.
The changes to the revised interlocal are shown as strikethroughs and underscores.
For Your Action
2001 Interlocal Agreement for
Waterfowl
(Canada Goose)
Management Program
Please Note:
Final Form Ready for Your Submittal for Signature and Funding Authorization
(Revised 3/07/01)
n: s ta ffos p\dh\wate r fwkagree mnt\ 1 nter2000
2001 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR WATERFOWL (CANADA GOOSE)
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34.040 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act) permits local government
units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other
localities on a basis of mutual advantage and thereby to provide services in a manner pursuant to
forms of government organization that will accord best with recreational, park and natural
resources and other factors influencing the needs and development of local communities; and
WHEREAS, the various agencies, cities, counties, Washington State and agencies of the Federal
Government listed in Exhibit A - Page 4 of this Agreement, desire to manage waterfowl,
especially Canada Geese; and
WHEREAS, all parties require assistance from the Wildlife Services Program of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, to reduce negative impacts on water quality, minimize resource
damage, ensure safety from disease for park visitors, and enhance other property managed; and
WHEREAS, information dating to a 1989 Waterfowl Research Project done by the University
of Washington and current data indicates a large surplus of geese and other waterfowl species in
the greater Seattle area; and
WHEREAS, this program will be an ongoing resource management activity attempting to
maintain a manageable number of birds on a year-to-year basis; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants herein, it is mutually agreed as
follows:
SECTION I - PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to provide joint funding for an egg addling program,
lethal control, population monitoring and census; mainly of Canada Geese, within King County.
This program will assist each party in maintaining and managing public and selected and
approved private sites that are impacted by a surplus of waterfowl.
n:staffosp\dh\waterfwl\agreemnt\Inter2000 2
SECTION II - SCOPE OF PROGRAM
Wildlife Services (WS) will receive funds as referenced in Table 1 from each
participating member for the continuation of an egg addling program, lethal control and
evaluation during spring and summer 2001.
Using best mmagement praefiees WS will carry out an egg addling program, seeking as
many accessible nesting areas as possible and will make every effort to minimize damage to the
surrounding environment.
WS will also implement a program of "lethal control" as requested by the Waterfowl
Management Committee (WMC), subject to the terms and conditions of a permit to be issued by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This will be done on a case by case basis in situations where
an overpopulation of Canada geese may result in an impact on human health and safety, such as
potable water contamination, bird aircraft strikes, disease transmission of other situations as
determined by WMC members.
Agency and corporate participants acknowledge that their participation includes a request
to WS for direct assistance Offeu for the removal of Canada geese, and will rely on the
experience and expertise of WS to identify locations where goose removal is appropriate.
Participants may identify locations where control is not to be carried out within their jurisdiction.
Approved by:
Date:
for
Agency
WS will provide an annual report to the members of the WMC which will include
information regarding egg addling, the general location of nests and number of eggs addled,
number of geese removed, difficulties encountered and whatever other information would be
valuable to the WMC.
...MWIM-MMOM
A census of urban Canada Geese will be conducted during 2001, however as in 2000
these census counts will be expanded using staff from local agencies and participants at times
and places to be specified within their jurisdiction.
Where possible, educational programs will be initiated to inform the public about urban
Canada Geese, the associated problems, and the efforts of the WMC committee at addressing
those problems.
SECTION III - RESPONSIBILITIES
Each party, represented on the Waterfowl Management Committee, as shown on Exhibit
"A", and incorporated by reference herein, will share in the ongoing review of the programs
carried out by WS.
Each party agrees that, if necessary, an Oversight Committee will be appointed to
monitor and report back to the general committee on a regular basis. Three members of the
Committee will make up the Oversight Committee chaired by the City of Seattle representative.
SECTION IV - COMPENSATION
The total cost of the 2001 waterfowl management program shall not exceed
Twenty -Six Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Dollars and No/100 ($26,370.00).
Each party shall contribute to the financial costs of the program as shown in Table I.
SECTION V - TERM AND EXTENSION
The Term of this Agreement is from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001. This
Agreement may be extended in time, scope or funding by mutual written consent from all parties
referenced herein.
SECTION VI - TERMINATION
This agreement may be unilaterally terminated by any of the parties referenced herein or
Wildlife Services upon presentation of written notice to the Waterfowl
Manaizement Committee at least 30 days in advance of the severance date shown in Section V.
Should termination of this agreement occur without completion of the egg
addliagpLogam each party shall pay only its pro rata share of any expenses as referenced in
Table 1 at the date of the termination and each party shall receive a
complete report of the programs activities
aeti'.es-up to the time of the termination.
