The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-10-17 Council Workshop SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the ADA coordinator at (360) 403‐3441 or 1‐800‐833‐8388 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barb Tolbert PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Mayor Barb Tolbert – Kristin APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS WORKSHOP ITEMS – NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN 1. Six‐year Transportation Improvement Plan ATTACHMENT A Staff Presentation: Jim Kelly Council Liaison: Debora Nelson/Jesica Stickles 2. Public Art Proposal ATTACHMENT B Staff Presentation: Sarah Lopez Council Liaison: Marilyn Oertle 3. Haller Park ‐ Final Project Acceptance ATTACHMENT C Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes Council Liaison: Marilyn Oertle 4. Quake Field ‐ Final Project Acceptance ATTACHMENT D Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes Council Liaison: Marilyn Oertle 5. Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Discussion ATTACHMENT E Staff Presentation: Paul Ellis Council Representatives to RFA Planning Committee: Marilyn Oertle, Chris Raezer, Jesica Stickles 6. Miscellaneous Council Items Arlington City Council Workshop Monday, July 10, 2017 at 7:00 pm City Council Chambers – 110 E 3rd Street SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the ADA coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 1-800-833-8388 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. EXECUTIVE SESSION RECONVENE PUBLIC COMMENT For members of the public who wish to speak to the Council. Please limit your remarks to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Barb Tolbert City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #1 Attachment A COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 10, 2017 SUBJECT: Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ATTACHMENTS: ‐ Resolution for the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (DRAFT) ‐ 2018‐2023 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan – Project List DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Public Works EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Presentation of Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan for 2018‐2023. A Public Hearing on the 2018‐2023 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) to be held on July 17, 2017. HISTORY: Attached to this CAB is a copy of the City’s proposed Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for Council review. In accordance with State Law, every municipality must annually update their TIP for the following six years. Any road construction project that is to be considered for Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act or Transportation Improvement Board funding must be listed on the TIP. To be eligible for allocation of ½ ‐cent gas tax monies, projects must also be listed. The attached TIP represents projects that the City would like to have completed, or funded, over the next six years (2018 to 2023). Prior to adopting this plan it must be presented for a Public Hearing which will be held on July 17, 2017. ALTERNATIVES: ‐ Remand to staff for additional information ‐ Table pending further discussion RECOMMENDED MOTION: No action requested; workshop prior to public hearing only. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-XXX RESOLUTION NO. 2017-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON ADOPTING THE OFFICIAL SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ARLINGTON. