PRHSPSC PKT 03-11-2008
City of Federal Way
CITY COUNCIL
PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
6:00 p.m.
City Hall
Hylebos Conference Room
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC FORUM
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS
4. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 12,2008 SUMMARY
5. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
A. Regional Affordable Housing Program (RAHP)
Interlocal Agreement
B. Celebration Park Maintenance Building Purchase
C. Celebration Park Maintenance Building Installation
D. 2008 Parks Commission Work Plan
Action
Action
Action
Action
O'Donnell
Ikerd
Ikerd
Ikerd
6. PENDING ITEMS
. Animal Control Contract
. Dangerous Dog Ordinance
7. NEXT MEETING - AprilS, 200S 6:00pm - Hylebos Conference Room
8. ADJOURNMENT
2008 Committee Members:
Council Member Jeanne Burbidge. Chair
Council Member Jim Ferrell
Council Member Michael Park
Staff:
Donna Hanson, Director
Mary Jaenicke, Administrative Assistant II
253-835-6901
City of Federal Way
City Council
PARKS. RECREATION. HUMAN SERV ICES & PUBLIC SAFETY COUNCIL COMMITTEE
Tuesday February 12, 2008
6:00 p.m.
SUMMARY
In attendance: Council Committee members Chair Jeanne Burbidge, Council members Jim Ferrell and Michael
Park; Council member Linda Kochmar, Aaron Walls, Deputy City Attorney, Karolyn Klohe Assistant City Attorney,
Chief Brian Wilson, Donna Hanson, Director PRCS, Steve Ikerd, Parks and Facilities Manager, Mary Faber PRCS
Superintendent, John Hutton, Recreation Supervisor, Doug Nelson, Community Center Supervisor, Kelli O'Donnell
CDBG Coordinator, Mary Jaenicke, Administrative Assistant II.
Guests: Jess Mueller, Kevin Morris, Jim Lessler, Joann Hugill- Park Pals
Chair Burbidge called the meeting to order at 6:02p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Kevin Morris expressed his gratitude to City staff for their support of the French Lake Off Leash Park, and was
appreciative of all the improvements that the Parks Department has made to the park. He stated that they are ready
for the next step, which is upgrading the pond. They are asking for guidance and would like to establish goals and
parameters. They intend on funding the whole project. Mr. Morris said that there are not any dog parks in this area
that has an artificial pond.
Jim Lessler- spoke in favor of upgrading the pond. He has been researching ponds and found a company in Gig
Harbor that is very knowledgeable, and is willing to talk to Parks Department staff. They have received one
proposal in the amount of $30,000, but stated the price could be reduced by volunteers doing a lot of the work.
Jess Mueller - spoke in favor of upgrading the pond. She is in charge of the fundraising committee. A mission
statement will be developed, and they will be cultivating relationships with local groups.
Ms Donna Hanson PRCS Director, stated that she had asked the group to locate another dog park that has an
artificial pond, to get an idea of the materials used, and how they clean the pond. She stated that she does get calls
from dog owners that are concerned about the water in the pond. They have requested tests of the water - they are
worried that their dog could get sick. Ms. Hanson wants to make sure that if the City builds a new pond, the pond
will be something that staff can maintain and will be healthy for the dogs.
COMMISSION COMMENT
None
APPROVAL OF SUMMARY
Council member Ferrell moved to approve the January meeting minutes as written, Council Member Park
seconded. Motion passed.
BUSINESS ITEMS
Report on 2008 One Ni2ht Count of the Homeless and Efforts to Serve the Homeless
Ms. O'Donnell reported that the homeless street count was conducted in Federal Way on January 25, 2008, and there
was a 15% decrease from 2007. They are not sure if the decrease is due to better service of the homeless or because
the weather was significantly colder in 2008 than in 2007. The homeless count on the "Night Owl" buses had a 38%
increase, which may have also been due to homeless people trying to stay warm. The overall count for King County
went up 15%, this raised some concern at the last inter agency council meeting. Ms. O'Donnell stated that there are
a number of efforts going on County wide as part of the Committee to End Homelessness 10 year plan. Federal Way
has endorsed the 10 year plan to end homelessness. Staff has been participating in activities to try and help address
homelessness as a region. Ms. O'Donnell gave a report on some of the activities that are going on to address
homelessness in Federal Way and King County. Some of those are the Landlord Liaison Access to Housing, and
Securing New Resources. Last January a community member called together a group of people from different
agencies and they are working on putting together a shelter for Federal Way that would operate similar to the Home
PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY COUNCIL COMMITTEE
Tuesday February 12, 2008 Summary
Page 2
and Arise shelter in Kent and Renton. This program partners with area churches to be a host site for a month at a
time. This would house up to 25 men a night. The focus of the 10 year plan is on creating housing, not shelters.
Chair Burbidge requested another update in either April or March, 2008.
Arts Commission 2008 Work Plan
Ms. Faber presented the background information. The special focus this year is to update the Cultural Plan, host the
2nd Writer's Retreat, crafts for the Red White and Blues Festival and concentrate on public relations, which will
include press releases and keeping the Web page up to date. Council member Ferrell moved to approve the
recommended Arts Commission 2008 Work Plan and forward to City Council for approval on February 19,
2008 for consideration. Council Member Park seconded. Council member Park was pleased to see one of the
commission tasks was to invite the Diversity Commission to an Arts Commission meeting to explore potential
partnerships and ways to encourage diversity programs. Motion Passed.
Red White and Blues Festival
Ms. Faber stated that there has been a lot of discussion regarding this event, and it is time to share the workload at a
supervisory level. Each supervisor will be in charge of the event each year. John Hutton is in charge this year.
There has also been discussion in reformatting the event. They will take away some of the fee based items, and
replace them with activities that are low cost or no cost. The event will start later and focus more on music, food,
free activities and fueworks. Mr. Hutton stated that the event will be a family fun throwback old fashioned Red
White and Blues Festival. The theme will reflect a "day in the park". They want families to be able to participate
together. A family stage will be added, that will have entertainment directed towards families. Mr. Hutton reported
that we have a very energetic day camp staff, and they will be in charge of running the family games. They want to
make the event more affordable. Council member Ferrell asked ifit was possible to keep the inflatable's and not
charge people to use them. Ms. Faber stated it costs at least $5,000 to rent the inflatables. Ms. Hanson reported that
there is the increase in staff costs to setup the intlatables, work the inflatable's and takedown the inflatable's after the
event. Council member Ferrell would like to keep the inflatable's, Council members Burbidge and Kochmar are in
support of trying something different. The recreation department does own small inflatable's that are suitable for
young children. Those intlatables will be at the event. Ms. Hanson stated that they will be incorporating the 10 year
anniversary of Celebration Park to the event.
First Amendment for Electrical Services
Mr. Ikerd presented the background information. Amaya Electric has been providing services for the past year. They
have set hourly rates and fees. Projects that will be used in this contract are $50,000 carry forward for wire theft,
ball field lighting repairs, HV AC improvement, regular park and facilities repair and maintenance budget, emergency
equipment and contingency addition for inflation and unforeseen issues. Council member Park moved approval
to amend the term of the contract for an additional year and authorize execution of the amendment. Council
member Ferrell seconded. Motion passed.