SECTION VII - DELIVERABLE
Wildlife Services will make every effort to conduct a 2,000 - 2,500 egg addling program.
Field conditions or changing conditions may increase or decrease these numbers.
Lethal control will be implemented as necessary and total numbers will be established by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Permit.
2001.
Participants will receive a report on the number of eggs addled and geese euthanized in
4
SECTION VIII - FILING
As provided by RCW 39.34.040, this agreement shall be filed prior to its entry and force
with the City or County Clerks of the participating parties, the County Auditor and the Secretary
of State, and, if found to be necessary, with the State Office of Community Affairs as provided
by RCW 39.34.120.
SECTION IX - LIABILITY
Each party to this agreement shall be responsible for damage to person or property
resulting from the negligence on the part of itself, its employees, its agents or its officers. No
party assumes any responsibility to another party for the consequences of any act or omission of
any person, firm, or corporation not at party to this agreement.
SECTION X - SEVERABILITY
If any section of this agreement is adjudicated to be invalid, such action shall not affect the
validity of any section so adjudged.
This agreement shall be executed on behalf of each party by its authorized representative. It shall
be deemed adopted upon the date of execution by the last so authorized representative. This
agreement is approved and entered into by the undersigned Federal, County and local
government units, university and other private parties.
City of Bellevue
By:
Patrick Foran, Director of Parks and Community
Services
Date:
City of Bothell
By:
Rick Kirkwood, City Manager
Date:
City of Federal Way
M.
David Moseley, Ci Manager
Date:
City of Kent
By:
John Hodgson, Director
Date:
City of Kirkland
By:
David Ramsey, City Manager
Date:
5
City of Renton
By:
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
Date:
City of Tukwila
By:
Steve Mullet, Mayor
Date:
City of SeaTac
By:
Calvin Hoggart, City Manager
Date:
City of Woodinville
By:
Donald D. Rose, City Manager
Date:
King County
By:
Craig Larsen, Director of
King County Parks System
Date:
City of Mercer Island
Bv:
Rich Conrad, City Manager
Date:
City of Redmond
By:
Rosemarie Ives, Mayor
Date:
Approved as to form:
Bob C. Sterbank, Ci Attorney
City of Federal Way
6
Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation
By:
Kenneth R. Bounds, Superintendent
Date:
Seattle Public Utilities
By:
Diana Gale, Managing Director
Date:
University of Washington
By:
Karen VanDusen
Director of Env. Health & Safety
Date:
EXHIBIT A
WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS
Boeing Company/Pacific Resources Group................................................................... Steve Goetz
Cityof Bellevue................................................................................................................ Pat Harris
Cityof Bothell................................................................................................................Clark Meek
City of Federal Way................................................................................Jon
Jainga
Cityof Kent........................................................................................Rick
Weiss
City of Kirkland.........................................................................................................Mark Johnston
City of Mercer Island.............................................................................................. Glenn Boettcher
City of Redmond......................................................................................................... Teresa Kluver
Cityof Renton..............................................................................................................
Al Dieckman
City of SeaTac...................................................................................Kit
Ledbetter
` City of Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation
..................................................Donald Harris
City of Seattle Public Utilities..................................................................................Mike
Bonoff
Cityof Tukwila...........................................................................................................
Chuck Morris
City of Woodinville..............................................................................Brian
Meyer
1.7
KingCounty Parks....................................................................................................Terrance
Brady
University of Washington.......:...........................................................................
Charles Easterberg
U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services ........................................................John
Houben/Keel Price
U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service...............................................................................Brad
Bortner
7
TABLE I
AGENCIES
CONTRIBUTIONS
Boeing
1,550
City of Bellevue
1,550
City of Bothell
1,550
City of Federal Way
1,550
City of Kent
1,550
City of Kirkland
1,550
City of Mercer Island
1,550
City of Redmond
1,550
City of Renton
1,550
City of SeaTac
1,550
City of Tukwila
1,550
City of Woodinville
1,550
King County
1,550
Seattle Department of Parks and
2,335
Recreation
Seattle Public Utilities
2,335
University of Washington
1,550
TOTAL
$26,370
All checks will be made payable to the USDA -APHIS -ADC, earmarked for the Wildlife Services and
sent to the following addresses:
Mr. J. Gary Oldenburg
State Director -Wildlife Services Program
U.S. Department of Agriculture
720 O'Leary Street Northwest
Olympia, Washington 98502
(360) 753-9884
In case of procedural questions regarding this project, please contact:
Cindy Carney, Administrative Officer
Wildlife Services Program
(360) 753-9884 FAX: 753-9466
For questions regarding implementation of control measures and census, please contact:
Keel Price
(360) 337-2779
8