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE: SECTION 1. That certain comprehensive Transportation Improvement Plan for the six years commencing July 1, 2018 as detailed in the attached “Exhibit A” is hereby adopted as the Official Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan for the City of Arlington. PASSED at a regular meeting of the City of Arlington, Washington held on the 17th day of July, 2017. CITY OF ARLINGTON _______________________________ Barbra Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Kristin Banfield, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney Project Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Fund Total 1 Arlington TIF Funds $0 PE $75,000 TBD Funds $75,000 $75,000 ROW $0 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $ 0 TIB Grant Funding $0 TOTAL $75,000 PSRC/STP Funding $0 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $0 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 2 Arlington TIF Funds $0 PE $372,000 TBD Funds $650,000 $770,000 $785,000 $800,000 $815,000 $830,000 $4,650,000 ROW $0 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $4,278,000 TIB Grant Funding $0 TOTAL $4,650,000 PSRC/STP Funding $0 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $0 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $650,000 $770,000 $785,000 $800,000 $815,000 $830,000 $4,650,000 3 Arlington TIF Funds $0 PE $47,500 TBD Funds $225,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $475,000 ROW $0 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $427,500 TIB Grant Funding $0 TOTAL $475,000 PSRC/STP Funding $0 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $0 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $225,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $475,000 4 Arlington TIF Funds $128,600 $411,000 $539,600 PE $370,000 TBD Funds $0 ROW $273,000 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $2,511,000 TIB Grant Funding $514,400 $2,100,000 $2,614,400 TOTAL $3,154,000 PSRC/STP Funding $0 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $0 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $643,000 $2,511,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,154,000 5 Arlington TIF Funds $258,611 $258,611 PE $318,565 TBD Funds $0 ROW $113,773 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $4,118,585 TIB Grant Funding $2,360,000 $2,360,000 TOTAL $4,550,923 PSRC/STP Funding $0 Oso Slide Funds $500,000 $500,000 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $1,432,312 $1,432,312 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $4,550,923 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,550,923 6 Arlington TIF Funds $133,000 $133,000 PE $20,775 TBD Funds $0 ROW $13,850 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $242,375 TIB Grant Funding $0 TOTAL $277,000 PSRC/STP Funding $144,000 $144,000 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $0 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $0 $277,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $277,000 City of Arlington Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (2018 - 2023) Transportation Capital Project Pavement Preservation Design Program Comments: Complete designs and specifications for Pavement Preservation contract work started in 2017. Work will include remaining roads scheduled for preservation, funding from Arlington TBD. Comments: Install roundabout at 204th St and 77th Ave intersection; prelim DRAFT layout completed by Perteet. Design and ROW in 2018, construction in 2019. Pavement Preservation Construction Program Comments: Program to preserve and maintain existing transportation infrastructure. 2018 and beyond is per developed contract plans and specifications, funding from Arlington TBD. Crosswalk/Road/Trail Safety Program Comments: Program to preserve and maintain the transportation system component that allows for the safe crossing of streets by peds and bikes (non-motorized users). 