First Amendment for Parkin2 Lot Cleanin2
Mr. Ikerd presented the background information. McDonough & Sons has asked for a cost of living increase for fuel
charges and we have added in the Community Center parking lot. This amendment will be for one more year. The
contract amount is $23,509.80. Council member Ferrell moved approval to amend the term of the contract for
an additional year and authorize execution of the amendment. Council member Park seconded. Motion
passed.
Park Impact Fees
Ms. Hanson updated the Committee. The four consultants were interviewed, and references were checked for the
two fmalist. The rum hired is Henderson, Young & Company, Inc. These consultants have participated in the
greatest most number of cities with the most number of successful park impact fees and had the most extensive
public process. A public process will begin, and this will come back to the Parks Commission, Planning Commission, and the Parks Recreation Human Services and Public Safety Committee this summer.
NEXT MEETING - March 11, 2008 6:00 p.m. in the Hylebos Conference Room
ADJOURNMENT - Meeting adjourned at 7:04p.m.
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 18, 2008
ITEM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: REGIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM (RAHP) INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
POLICY QUESTION:
Should the City of Federal Way enter into the Regional Affordable Housing Program (RAHP) Interlocal
Agreement as recommended by the Human Services Commission?
COMMITTEE: PRHS&PS
MEETING DATE: March 11,2008
CATEGORY:
~ Consent
o City Council Business
D Ordinance
D Resolution
D
D
Public Hearing
Other
~!~_,!!,:~!Q~!_!l.x.:___~~.l1.i..Q:Q.<?~!!~!!1f.!?!l.g..~<??!~_~l!~~.<?E__..__
DEPT: Community Development
Attachments:
· Staff report to the Human Services Commission outlining the background and principals of the updated
RAHP Interlocal Agreement and a table of the subregional distribution ofRAHP allocations 2003-07.
Options Considered:
1. Approval of the Regional Affordable Housing Program Interlocal Cooperation Agreement and authorization
for the City Manager, or his designee, be authorized to execute the agreement. This recommendation to be
forwarded to the March 18, 2008, City Council Consent Agenda.
2. To not recommend approval of the Regional Affordable Housing Program Interlocal Cooperation
Agreement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Acce t option I.
Council
DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~
Committee
Council
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL:
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move approval of option _ .
Jeanne Burbidge, Chair
Jim Ferrell, Member
Michael Park, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move approval of option _' "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFlCE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 0210612006
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
l\-\
...
CITY OF- . .~~
FedsralWay
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 14, 2008
TO: Human Services Commission ~
FROM: Kelli O'Donnell, CDBG Coordinato
SUBJECT: Regional Affordable Housing Pro ram (RAHP) Interlocal Agreement
Background:
Attached for the Human Service Commission's review and recommendation is the Regional
Affordable Housing Program (RAHP) Interlocal Cooperation Agreement and attached
administrative guidelines. The RAHP is the countywide affordable housing program that was
created with the passage of Substitute House Bill (SHB) 2060 in 2002, and is now codified as
RCW 36.22.178.
SHB 2060 created a surcharge on the document recording fee to support affordable housing
projects at the state and local level. The County is allowed to keep 5% off the top to cover the
costs of collection and program administration. Of the remainder, 40% is remitted to the State,
and 60% is retained by the County and appropriated into the Housing Opportunity Fund. The
portion of the fee that is retained by the County must be allocated to low-income housing
projects pursuant to an interlocal agreement.
The RAHP Interlocal Cooperation Agreement (ICA) and the associated administrative
guidelines expired on December 31, 2006. King County staff conducted an update planning
process in 2006 with housing stakeholders and all cities that wanted to participate. Following a
series of meetings and comment periods, agreement was reached on the renewal of the
updated documents attached.
The Major Principles of the Updated leA
· The SHB 2060 revenue shall continue to be administered as a regional fund by the King
County HCD Program in the Department of Community and Human Services. Allocation
decisions will continue to be made by the King County Consortium's interjurisdictional
Joint Recommendations Committee ("JRC"), with an additional seat for the City of
Seattle. HCD staff will continue to meet with representatives from participating
jurisdictions in King County to make funding recommendations to the JRC.
· The RAHP continues to have sub-regional allocation targets for each of three sub-
regions: City of Seattle (37.9%), South County (32.7%), and North/East County (29.4%).
The targets are based on a formula that considers both existing need for low-income
housing and future growth, and will be updated with 2010 census data, when it is
available. A chart outlining the subregional distribution of RAHP funds to date is included
at the end of the materials. The target percentages reflect the percentages from the
previous ILA.
· The updated administrative guidelines shall be in effect until December 31, 2010. In
2010, the RAHP/2060 Planning Group will re-convene to evaluate the program and the
,
C"?' . f\-'---
guidelines, and to determine whether any changes or updates should be made to the
guidelines. In 2011, the administrative guidelines will be updated by the JRC.
· Updates were made to bring the ICA into conformity with the new Consortium structure
for CDBG/HOME, and to incorporate by reference any changes made in the JRC through
the CDBG/HOME agreements.
· The ICA has been updated for 2005 amendments to the original SHB 2060 legislation,
which clarified that counties may use the 5% collected off the top for costs associated
with administration of the housing program and distribution of the funds, as well as
collection of the funds.
The Administrative Guidelines
· Updates to the guidelines make the program more responsive to the Ten Year Plan to
End Homelessness. Examples include making transition-in-place 1 housing units eligible
for funding, and allowing a small portion of the capital funds to be used as rent buy-down
reserves for units of housing serving low-income households that are homeless or at risk
of homelessness.
· Updates were made for 2005 amendments to the original SHB 2060 legislation. The
amendments widened the eligibility of housing projects for the operations and
maintenance funds, changing eligibility from projects" built with" Washington State
Housing Trust Fund dollars to projects" eligible for" Washington State Housing Trust
Fund dollars.
Other Issues:
Agreement was reached on the renewal of the updated documents attached in August of 2006.
The Interlocal was taken through the King County Council for approval prior to being forwarded
to cities for adoption in July of 2007. The Interlocal adopted by King County included some
language changes that further delayed bringing the Interlocal forward for adoption.
Proposed Motions:
Option 1
The Commission recommends approval of the Regional Affordable Housing Program Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement and authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, be authorized
to execute the agreement. This recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council, Parks,
Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety Committee for consideration and
recommendation to the City Council.
Option 2
To not recommend approval of the Regional Affordable Housing Program Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement.
Please contact me at kelli.odonnell@cityoffederalway.com or (253) 835-2653 if you have any
questions about this item.
I Transition in place units are perm_t.re. ntal units where supportive services are provided for a period of time, as needed by a formerly homeless household.
Households do not need to move wheJ(t. supportive services are phased out. .
.. l\-~
I.
....
Hl:l;l:IVl:D BY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JUL 2 6 2007
REGIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
. .~, "'~"",.o
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
An Agreement for the use of SHB 2060 Local Low Income
Housing Funds in King County
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between King County, a municipal corporation and
political subdivision of the State of Washington, 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 govenunent of the State of Washington.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the King County Countywide Planning Policies, hereinafter referred to as
the "CPPs", developed pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act, have
established standards for cities to plan for their share of regional growth and affordable hou~ing;
and
WHEREAS, to implement the CPPs, the King County Growth Management Planning.