204th St and 77th Ave Roundabout (FIG-01 & FIG-02) Comments: Design & construct a new 3 lane industrial standard road and multiuse trail connecting 67th Ave NE to 74th St NE. TIB and Oso funding, other funding is from repurposed federal project, utilities, and CERB. 204th St Trail Segment (FIG-02) Arlington Valley Rd - 67th Ave to 204th St (FIG-02) Comments: Construct a multiuse (ped/bike) trail along the north side of 204th St between BNSF ROW and SR-9. Trail to include street lights and street scape furniture. Funding received from PSRC, other Ped funding pending. Arlington 6-year TIP (2018-2023)Page 1 of 4 Project Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Fund Total City of Arlington Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (2018 - 2023) Transportation Capital Project 7 Arlington TIF Funds $33,215 $33,215 PE $24,911 TBD Funds $0 ROW $16,608 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $290,631 TIB Grant Funding $0 TOTAL $332,150 PSRC/STP Funding $0 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $298,935 $298,935 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $0 $332,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $332,150 8 Arlington TIF Funds $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 PE $4,776,000 TBD Funds $0 ROW $3,980,000 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $31,044,000 TIB Grant Funding $0 TOTAL $39,800,000 PSRC/STP Funding $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $13,650,000 $13,650,000 $39,300,000 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $0 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $0 $0 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $13,900,000 $13,900,000 $39,800,000 9 Arlington TIF Funds $260,000 $260,000 PE $91,000 TBD Funds $0 ROW $32,500 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $1,176,500 TIB Grant Funding $0 TOTAL $1,300,000 PSRC/STP Funding $1,040,000 $1,040,000 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $0 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,300,000 $0 $1,300,000 10 Arlington TIF Funds $144,450 $144,450 PE $58,756 TBD Funds $0 ROW $43,536 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $967,708 TIB Grant Funding $925,550 $925,550 TOTAL $1,070,000 PSRC/STP Funding $0 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $0 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $0 $0 $0 $1,070,000 $0 $0 $1,070,000 11 Arlington TIF Funds $77,640 $52,000 $129,640 PE $238,473 TBD Funds $0 ROW $158,982 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $2,782,185 TIB Grant Funding $1,970,000 $580,000 $2,550,000 TOTAL $3,179,640 PSRC/STP Funding $0 Oso Slide Funds $400,000 $100,000 $500,000 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $0 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $0 $0 $0 $2,447,640 $732,000 $0 $3,179,640 12 Arlington TIF Funds $150,000 $150,000 $300,000 PE $48,750 TBD Funds $0 ROW $0 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $601,250 TIB Grant Funding $0 TOTAL $650,000 PSRC/STP Funding $0 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $175,000 $175,000 $350,000 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $325,000 $325,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,000 173rd St, Phase 1 & 2 (FIG-04) 40th Ave Signalization (FIG-04) Comments: Install Traffic Signal at 40th Ave/172nd St (SR- 531). Includes Community Transit bus pull-out and pedestrian crossing signals. 173rd St, Phase 3A (FIG-04) Comments: Construction of a new road, 173rd Ave, Phase 3, between 43rd Ave and 51st Ave (Airport Blvd). Other funding is $300,000 from Airport CIP. Comments: Construction of new road, 173rd Ave, btwn Smokey Pt Blvd and 43rd Ave (Ph1 & Ph2). Design complete, City owns Ph1 ROW. CED obtaining ROW for Phase 2. SR-531 Rehabilitation (FIG-04) Comments: Roadway and corridor improvements on 172nd St (SR-531) from 43rd Ave to Smokey Point Blvd. Eliminate left turn pockets and install solid median, also improve sidewalks, ped and bike facilities. SR-531 Widening Project (FIG-03) Comments: Project to widen SR-531 (172nd Street) between 43rd Ave and 67th Ave. Project funding from Connect Washington program and will be managed by WSDOT. City contribution as needed for street enhancements. 74th St Trail Segment (FIG-02) Comments: Construct a multiuse (ped/bike) trail along the west side of 74th Ave between north end of Arlington Valley Rd trail and 204th St trail segment. Funding pending from Washington State Bike & Ped grant. Arlington 6-year TIP (2018-2023)Page 2 of 4 Project Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Fund Total City of Arlington Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (2018 - 2023) Transportation Capital Project 13 Arlington TIF Funds $150,000 $150,000 $300,000 PE $65,000 TBD Funds $0 ROW $0 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $585,000 TIB Grant Funding $0 TOTAL $650,000 PSRC/STP Funding $0 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $175,000 $175,000 $350,000 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $325,000 $325,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,000 14 Arlington TIF Funds $650,000 $650,000 PE $1,200,000 TBD Funds $0 ROW $0 WSDOT Funds $3,500,000 $3,500,000 CN $8,800,000 TIB Grant Funding $0 TOTAL $10,000,000 PSRC/STP Funding $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $2,850,000 $2,850,000 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000,000 $0 $10,000,000 15 Arlington TIF Funds $50,000 $225,000 $275,000 PE $423,000 TBD Funds $0 ROW $634,500 WSDOT Funds $2,000,000 $2,000,000 CN $2,467,500 TIB Grant Funding $0 TOTAL $3,525,000 PSRC/STP Funding $750,000 $750,000 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $500,000 $500,000 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $0 $50,000 $3,475,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,525,000 16 Arlington TIF Funds $150,000 $150,000 PE $156,000 TBD Funds $0 ROW $0 WSDOT Funds $1,150,000 $1,150,000 CN $1,144,000 TIB Grant Funding $0 TOTAL $1,300,000 PSRC/STP Funding $0 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $0 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $0 $0 $1,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,300,000 17 Arlington TIF Funds $100,000 $100,000 PE $312,000 TBD Funds $0 ROW $0 WSDOT Funds $2,000,000 $2,000,000 CN $2,288,000 TIB Grant Funding $0 TOTAL $2,600,000 PSRC/STP Funding $500,000 $500,000 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $0 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 18 Arlington TIF Funds $35,000 $600,000 $635,000 PE $856,200 TBD Funds $0 ROW $713,500 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $5,565,300 TIB Grant Funding $3,500,000 $3,500,000 TOTAL $7,135,000 PSRC/STP Funding $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $0 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 $7,100,000 $7,135,000 Comments: Installation of improved signalization and channelization at SR530/SR9/Division intersection as described in the WSDOT SR9 Route Development Plan (original project cost est has been escalated). 89th Ave Project (FIG-08) Comments: Project to convert private road to public road, extend 89th Ave to 186th St NE, and to install multiuse trail. Road south end connection at 172nd St, road north connection at 186th St. NE. SR530/SR9/Division Signal (FIG-07) Comments: Design, permit and construct 2-lane road through Airport Business Park extending from SR-531 to Airport Blvd. Prelim DRAFT layout completed by Perteet and approved by Airport. 47th Ave in Airport Business Park (FIG-04) Comments: Design and construction of a roundabout at the SR530/SPB intersection. This project will be designed in coordination with WSDOT, Stillaguamish Tribe, City of Arlington, and Island Crossing property owners. Comments: Develop alignment to reroute 211th to SR530 via 59th, design road and trail, construct frontage road and right- in/right-out at SR-530 SR530 - 211th Pl NE Roundabout (FIG-06) Comments: Installation of signal and improvements at SR9/SR530 and Division as described in the WSDOT SR9 Route Development Plan (original project cost est has been escalated). SR530/Burke Signalization (FIG-07) Island Crossing Improvements (FIG-05) Arlington 6-year TIP (2018-2023)Page 3 of 4 Project Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Fund Total City of Arlington Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (2018 - 2023) Transportation Capital Project 19 Arlington TIF Funds $695,000 $695,000 PE $240,000 TBD Funds $0 ROW $0 