Council appointed a public-private Housing Finance Task Force in 1994, hereinafter referred to
as the "HFTF", to recommend potential fund sources for affordable housing for existing low
income residents and for meeting the affordable housing targets for future growth; and
WHEREAS the HFTF recommended a document recording fee as a source of regional
dollars forlow-income housing development and support, and recommended that representatives
of the county, cities and the housing community work together to make decisions about the use
and administration of such a fund; and
t\ - L.\
-,
RAHP lnterlocal Agreement
lof9
2007-2011
WHEREAS in March 2002, Substitute House Bill 2060, hereinafter referred to as SHB
2060, was passed by the Washington State Legislature and was signed into law by the Governor.
as Chapter 294,2002 Washington Laws in April 2002, was effective on June 13,2002, and was
amended by Chapter 484,2005 Washington Laws on August 1,2005. SHB 2060, as amended,
is codified in part as RCW 36.22.178 and provides that:
[A] surcharge often dollars per instrument shall be charged by the
county auditor for each real property document recorded, which will be in
addition to any 'other charge authorized by law. The county may retain up to
five percent of these funds collect~d solely for the collection, administration
and local distribution of the funds. Of the remaining funds, forty percent of
the revenue generated through this surcharge will be transmitted monthly to
the state treasurer .... All ofthe remaining funds generated by this surcharge
will be retained by the county and deposited into a fund that must be used
by the county and its cities and towns for housing projects or units within
housing projects that are affordable to very low-income households at or
below fifty percent ofthe area median income. The portion of the surcharge
retained by a county shall be allocated pursuant to very low income housing
projects or units within such housing projects in the county and cities within:
the county, according to an interlocal agreement between the county and the
cities within the countY"consistent with countywide and local housing needs
and policies... [and in accordance with the eligible activities listed in the
RCW 36.22..178].
and
"'"
f\"'5
I L1
J
2007-2011
RAHP Interlocal Agreement
2of9
WHEREAS, existing Interlocal Cooperation Agreements or Ioint Agreements between
King County and cities in the King County Community Development Block Grant Consortium,
hereinafter referred to as the "CDBG Consortium Agreements", and/or existing Interlocal
Cooperation Agreements between King County and cities in the King County HOME Investment
Partnerships Program Consortium, hereinafter referred to as the "HOME Consortium
Agreements", are not modified by this Regional Affordable Housing Program Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the city and ~ounty agree that affordable housing is a regional issue, that
cooperation between the cities and the county is beneficial to the region, and that a regional
approach to utilizing the RCW 36.22.178 funds will allow those funds to be used in the most
productive manner; and
WHEREAS,.it is mutually beneficial and desirable to enter into a cooperative agreement
in order to administer the RCW 36.22.178 revenue as a regional fund, as authorized by the
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, RCW 39.34, and, as required byRCW 36.22.178;
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF'THE FOREGOING
CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES
CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. Definitions and Interpretation.
Capitalized terms used herein shall have the following meanings unless the context in which they
are used clearly requir~s otherwise.
~-lo
/ "...-
RAHP Interlocal Agreement
Jof9
2007-2011
"Joint Recommendations Committee" or "JRC" means the interjurisdictional body developed
pursuant to and the CDBG and HOME Consortia Agreements as described in Section ill ofthis
Agreement.
"InterJurisdictional Advisory Committee" or "Advisory Committee" means the work grQuP
consisting of representatives from cities eligible to participate in the Regional Affordable
. Housing Programt and from the county. This group is advisory to the JRC.
. .
"RAHP/2060 Planning Group" means the planning group consisting of representatives from.
the cities, from the countYt and from housing and human services agencies serving King County,
that will convene during the year the Regional Affordable Housing Program Guidelines expire to .
review the program and the guidelines and to recommend any changes or updates to the
guidelines to the IRC.
II. General Ae:reement
The purpose ofthis Agreement is to establish the "Regional Affordable Housing ProgramU
(hereinafter referred to as the "RAHPU)t to be administered by King County in cooperation with
cities and towns within the county that are eligible to participate in the program. The local
portion of RCW 36.22.178 revenue shall be a4ministered as a regional fund by the King County
Housing and Community Development Program in a manner that is consistent with countywide
and local housing needs and policies. The city and the county agree to cooperate in undertaking
RAHP activities as set forth herein.
III. Administration. Distribution and Use of the RAHP
A. Joint Recominendations Committee
(, _:" }\-,.
RAHP Interlocal Agreement
40f9
2007-2011
An interjurisdictional Joint Recommendations Committee (JRC) has been established
through the CDBG and HOME Consortia futerlocal Cooperation Agreements and is
hereby adopted as part ofthis Agreement. Changes to the IRC that occur in the
CDBG and HOME Consortia futerlocal Agreements are incorporated by reference
into this' Agreement.
1. Composition of the JRC. For RAHP purposes, the JRC shall be ~omposed of
cities' representatives and county representatives as specified. in the CPBG and
HOME Consortia Agreements, with the addition of an appointment from the City
of Seattle. The Seattle IRC representative will only attend IRC meetings that
concern the RAHP funds and will be entitled to vote solely on RAHP issues and
not on other King County Consortium matters coming before the IRC. The
Seattle representative shall be an elected official, department ~irector or
comparable level staff.
2. Powers and Duties of the IRC. The IRe shall be empowered to:
a. Review and adopt annual RAHP fund allocations.
b. Review and adopt RAHP allocation policies.
c. Review and adopt any subsequent updates to the RAHP Administrative
Guidelines, as appropriate, and when they expire in 2010 (the RAHP
Admininstrative Guidelines are attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 1).
A jurisdiction that is party to this Agreement may dispute a IRe decision
concerning the ~ Guidelines by infonning the JRC Chair ofthe .
dispute, and the IRC Chair will schedule time on the JRe agenda to
discuss and resolve the disputed issue.
" I .
~-~
2007-2011
RAHP Interlocal Agreement
5 of9 _~
J
In carrying out its duties, the JRC shall make decisions that are consistent with
the RCW 36.22.178, the Consolidated Housing and Community Development.
Plan of the King County Consortium and the. City of Seattle, the Ten Year
Plan to End HomelessnC$s in King County and other local housing plans, as
applicable.
3. InteIjurisdictional Advisory Committee to the JRC. In"fulfilling its duties under
this Agreement, the JRC shall consider the advice of an Advisory Committee,
made up of representatives from those jurisdictions eligible to participate in the
RAHP that choose to send representation. The Advisory Committee will meet at
least once per year with King County staffto recommend projects for RAHP
funding to the JRC and may monitor the distribution ofRAHP funds to the sub-
regions and make recommendations to the JRC concerning actions to achieve
geographic equity. If the Advisory Committee considers issues other than the
RAHP, the staff from the City of Seattle shall only participate for the purpose of
making RAHP recommendations.
B. Administration ofRAHP Programs
The King County Housing and Community Development Program ("HCD") staff
shall distribute RAHP funds pursuant to the allocations adopted annually by the JRC,
and shall administer the program pursuant to the tenus of this Agreement and the
RAHP Administrative Guidelines.
King County Hcn staff shall provide the JRC and the Advisory Committee with an
annual report that provides infonnation about the capital housing projects that were
RAHP lnterlocal Agreement
~
6of9
il')
v
f\'~
2007-2011
awarded RAHP funds in that year, as well as the status of capital housing projects that
were awarded RAHP funds in a prior year(s).