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $1,760,000 TIB Grant Funding $0 TOTAL $2,000,000 PSRC/STP Funding $0 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $855,000 $855,000 Other Funds $450,000 $450,000 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $2,000,000 20 Arlington TIF Funds $167,500 $167,500 PE $837,500 TBD Funds $0 ROW $0 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $ 0 TIB Grant Funding $0 TOTAL $837,500 PSRC/STP Funding $0 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $670,000 $670,000 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $0 $0 $0 $0 $837,500 $0 $837,500 21 Arlington TIF Funds $65,000 $65,000 PE $33,600 TBD Funds $0 ROW $12,000 WSDOT Funds $0 CN $434,400 TIB Grant Funding $0 TOTAL $480,000 PSRC/STP Funding $0 Oso Slide Funds $0 Developer Funded $0 Other Funds $415,000 $415,000 SUBTOTAL THIS PROJECT $0 $0 $480,000 $0 $0 $0 $480,000 $6,793,923 $4,640,150 $12,090,000 $12,367,640 $27,669,500 $24,480,000 $88,041,213 $687,211 $927,215 $440,000 $917,090 $1,414,500 $950,000 $5,336,016 $950,000 $820,000 $835,000 $850,000 $865,000 $880,000 $5,200,000 $0 $0 $3,150,000 $0 $3,500,000 $2,000,000 $8,650,000 $2,874,400 $2,100,000 $0 $2,895,550 $580,000 $3,500,000 $11,949,950 $0 $144,000 $6,750,000 $6,000,000 $17,690,000 $17,150,000 $47,734,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $400,000 $100,000 $0 $1,000,000 Developer Funded $0 $0 $0 $855,000 $0 $0 $855,000 $1,782,312 $648,935 $915,000 $450,000 $3,520,000 $0 $7,316,247 Highland Drive Sidewalk/Trail Completion (FIG-9) PSRC/STP Funding $ 1 Mil Oso Slide Funds Other Funding Arlington TIF Funds TBD Funds WSDOT Funds TIB Grant Funding TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Comments: Project to install sidewalks on 2nd St (French Ave to Washington Ave) where none exist. Project funding includes grant from Washington State Pedestrian Safety grant program. Comments: Project to complete missing sidewalk and install multiuse trail along Highland Drive. Project pending award of grant funding from Washington State Pedestrian Safety grant. 2nd Street Sidewalk Completion (FIG-10) 186th St NE - SR9 to City Limits (FIG-08) Comments: New 2 lane road with sidewalk on both sides. Joint developer & City funded project using ASD traffic mitigation funds. Arlington 6-year TIP (2018-2023)Page 4 of 4 Ma p s a n d GIS da ta a re distributed “AS-IS” w itho ut w a rra n ties o f a n y kin d, either exp ress o r im p lied, in cludin g but n o t lim ited to w a rra n ties o f suita bility fo r a p a rticula r p urp o se o r use. Ma p da taa re co m p iled fro m a va riety o f so urces w hich m a y co n ta in erro rs a n d users w ho rely up o n the in fo rm a tio n do so a t their o w n risk. Users a gree to in dem n ify, defen d, a n d ho ld ha rm less the Cityo f Arlin gto n fo r a n y a n d a ll lia bility o f a n y n a ture a risin g o ut o f o r resultin g fro m the la ck o f a ccura cy o r co rrectn ess o f the da ta , o r the use o f the da ta p resen ted in the m a p s. Figure 016 Yea r TIP 2018-2023 Pro ject # 4 6/27/2017 a kc 204th77thRo un da bo ut_8.5x11_17 City of Arlington Da te: File: Ca rto gra p her: ±Sca le: 204th St NE and 77th Ave NE Roundabout 1 in ch = 100 feet ±City of Arlington Da te : File : Ca rtog ra phe r:Ma ps a nd GIS d a ta a re d is tribute d “AS-IS” without wa rra ntie s of a ny kind , e ithe r e xpre s s or im plie d , includ ing but not lim ite dto wa rra ntie s of s uita bility for a pa rticula r purpos e or us e . Ma p d a ta a re com pile d from a va rie ty of s ource s which m a yconta in e rrors a nd us e rs who re ly upon the inform a tion d o s o a t the ir own ris k. Us e rs a g re e to ind e m nify, d e fe nd , a nd holdha rm le s s the City of Arling ton for a ny a nd a ll lia bility of a ny na ture a ris ing out of or re s ulting from the la ck of a ccura cy orcorre ctne s s of the d a ta , or the us e of the d a ta pre s e nte d in the m a ps . Sca le :204th_ SR9Inte rs e ction_ 77Ave _ 8.5x11_ 17 6/27/2017 a kc Aerial flown in 2015 Fig ure 026 Ye a r TIP 2018-2023Proje ct #4 #5 #6 & #7 1 inch = 650 fe e t Project #7 Proposed 74th AveTrail Segment71S T A V E N E 74TH A V E N E 204TH AVE N E Project #6 204th StTrail Segment ?