King County HCn staff shall invite the representatives of cities that are a party to this
Agreement to be involved in any work groups convened to update the RAHP
Operations and Maintenance ("O&M") ~und policies, and to be on the review panel
that will recommend O&M funding awards to the IRC;
C. Administrative Costs
The county agrees to pay the costs of administering the Regional Affordable Housing
Program out of the five percent (5%) of the funds collected by the county for expenses
related to collection, administration and local distribution ofthe funds, pursuant to
RCW 36.22.178. No portion of the sixty percent (60%) of the RCW 36.22.178
revenue retmned by the county in a fund for the RAHP shall be utilized for RAHP
administration.
D. Interest on the RAHP Fund
Interest accrued on the sixty percent (60%) of the RCW 36.22.178 revenue retained
by the county in a fund for the RAHP shall remain with the RAHP fund and will be
distributed to projects according to the subregional allocation target fonnula found in
the RAHP Administrative Guidelines.
E. Sub-Regional Geographic Equity
The parties intend that the RAHP funds shall be awarded to projects throughout King
County in a fair and equitable manner over the duration of this Agreement. Equity is
to be achieved through sub-regional allocation targets, as follows: A fixed percentage
ofRAHP local funds will be allocated to each sub-region of the county identified in
RAHP Interlocal Agreement
7of9
Al0 w
-.-1
2007-2011
the RAIlP Administrative Guidelines by the expiration of this Agreement. The
percentage goals for each sub-region set by the formula in the RAHP Administrative .
Guidelines shall by updated by the IRC when new data is available.
F. General Use of Funds
The local portion of the RCW 36.22.178 revenue shall be utilized to meet r.egional
pousing priorities for households at or below fifty percent (50%) of area median
hicome, as established in the RAHP Administrative Guidelines.
G. Compliance with Fair Housing Laws
Parties to this Agreement must take actions necessary to ensure compliance with the
Federal Fair Housing Act, as amended, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
and other applicable state and local fair housing laws.
IV. Effective Date
. This Agreement shall be effective on January 1, 2007.
V. ARreement Duration
This Agreement shall remain in effect through December 31, 20 II.
VI. General Matters and RecordinR
A. No separate le~al or administrative entity is created by this Agreement. Neither
the IRC, the Advisory Committee, nor the RAHP/2060 Plmining Group ate
anticipated to acquire or to hold any real or personal property pursuant to' this
Agreement. Any personal property utilized in the normal course of the work of
such bodies shall remai~ the property ofthe person, entity or city initially offering
such personal property for the use of any such body.
P\-\\
RAHP Interlocal Agreement
80f9
2007-2011
B; The county may tenninate this Agreement if at least forty percent (40%) of the
jurisdictions in King County representing seventy-five percent (75%) ofthe
population of King County have not signed this Agreement by February I, 2008.
C. Recording - Pursuant to RCW 39.34.040, this Agreement shall be filed with King
County Records.
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
CITY OF
For King County Executive
By: Signature
Jackie MaeLean, Director
P.rinted Name
Printed Name
Department of Community and Human Services
Title
. Date
Date
Approved as to Form:
OFFICE OF THE KING COUNTY
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Approved as to Form:
CITY OF
CITY ATTORNEY
Michael Sinsky, King County Senior DeputY
Prosecuting Attom~y
City Attorney
ATTEST:
CITY OF
City Clerk
f\ -\'2--
/' II
RAHP lnterlocal Agreement
90f9
2007-2011
~
. I
EXHIBIT 1
King County Regional Affordable Housing Program
Administrative Guidelines for 2007 - 2010
I. Introduction
The provisions of Substitute House Bill (SHB) 2060 became effective iriWashington
State on June 13,2002.
SHB 2060 created a document recording fee on certain documents to be utilized for low
income housing. Administration of the fund is shared between local governments and the State.
The local portion of SHB 2060 funds is to be administered pursuant to a cooperative agreement
between the county and the cities and towns within King County.
The work of the Housing Finance Task Force (HFTF), appointed by the King County
Growth Management Planning Council in 1994, led to the passage of SHB 2060. In recognition
of the recommendations made by the HFTF, a Regional Affordable Housing Program
(RAHP)/2060 'Planning Group convenes to plan for the use of King County SHB 2060 funds.
The King County RAHP/2060 Planning Group! is made up of city representatives, county
representatives, and representatives froin a variety of private housing and services organizations
in King County.
I City representatives have included staff from the cities of: Burien, Tukwila, Kent, Federal Way, Redmond.
Kirkland, Issaquah, Shoreline, ~vington; Seatac, Auburn, Seattle. Bellevue and ARCH
. Housing and serVices organization representatives included staff from the following: Seattle-King County Housing
Development Consortium, Impact CapitaJ. Sou~h King County Multi-Service Center, Hopelink, Fremont Public
Association, 8.eattleHabitat for Hwnanity. South King County Habitat for HumanIty. Friends of Youth, the Salvation
Army. Community Psychiatric Clinic. Lifelong Aids Alliance. S1. Andrews Housing Group, Housing Resource
Group. EDVP, YWCA. Mental Health Housing Foundation. Rental Housirig Association, Highline-West Mental
Health. Valley Cities Counselmg; Seattle Emergency Housing Service, Cornmon Ground, and Vietnam Veterans.
f\~)3
,'I /
Exhibit I RAHP Guidelines
I of IL
2007-2011
The King County RAHP/2060 Planning Group has designed a regional low income
housing fund source, to be administered by the King Comity Housing and Community
Development Program (HCD) in the Department of Community and Human Services.
n. Duration of the Guidelines
The RAHP Guidelines shall take effect on January I, 2007, and shall remain in effect
until December 31, 201 O.
III. Review and Update of the Guidelines
Beginning in 2010, the Guidelines will be updated through the interjurisdictional Joint
Recommendations Committee (JRC) pursuant to the RAHP Interlocal Cooperation Agreement,
hereinafter "RAHP Agreement." The RAHP/2060 Planning Group will convene in the first half
of201O to review the program and the RAHP Guidelines and to recommend any proposed
changes to the JRC for adoption prior to the expiration date.
IV. Decision-Makioe Structure and Reeiooal Allocation Method
A. Approving Body - Joint Recommendations Committee.
The interjurisdictional JRC, .~ defined in the RAHP Agreeme.nt, shall be the body that
. reviews and updates the RAHP Guidelines beginning in 20 I 0, and reviews and adopts annual
RAHP funding aUoc~tions and related allocation policies. The JRC will be expanded, pursuant
to the RAHP Agreement, .to include representation from the City of Seattle on RAHP matters:
Allocations and related policies adopted by the JRe must be consistent with these RAHP
Guidelines, the Consolidated Plans of the King County Consortium and the City of Seattle, other
local housing plans, as applicable, and the Ten Year Plan to End Hotnelessness in King County.
Leadership Program, Compass Center, Catholic Community Setvices, the King County Housing Authority, Seattle
Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines
2 of 12
~-l~
\Q ~ ,--->
2007-2011
1. Appeal Process for IRC Decisions
a. Cities - Adoption of Guidelines
Pursuant to the RAHP Interlocal Agreement, a participating jurisdiction
may appeal a IRC decision concerning the update ofRAHP Guidelines. The
jurisdiction must infonn the Chair of the IRC, and the IRC chair will schedule
time on the IRC agenda to discuss .the appeal issue.
b. Applicants - Annual Fund Allocations
Applicants for RAHP funds may appeal a JRC allocation decision if they
have grounds based on substantial violation of a fair allocation process, such as
bias, discrimination, conflict of interest, or failure to follow the RAHP Guidelines.
Appeals by applicants will receive initial review for adequate grounds by the
Director of the King County DCHS.. If adequate grounds for an appeal are found,
the DCHS director will put the appeal on the IRC agenda for review.
B. Annual Fund Allocation Recommendations
An interjurisdictional advisory committee to the IRC, made up representatives from
participatirig jurisdictions in the RAHP Consortium, will work with the' King County Housing
Finance Program (HFP) staff of King County HCD to make RAHP allocation recommendations
. and related program policy recommendations to the JRC. While the advisory committee may
make recommendations concerning several fund sources for affordable housing in the King
County Consortium, the City o~ Seattle staffwill participate on the committee solely f~r the
putpose of making RAHP recommendations.
Mental Health, and the Committee to End Homelessness
Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines
t\,\5
3 of 12
I
II t
. I
2007-2011
"'t:
The review process for RAHP allocations will proceed as follows:
· King County HCD staffwill review all RAHP applications and make preliminary funding
recommendations.
· Cities' staffwill review applications for projects in their jurisdiction and make
preliminary recommendations on those applications.
· Cities' staffwill receive information on all RAHP applications to review prior to the
advisory committee meeting at which final funding recommendations are formulated for
transmittal to the IRC.
· Advisory committee participants will meet together at least annually to decide upon
RAHP funding recommendations to th.e IRC, and may meet at other times during the
year, as necessary, to discuss RAHP issues and make recommendations to the IRC.
C. Subregional Allocation Targets
The RAHP Fund will be a flexible fund that can address regional and subregional housing
needs. The fund will use subregional allocation targets as a means to achieve geographic equity
in the distribution of SHB 2060 funds by December 31, 2010, the date that these guidelines
expIre.
1. Subregional Areas:
a. City of Seattle Subregion
b. North/East Subregion - north and eaSt urban and rural areas,
including 34 percent of unincorporated King Coun~
2 Percent of unincorporated King County attributed to the NorthlEast and South Subregions is based on the 2000
census data for households in the unincorporated portions of the King County Community Planning Areas, as listed
in the 2002 Annual Growth Report.
Pr-lto
Exhibit I RAHP Guidelines
4 of 12
2007-2011
c. South Subregion - south urban and rural areas, including 66
percent of unincorporated King County
2. Formula for Subregionai Allocation Targets
Each subregion will have a targeted percentage of the RAHP funds, including the
interest on the RAHP funds, allocated to projects within the subregion over the period of
time that the RAHP Guidelines are in effect. Each subregion will receive allocations to
projects within the subregion that are equal to or greater than 95 percent, of the
subregions' allocation target by December 31,2010.
The formula for allocating RAHP funds to the subregions is as follows:
· One half of the RAHP funds shall be targeted for allocation among the three
subregions based on each subregion's relative share of total existing need for
affordable housing. Existing need shall be determined by the percentage of low-
income households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing in the
subregion, according to the 2000 U.S. Census data.
· One half of the RAHP funds shall be targeted for allocation amongst the three
subregions based on the subregions' growth targets for future need, as established
through the Growth Management Planning Council. Future need shall be determined
by the subregions' relative share of total future need for affordable housing in the
County. A subregion's relative share of future need is the percentage ofthe
subregion's affordable housing target for low-income households relative to the
cu~ulative affordable housing target for low-income househol<;ls of all jurisdictions in
~,\\
I I
Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines
5 of 12 .
2007-2011
the county, including unincorporated King CountY. Based upon the RAHP fonnula,
the sub-regional allocation targets are as follows:
City of Seattle:
37.9 percent
South:
32.7 percent
North/East:
29.4 percent
3. InteIjurisdictional Advisory Committee to Monitor Subregional Allocation
Targets
'The advisory committee will monitor the subregional distribution of RAHP funds
every year, determining if any subregion(s) received allocations below 95 percent of the
subregion's allocation target.
lfany subregion received allocations under 95 percent of the target allocation after
several funding cycles, the HCD staffwill work with the advisory committee to adjust the
allocation targets of such subregion(s) in the subsequent funding cycles, as needed. In
addition, the advisory committee may propose strategies and actions, for review by the
IRC, that are designed to increase the percentage of RAHP funds spent in those
subregion(s). Staff of the jurisdictions that are parties to the RAHP Agreement will assist
in implementing actions that will aid in achieving geographic equity in RAHP allocations
by December 31,2010.
3 The percentage of a subregion's target relative to the cumulative target is derived by averaging the target
percentages of the jurisdictions within that subregion. For each jurisdiction, the target percentage is calculated in the
following manner: the number of households that a jurisdiction must anticipate, per the 2002-2022" Countywide
Planning Policy (CPP) Growth Targe~ is multiplied by .24 or .20 (depending on the ratio oflow wage jobs to low
cost housing for the jurisdiction in Appendix 3 of the CPPS)i that number is divided by the cummulative affordable
housing target for low income households of all King County jurisdictions, inc.1uding unincoJ:fJorated King County.
Exhibit I RAHP Guidelines
f\-J<6
6 of 12 I
2007-20 II
V. Use of the RAHP Funds in Kine County
A. RAHP Priorities
1. Top Priority:
· Capital funds for the acquisition, rehabilitation and/or new .
construction of units of eligible housing types. New construction is
not eligible if the low-income housing vacancy rate for all of King
County exceeds 10 percent4.
2. Second. Priority:
· Operations & Maintenance ("O&M") fund program for existing
homeless housingS. This program provides O&M funding for existing6
transitional housing and transition in place7 units. The housing units
must be eligible for the Washington State Housing Trust Fund, and
must show that they require RAHP O&M funds in order to cover
ongoing building operating expe~ses.
3. Third Priority:
· 0& M funds for existing emergency shelter~ and licensed overnight
youth shelters.
4. La,st priority:
· Rental assistance vouchers to be administered by a local housing
authority in conformity with the Section 8 program.
4 The low income housing vacancy rate for each county will be established by the state, pursuant to the SHB 20'60 legislation.
s The O&M ft,md for the 2007.2010 guidelines ill set at approximately 22 percent of $3,222,000 (the average of the RAHP
collections in 2004 and 200S), which is $700,000 per year for the four year period of the guidelines.
, Bxisting housing is defined as housing that exists as of the date of an application for RAHP funds.
1 Transition in place units are pennanent rental units where supportive services are provided for a period of time. as needed by a
household. Households do not need to move when the supportive selVices are phased out.
P!'l'\' ~ ''-1
ExhIbit I RAHP Guidelines
7 of 12
2007-2011
, B. RAHP Eligibility
1. Eligible Housing Types
a. Capital Funds
· Pennanent rental housing units
· Tr~sition in place and transitional housing units; units that are
not time-limited are encouraged.
· , Emergency shelter and licensed overnight youth shelter8
· Ownership housing.
b. O&M Funds:
· Existing transitional and transition in place housing units
· Existing emergency shelters and licensed overnight youth
shelters
2. Eligible Populations Served bv Housing Units
· All units funded with RAHP funds must serve households at or below
50 percent of area median income. Projects that include units for
households at or below 30 percent of area median income are
encouraged.
· Homeless households9, including youth.
· Households at risk ofhomelessness.1o
a RAHP funds are limi'ted to SO percent of the development cost of any project; consequently, if a shelter project cannot secure,
adequate funding for the entire cost of development, the RAHP cannot prioritize the project.