| Project #4 FutureRoundabout(see Figure 01) Project #5 Arlington Valley Roadand Trail (12 ft wide)Project #5 Arlington Valley Roadand Trail (12 ft wide) Le g e nd Tra ffic Sig na l (Propos e d ) Roa d Ce nte rline s Ra iline Future Tra ils Maps an d GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” w itho ut w arran ties o f an y kin d, either express o r im plied, in cludin g but n o t lim ited to w arran ties o f suitability fo r a particular purpo se o r use. Map dataare co m piled fro m a variety o f so urces w hich m ay co n tain erro rs an d users w ho rely upo n the in fo rm atio n do so at their o w n risk. Users agree to in dem n ify, defen d, an d ho ld harm less the Cityo f Arlin gto n fo r an y an d all liability o f an y n ature arisin g o ut o f o r resultin g fro m the lack o f accuracy o r co rrectn ess o f the data, o r the use o f the data presen ted in the m aps. 43 r d A v e N E 51 s t A v e N E 59 t h A v e N E 67 t h A v e N E SR-531 Project #8 SR 531 Widening Project Figure 036 Year TIP 2018-2023 Pro ject #8 6/27/2017 akc SR531_ 8.5x11_ 17 City of Arlington 1 in ch = 1,000 feetScale: Date: File: Carto grapher: ±!Ro un dabo ut Lo catio n SR531 Widen in g Pro ject Aerial flown in 2015 Proposed Local Access P h ase 1 P h ase 2 P h ase 3A New Sig nalized Intersec tionSR531 Road Im provem ents 40th Ave (P roposed) Maps and GIS data are distrib u ted “AS-IS” with ou t warranties of any kind, eith er express or im plied, inc lu ding b u t not lim ited to warranties of su itab ility for a partic u lar pu rpose or u se. Map dataare c om piled from a variety of sou rces wh ic h m ay c ontain errors and u sers wh o rely u pon th e inform ation do so at th eir own risk. Users ag ree to indem nify, defend, and h old h arm less th e Cityof Arling ton for any and all liab ility of any natu re arising ou t of or resu lting from th e lack of ac cu rac y or c orrectness of th e data, or th e u se of th e data presented in th e m aps. Fig u re 046 Year TIP 2018-2023P roject #9 #10 #11 #12 & #13 6/27/2017 akc 173rdStP H1&2_8.5x11_17 City of Arlington Sc ale: Date: File: Cartog raph er: ±Aerial flown in 2015 Future AirportBusiness Park Development Everett Com m u nity Colleg e Stillag u am ish Ath letics Clu b FUTURE 173rd ST Fu tu re Sig nal New 100Room Hotel New Medic al Center Project #12 173rd St, Phase 3A Project #13 47th Ave inAirport Bus Park Project #10 40th Ave Signalization Project #9 SR 531Rehabilitation #11 173rd St, Phase 1 & 2Project #11 173rd St, Phase 1 & 2 (Phase 3A) P ending Developm ents 173rd Proposed Road (Phase 1)(Phase 2) 178TH PL NE 39 T H D R N E 177TH PL NE 177TH PL NE SM O K E Y P O I N T B L V D 51 S T A V E N E 174TH PL NE 175TH PL NE 178TH PL NE 175TH PL NE 176TH PL NE 173RD PL AIRPOR T B L V D 172ND ST NE 43 R D A V E N E SR 531 38TH DR NE 176TH PL NE 1 inc h = 550 feet Maps an d GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” w itho ut w arran ties o f an y kin d, either express o r im plied, in cludin g but n o t lim ited to w arran ties o f suitability fo r a particular purpo se o r use. Map dataare co m piled fro m a variety o f so urces w hich m ay co n tain erro rs an d users w ho rely upo n the in fo rm atio n do so at their o w n risk. Users agree to in dem n ify, defen d, an d ho ld harm less the Cityo f Arlin gto n fo r an y an d all liability o f an y n ature arisin g o ut o f o r resultin g fro m the lack o f accuracy o r co rrectn ess o f the data, o r the use o f the data presen ted in the m aps. Project #14 Island CrossingImprovements SMOKEY POINT BLVD SR 530 27 T H A V E N E CD530 §¨¦5 Figure 056 Year TIP 2018-2023 Pro ject #14 1 o f 1 6/27/2017 StillyRo un dabo ut_ 8.5x11_ 17 City of Arlington 1 in ch = 450 feetSheet: Date: Scale: File: ±Ro ad Im pro vem en ts Project Site Island Kitsap Skagit Snohomish £¤2 £¤2 §¨¦5 Vicin ity Map Aerial flown in 2015 Ma p s a n d GIS da ta a re distributed “AS-IS” w itho ut w a rra n ties o f a n y kin d, either exp ress o r im p lied, in cludin g but n o t lim ited to w a rra n ties o f suita bility fo r a p a rticula r p urp o se o r use. Ma p da taa re co m p iled fro m a va riety o f so urces w hich m a y co n ta in erro rs a n d users w ho rely up o n the in fo rm a tio n do so a t their o w n risk. Users a gree to in dem n ify, defen d, a n d ho ld ha rm less the Cityo f Arlin gto n fo r a n y a n d a ll lia bility o f a n y n a ture a risin g o ut o f o r resultin g fro m the la ck o f a ccura cy o r co rrectn ess o f the da ta , o r the use o f the da ta p resen ted in the m a p s. ! 67th A v e N E 211th PL NE SR 530 Project #15 SR 530 and 211th Roundabout Figure 066 Yea r TIP 2018-2023 Pro ject #15 6/27/2017 a kc SR530_211thPl_8.5x11_17 City of Arlington Da te: File: Ca rto gra p her: ±!Ro un da bo ut Lo ca tio n City Lim its Aerial flown in 2015 Sca le:1 in ch = 500 feet ±City of Arlington Date: File: Cartographer:Maps and GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” w ithout w arranties of any kind, either express or im plied, including but not lim itedto w arranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use. Map data are com piled from a variety of sources w hich m aycontain errors and users w ho rely upon the inform ation do so at their ow n risk. U sers agree to indem nify , defend, and holdharm less the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy orcorrectness of the data, or the use of the data presented in the m aps. Scale:SR530_SR9Signalization_8.5x11_17 6/27/2017 ak c 1 inch = 200 feetAerial flown in 2015 !New Signal and Im provem ent Locations Project Area ! ! SR 530 SR 9 Division St Burke Ave Project #16 SR 9 and Burke StNew Signal Project #17 SR 9 and SR 530Signal Improvement Figure 076 Year TIP 2018-2023 Project #16 & #17 ±City of Arlington Date: File: Cartographer:Maps an d GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” w ithout w arran ties of an y k in d, either express or im plied, in cludin g but n ot lim itedto w arran ties of suitability for a particular purpose or use. Map data are com piled from a variety of sources w hich m aycon tain errors an d users w ho rely upon the in form ation do so at their ow n risk . Users agree to in dem n ify, defen d, an d holdharm less the City of Arlin gton for an y an d all liability of an y n ature arisin g out of or resultin g from the lack of accuracy orcorrectn ess of the data, or the use of the data presen ted in the m aps. Scale:89thAve_8.5x11_17 6/27/2017 ak c 1 in ch = 750 feetAerial flown in 2015 TIP Road Project City Lim its 186th St NE SR 9 89 t h A v e N E 172nd St NE Project #19 186th St NERoad Extension Project #18 89th Road Project Figure 086 Y ear TIP 2018-2023 Project #18 & #19 Ma p s a n d GIS da ta a re distributed “AS-IS” w itho ut w a rra n ties o f a n y kin d, either exp ress o r im p lied, in cludin g but n o t lim ited to w a rra n ties o f suita bility fo r a p a rticula r p urp o se o r use. Ma p da taa re co m p iled fro m a va riety o f so urces w hich m a y co n ta in erro rs a n d users w ho rely up o n the in fo rm a tio n do so a t their o w n risk. Users a gree to in dem n ify, defen d, a n d ho ld ha rm less the Cityo f Arlin gto n fo r a n y a n d a ll lia bility o f a n y n a ture a risin g o ut o f o r resultin g fro m the la ck o f a ccura cy o r co rrectn ess o f the da ta , o r the use o f the da ta p resen ted in the m a p s. Project #20 Highland Dr Sidewalk & Trail S F R E N C H A V E E HIGHLAND DR S O L Y M P I C A V E E JACKSON ST S D U N H A M A V E Figure 096 Yea r TIP 2018-2023 Pro ject #20 1 o f 1 6/27/2017 Highla n dTra il_8.5x11_17 City of Arlington 1 in ch = 250 feetSheet: Da te: Sca le: File: ±FutureTra ils Highla n d Dr Sidewa lk Aerial flown in 2015 Maps an d GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” w ith o ut w arran ties o f an y kin d, eith