, Homeless households include: households that lack a fixed, regular and adequate residence; households that reside in a publicly
or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations; households that reside in time-limited
housing; and households that currently reside in an institution and wil' be exiting the institution without a fixed, regular and
adequate residence.
Exhibit I RAHP Guidelines
~.- :z..n
/
8 ofl2 ~'
l(
2007-2011
· Disabled households or households with a disabled member.
· Families.
· Special needs populations, including seniors.
3. Eligible Applicants
· Nonprofit organizations
· Housing Au~horities
· Local governments
· For-profit entities are only eligible for capital funds in the top pnority,
This is due to the language of the SHB 2060 legislation, which restricts
building operations and maintenance funds to projects "eligible for the
Washington State Housing Trust Fund." For-profit entities are 'not
eli8ible for the Washington State Housing Trust Fund.
4. Eligible use ofRAHP Funds by Priority
a. Capital funds:
· Acquisition ofland for eligible housing
· New construction of eligible housing
· Acquisition ofbuilding(s) for eligible housing
· Rehabilitation of units of eligible housing or to create new units of
eligible housing
· Capitalization of a replacement reserve in connection with a
capital investment for new or existing eligible housing units
10 Households at risk of homelcssness include: households paying SO percent or more of their income for rent, households that
have a history ofhomelessness and are currently unstable, households living in overcrowded or substandard housing, households
~r2\
Exhibit I RAHP Guidelines
9 of 12
i. 'I. AJ
2007-201 I
· Capitalization of O&M rent buy-down reserves for new eligible
housing units to serve households below 50 percent of AMI that
are primarily homeless 11 , or at risk of homelessness 12. Capitalized
O&M reserves may only be used to write down rents to very
affordable rent levels, below 30 percent of AMI and below 50
percent of AMI (i.e. b~tween 30 percent and 50 percent of AMI,)
for units that do not have debt service. Capitalized O&M reserves
must be used for expenses directly related to running the building
and may not be used for services to the tenants or to cover debt
service13. This eligible use may not exceed 20 percent of the
RAHP capital funds in any funding cycle.
b. O&M Funds:
· Existing transition in place or transitional housing units are eligible
for O&M for ongoing building operations and maintenance
expenses that cannot be covered by the rental income of the
project, and may not include the cost of s~rvices to tenants or debt
service.
that are substantially behind on their monthly housing payment or have a pen.ding eviction, households with a disability whose
housing is at risk due to aging relatives or other factors.
II See Note 6.
11 See Note 7.
13 Other requirements for capitalized O&M reserves include: I) projects will not be eligible for these funds unless they have
either applied first to CTBD for O&M and been denied, or have not received Housing Trust Fund capital dollars and are, .
therefore, not eligible for O&M from cmDj 2) funds will be awarded only in appropriate amounts. as neede,d pursuant to review
. by the Housing Finance Program, and will be subject to negotiated modifications; and 3) capitalized reserves will be committed
for a maximum of five years' rent buy-down subsidy.
Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines
. ~- 2-2-
100f12 Ct
r-,
2007-2011
\
· Existing emergency shelters and licensed, overnight youth shelters
are eligible for O&M for general operating expenses, including
services.
c. Vouchers:
· Rental assistance vouchers must be administered by a local
housing authority in conformity with the Section 8 program.
VI. RAHP Administration
The RAHP funds shall be administered as a regional fund by the King County HCD
Program.
A. RAHP Capital Funds
RAHP capital funds, including capitalized O&M reserves for new projects and
maintenance reserves, will be administered by HFP in conjunction with other fund sources
administered by HFP.
The HFP will staffthe interjurisdictional advisory committee and will work with the
committee to develop RAHP funding allocation recommendations and related policy
recommendations for JRC review and adoption.
The HFP will distribute RAHP funds through contracts pursuant to the allocations
adopted by the JRC, and will generate an annual RAHP report that provides information about
the projects that received funding in the current year, as well as the status ofprojects awarded
RAHP ~ds in prior year(s).
The terms o.fthe King County Housing Opportunity Fund (HOF) will apply to RAHP
contracts, with the exception of the following:
~~2-~
Exhibit.} RAHP Guidelines
~ ,e-
II of 12
2007-2011
· To the extent that there are differences between the HOF guidelines and RAHP
guidelines, the RAHP guidelines will apply.
· A financial match by the local government where a housing project is to be located is
not required, but is encouraged.
· RAHP funds will have no maximum subsidy per unit, but the development portion
of the award (not including O&M rent buy-down reserves) will be limited to 50
percent of the total development cost of a project.
B. RAHP Oporating and Maintenance Funds.
The RAHP O&M funds will be administered through the King County HCn Program's
Homeless Housing Programs. (HHP) Section.
The priority for RAHP O&M funds is existing projects that have been unsuccessful in
receiving State 2060 O&M funds or ESAP funds.
HHP will work with the Committee to End Homelessness to ensure that the uses of .
RAHP O~M funds are consistent with the priorities of the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness.
HHP will invite city staff and other stakeholders to participate in updating the RFP
parameters for O&M funds, if and when updates are necessary, and will invite the same to
participate on the panel to review applications for the RAHP O&M funds. The review panel will
recommend O&M fund awards to the IRC for final adoption.
Exhibit I RAHP Guidelines
f-\- ~!~
12 of 11
.-
/'
2007-2011
Subregional distribution of RAHP allocation - 2003-2006 and current ILA (2007-2011)
Subregion: South North/East Seattle
2003 - 2006 Funds: Subregional target . 32.3% 28.3% 39.4%
Fall 2003 goal 849,000 969,000 1,180,500
2003 Proposed 2003 allocation 380,910 1,438,590 1,180,SOO
Actual subregional percentage 12.7% 48.0% 39.4%
Fall 2004 goal to meet interlocal targets 2,287,022 898,948 2,069,752
2004 Proposed 2004 allocation 1,489,000 2,146,112 1,624,740
Actual subregional percentage 22.6% 43.4% 34.0%
Fall 2005 goal to meet interlocal targets 1,185,828 1,353,787
Proposed 2005 allocation 1,085,828
AHA - Holden Family Housing 670,000 670,000
2005 - 06 DESC - Rainier Housing 1,353,787 1,353,787
Rental Rehab Program 100,000
Actual subregional percentage - this round 25.1% 29.5% 34.2%
Final percentage for 2003 - 2006 31.9% 29.1% 39.0%
Subregion: South North/East Seattle.
2007 - 2011 Funds: Subregional targets . 32.7% 29.4% 37.9%
Fall 2006 goal (based on targets) 1,386.000 1,214,000 3,178,000
Proposed 2006 allocation 1,720,000 324,375 1,400,000
Dash - Pyramid Pointe 600,000
FFC - FFC Community Homes 230,000
HWSMH - Burien Heights Residences 680,000
2006 - 07 SI. Thomas Housing Group - Group Home 324,375
Habitat for Humanity - HUD Home 30,000
Habitat for Humanity - Tukwilla Home 30,000
Community Homes - Houses 5 & 6 150,000
Inter"lm - Samaki Commons 1,400,000
Reserve for Rental Rehab Program 150,000
Actual subregional percentage (cu"ent ILA only)
File: Corrected RAHP Allocations Update 7.27.2007.xls
i\-' ~5
jdec: 9/4/2007
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 18,2008
ITEM #:
.__...__......................_..... ...... ..m..........~....._...._...._._._..__.._._..._.._...._.................__......H..._.......__..__..__.......__... ................_........__........__......_.............. ......H....................... .... .....................H............_.............._..........___......_. .......-----......-.......--.-...............----..
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: CELEBRATION PARK MAINTENANCE BUILDING
POLICY QUESTION: Should the City approve the purchase of a pre-engineered metal building and authorize
the Assistant City Manager to enter into a purchase agreement with the successful bidder?
COMMITTEE: PRPSC
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2008
CATEGORY:
C8J Consent
o City Council Business
o Ordinance
o Resolution
o
o
Public Hearing
Other
~_!~!.~.B!.:~_Q!!'! BY:~~~.P!l~I!1!~I~?1>>.~E~ & Fa.:~!!~ties M~!lK~...___.___________._m___.__.__~~~2:~~R~~___._._-.--..--------
History: Staff bid the supply and installation of a metal building on Nov 81\ Nov 30th and again on Dec7th using
the Small Works Roster and advertising. The first two bids produced no results even though contractors
demonstrated an interest. The third effort produced one bid of $114,795 which was significantly higher then the
Architects estimate of $75,344. This high bid was rejected in favor of an atternpt to re-bid the supply and
installation separately. The strategy is that there are smaller qualified installers that would bid if they did not have to
supply the building also.
Staff received two bids January 30, 2008 following an advertised competitive bid process for the supply only of the
Celebration Park Maintenance Building. Two metal building manufacturers submitted the following results:
Rigid Building Systems - $55,223 + tax
CHG Building Systems - $61,527 + tax
Attachments: NA Options Considered:
l.Award the bid 2. Do not award the bid 3. Provide other direction
--.....-.....--..--.....------.----..--..---.------..-..------......-----.-...-----...--...............--...---...-..--............-..-...........--.---.-.----.....---.---......................-..--..........-...-....--........-........--....-.......---..-.......-.---...-..---.-.-.--..
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council accept the bid from Rigid Building Systerns for $55,223
and authorize the Assistant City Manager to execute a purchase agreement for the Celebration Park metal
building.
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL:
DIRECTOR ApPROVAL:
To Council
to Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the bid acceptance for the purchase of a pre-engineered metal
maintenance building for Celebration Park to full ,Council on April 18 for approval.
Committee Chair
Committee Member
Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of accepting the bid from Rigid Building Systems for
$55,223 and authorize the Assistant City Manager to execute a purchase agreement for the Celebration Park
Maintenance Building"
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 0210612006
13-\
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RF.SOI ,I JTrON #
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 18,2008
....... ...... ..._............_..................M........................___.......... ..m_m.mm............................................. ........................____...._....__............__... ..._...................__.___............._......................
ITEM #:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: CELEBRATION PARK MAINTENANCE BUILDING
POLICY QUESTION: Should the City approve the installation of a pre-engineered metal building and authorize
the Assistant City Manager to enter into a contract with the successful bidder?
COMMITTEE: PRPSC
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2008
CATEGORY:
IZI Consent D Ordinance D Public Heariug
D City Council Business D Resolution 0 Other
.~!~!!.~_~Q_~!!!~:~tep~~l!J~~~q~__~~!~_~_!'~~m!i~~ M~~&~E____.._.._...._...____________..____.__.~~~~_.~~~~___..____._________
History: Staff bid the supply and installation of a metal building on Nov 8th, Nov 30th and again on Dec7th
using the Small Works Roster and advertising. The first two bids produced no results even though contractors
demonstrated an interest. The third effort produced one bid of $114,795 which was significantly higher then
the Architects estirnate of $75,344. This high bid was rejected in favor of an attempt to re-bid the supply and
installation separately. The strategy is that there are smaller qualified installers that would bid if they didn't
have to supply the building also.
Note: (The installation only bid will close Mar J'h @ 10:00 AM, past the deadline for the PRPSC Committee
packet, so this Agenda is submitted as a place holder and to give some preliminary information as it relates to
the associated supply only Agenda item. A new Agenda will be handed out at the Mar 1 th Committee mtg
showing the installation only bid results. During the meeting the Committee will be able to compare the high
bid of $114,795 for supply and install with the separate bids of supply and installation to determine if this
strategy is a more cost effective solution.)
Attachments: NA Options Considered:
l.Award the bid for installation 2. Do not award the bid 3. Provide other direction
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council accept the bid from for $_ and authorize the
Assistant City Manager to execute a contract for the installation of a pre-engineered metal building in Celebration
Park.
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL:
DIRECTOR ApPROVAL:
to COWlcil
to Conunittee
To COWlcil
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the bid acceptance for the installation of a pre-engineered metal
rnaintenance building in Celebration Park to full Council on April 18 for approval.
Committee Chair
Committee Member
Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move approval of accepting the bidfrom for $_ and authorize
the Assistant City Manager to execute a contract for the installation of a pre-engineered metal building in
Celebration Park"
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o TABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
t-\
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 18,2008
ITEM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: 2008 PARK COMMISSION WORK PLAN
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council approve the 2008 Parks Commission work plan?
COMMITTEE: PRPSC
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2008
CATEGORY:
[8J Consent
D City Council Business
STAFF REpORT By: STEPHEN IKERD
D Ordinance
D Resolution
D
D
Public Hearing
Other
DEPT: Parks
-............-..--......--.--..-..--.----..............._.__.__............._.............__m.......___.__............._......__......_..__............._.......__....._._................_....__..___....._................_.....__.__~....__.._._....._.._.._...__....._.._.__._..._....._..._.____..__...........__
The Parks Commission reviewed a proposed work plan during their March 6, 2008 Commission
meeting and approved the attached Work Plan.
Attachments: 2008 Park Commission Work Plan
Options Considered: none
.....--.............-.......--..................--.......-.--.-.............................-----.---.-......- ..........................-..................-......-................--............---..............--.............-.......................---.........-...-......-.-..--.-----.---.-.--..-.....-..-..~.__........__...~~_..__..___m....__....__..m.._.._
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the 2008 Park Commission Work Plan.
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: 1f};J;)
~
Council
DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: f\ ~I
~
Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Committee Chair
Committee Member
Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of the 2008 Park Commission work plan"
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
l:J- \
c
"
-
==
-a:
e~
e..
,,~
"CD
~g
....N
:.
>.
~
-
~
CU
...1:5
~~9J
~
ell
~
....
ell
....
(J)
'0
Q)
t)
Q)
Q)
Ul
"E
.lll
3
Ul
c
o
o
I:
ell
.r:::
3:
"E
C')
I
'0 J:;
...... 0"
ell
.:ll::
ell
ell
l-
I:
o
.;;;
.!!
E
E
o
o
iii
:;::;
c
Q)
-
o
0.
...
.e
c
o
n
.r:.(\l
U Q)
~~
.... (\l
"50
0'0,
CUQ)
0=-
:;::;.0'0
U :J C
~o.Q)Ul
'O-EQ)
OgE.f
(\l'Oo_
ro515u
000::: ~
. . . E
..- N C') -
ell
ell
>
:;::;
U
ell
......
.0
o
>.
"-
ell
E
E
~
(J)
t)
(\l
0.
E
~
"E
Q)
:g
.9
-
c
.lll
3
Ul
c
8 iii
=5
.~ 'E.
~o
g~
>L1.
....
U
ell
......
o
"-
a..
CIl
....
Cll
"
0.
::)
CIl
CIl
U.
....
U
Cll
0.
E
J::
-..,.
'0 .
c:~
NO"
'0 ell
ffi~
o.E
.QE
a> 0
~O
'0 =
>.U
a> C
.r:.:J
_0
UlO
(\l 0
Ul-
C C
(\l 0
i5..16
'0 '0
Q)C
Ul Q)
o E
g-E
.... 0
o.u
;: ~
.~~
Q) (\l
O:::E
a>
.r:.
-
.9
23
C
Q)
E
Q)
>
e
0.
.5
'0
c
Q)
E~
E Q)
00.
15 e
0:::0.
'0
C
N
.
(j)'::;
.....0"
'0
C
(\l
Ul
a>
'5
e
;:
Q)
.;;;
a>
....
]j -g
"E (\l
.r:.2 Ul
uo a>
(\l 0. '5
~'O OUl
.....C ~c:
5 (\l ;:.Q
Ol a>-
.9c co.
:0:;::; 'Og
a..~ ~.Q
-Q)UlEro
g~5E"E
'O:;::;:;::;OQ)
CCUUE
o a>Q) a> a>
U:!220:::i5..
......N 8M.5
Ol
:S ~:2
.!tl.o :J
~Q)8
~=ro
E'5=
Q)Oo.
'O.r:.(\l
'0 g> E
-eQ)
c=-s~
(\lUlO~
sJQ'-:J
Ul:J(\lO
5 e 5,::::
U _'iij :J
C'll.!2 a> 0
.r:."E'O'O
:<.: Q) o.~
;:OQ) C
~ o..r:. (\l
....,o,o.r:.
Occa>
3:(\l(\l.o
~
...
Cll
0.
Cll
-
o
~
Cll
...J
ell
ell
CIl
U
U
Cll
C
Cll
Ecn
:fI-c
"CIl
CIlE
o.CIl
olS~
...
'j; 0.
.= .~
l"-
e
e
N
J::
0>
.....
e >.
.....3
'0""
201:l
"Ci) T"""
';;;N
C a>
o c
.~~
'E~
E c
o :J
Oe
~~
(\l (\l
0..i5..
'0 .
C ....
(\lo-
u u
c: ~
NC')
~.
...J
....
e
....
~~
.. C
Ul(\l
5:C
._ Ol
roI
12"E
C') '0
'0..
N.r:.
~~
cO
Q)a>
~~
.2 c9
ct~
.(\l
..... N...J
c
(\l
i5..
~
eo
a..
'0
o
~
:!2
~
Q)
.!:::!
ro
c
u:
c
"E
Q)
E Q)
o..r:.
.- ....
:J....
g.e
"02
c(\l
::J"e:
00.
a,e
>.0.
(\lo.
i5..(\l
_Ul'O
o~ 0
ceoo
o o..r:.
16010
_coO
iii:;::;.r:.
_UlOl
Ul'X'CU
,SQ)C
-
C
CIl
"E
C CIl
::::l U
O..!!!
...0.
DlCIl
>....
Cll-
-c
o.CIl
-E
~a.
c'-
C ::::l
ctg-
.r:.
-
oo::t
.
- ....
"' -
.....0"
Ul
C
o
:;::;
(\l
'0
C
Q)
E
E
o
U
~
Q)
~
(\l
E
'0
C
(\l
c_
Ol'-
._ U
UlC
Q) :J
'00
;:U
Q).2:-
.;;; (}
&.9
c
;:
.9
c
;:
o
'0
-
o
-
C
Q)
E
a.
o
Q)
>
a>
'0>.
;:t::
Q)Q)
.;;; 0.
a>e
0:::0.
'0 .
C ....
(\lo-
u u
c: ~
('I.lC')
Ul
.!!! "E
'5.!!!
+:i a.
U Q)
(\l >
.1/) 'iij
CD ~
Q) C
c.:
~.e
>Q) "E
'0 ro g?
a> '0 ~ Q)
3'0 a> a>
'Oc Q).r:.
Q)(\l "E-
-uc"";:Jro
I/).Q ~ '0 ....
....->>Q)
orlQ)-Q)
~ .Q ro '2 "E
o_>u:J
o.Q)OQ)'O
(/) (/) EO:::>
"":N ~ M ~
c=C
.- 0.
~<(2
.... c
(\l.- 0
a.. ~:::
.2:-(\lC
._ 0 Q)
Uo~
.5 -e iii
23~~
C.r:. E
g?t::Q)Q)
a> w(\l 0::: :<.:
.... Ul
Q).r:."E>.
JB~ro1:
5 ;: a:: .Q
'0 5 a> 0..
> 13'~ (\l
32C(\l-
O:J>(\l
:r: 'C' ,S 32
o Q)
.....UN.r:.
CIl
U
Cll
a.
en
.!:!
1i
:J
0.
s::
~
a
-
s::
~
a
o
ell
-
s::
CIl
>
W
...
CIl
CIl
-
s::
::::l
"5
>
co
o
o
N
Ol
.5 Q)
'0....
C-
Q) C
0.Q)
U
'0>.
Q) (\l
-gm
a> I/)
o.(\l
~E
I/) :J
>.0
'0 -
:J :J
-0
1/).0
>'(\l
-
=c
:Co
'00 :!ii
(\l U
a>Q)
L1.'O
...:
0-
J::
-oo::t
I/)
t::
<(
Ol
c
'E
.g
a>
a.. a>
a>~
.r:.C
-Q)
cO
0>.
c (\l
om
+::cn
~ (\l
._ E
U :J
50
0'0
oc
.... (\l
0....
-a>
'cc
Oa>
::2:U
Q)
~ .~
I/) _ Q)
5~=
.-'- ......
-(\l0
(\l 0. Q)
'0 a> I/)
55 .... :J
E -g 0
E(\l-
oll::; 5
U:J:;::;
~:o.!!!
a>a>~
~.r:.c
co:: __
EOI/)
'Ocl/)
coa>
(\l:;::; g
;: gj (\l
Q) ==.9
.~ .g :0
0:::ii)5.
s::
a
:;:;
Cll
...
a
-
Ul
~
CIl
-
en
>.
Cll
aJ_
Ul-;
Cll Ul
E C'll
::::l.r:.
00.
.r:.
~
cnl:i
..... 0"
g
'0
J!!
c
o
I/)
c
.Q
ro
'0
C
Q)
E
E
o
U
a>
....
a>
~
(\l
E
'OUl
C a>
(\l'0
;:=
a> 8..
.;;; a>
&~
'0
Q)
'0
a>
a>
c
Ul
(\l
I/)
a>
:~
'0
0.
Q)
ro
'C
a.
e
0.
0.
(\l
Q)
....
:J
Ul
C
W
~
CIl
.;;:
CIl
0:::
>.
.!:!
"5
0.
"E
C')
I
-g t::
('I.lO"
Ul
C
o
:;::;
(\l
'0
C
Q)
E
E
o
U
a>
....
Q)
~
(\l
E
'0
C
(\l
;:
Q)
.;;;
Q)
0:::
Ol
c
'2
c
(\l
i5..
a..
(3
-
Gl
DI
"
:s
m
-
0.
U
o
.....
o
N
(j;
o
o
N
D-2-