er express o r im plied, in cludin g but n o t lim ited to w arran ties o f suitability fo r a particular purpo se o r use. Map dataare co m piled fro m a variety o f so urces w h ich m ay co n tain erro rs an d users w h o rely upo n th e in fo rm atio n do so at th eir o w n risk. Users agree to in dem n ify, defen d, an d h o ld h arm less th e Cityo f Arlin gto n fo r an y an d all liability o f an y n ature arisin g o ut o f o r resultin g fro m th e lack o f accuracy o r co rrectn ess o f th e data, o r th e use o f th e data presen ted in th e m aps. Project #21 2nd St SidewalkProject #21 2nd St Sidewalk E 3RD ST E 1ST ST N GIFFORD AVE N L E N O R E A V E N WASHINGTON AVE N FRENCH AVE N STILLAGUAMISH AVE E 2ND ST Figure 106 Year TIP 2018-2023 Pro ject # 21 1 o f 1 6/27/2017 E2n dStTrail_ 8.5x11_ 17 City of Arlington 1 in ch = 150 feetSh eet: Date: Scale: File: ±Sidew alk (pro po sed)Aerial flown in 2015 City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #2 Attachment B COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 10, 2017 SUBJECT: Public Art Proposals‐ Murals of owls at Terrace Park and plywood painted cows at Jensen Park ATTACHMENTS: Photos DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Recreation EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Public Art Proposals: 1. Arlington Arts Council has submitted a proposal to paint an owl mural on the east side of Terrace Park restroom and the eave of the roof of the shelter. 2. Arlington Arts Council would like to place 5 wooden cows on the fence at the Jensen Park parking lot. HISTORY: In accordance with the public art policy, this project has been reviewed and recommended by the Public Art Committee and PARC. ALTERNATIVES Do not accept some or all of the public art pieces. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Workshop; discussion only. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #3 Attachment C COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 10, 2017 SUBJECT: Haller Park Restroom Project Acceptance Letter ATTACHMENTS: Construction Acceptance Letter DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community & Economic Development – Marc Hayes EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $330,433.69 BUDGET CATEGORY: 594 76 62 15 BUDGETED AMOUNT: LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Haller Park Restroom and Concession Project Closeout, attached is the final paperwork. HISTORY: The project bid twice and each time the bid exceeded the budgeted amount. The City opted to purchase a pre‐fabricated concrete restroom structure from CXT Inc. through a Washington State contract, which was more cost effective than a conventional site built structure. The project was funded with $196,936.00 Community Development Block Grant, $50,000.00 Snohomish County REET 2 funds and the remaining $83,497.69 from City park funds. ALTERNATIVES Remand to staff for addition information Table pending additional discussion RECOMMENDED MOTION: Workshop; discussion only. At the July 3, Council Meeting the proposed motion will be ”I move to accept the Haller Park Restroom project closure and grant authority for the Mayor to sign the Construction Acceptance Letter. City of Arlington Community & Economic Development 18204 59th Avenue NE - Arlington, WA, 98223 - 360-403-3551 – www.arlingtonwa.gov Date: July 3, 2017 To: Mayor Barbara Tolbert and Arlington City Council From: Marc Hayes, Interim Community and Economic Development Director Subject: PROJECT ACCEPTANCE Project Name: Haller Park Restrooms and Concession Project No.: Project P02.382.1 Staff has certified the construction performed by CXT, Inc., and Backstrom Curb and Sidewalk as complete and in compliance with the terms of the construction contract as awarded by the City Council. The final accounting of the cost of the project is as follows: Contract Award Amount $ 330,433.69___ Change Orders Added $ ________ Change Orders Deducted $________________________ Over‐runs/Under‐runs $ _______________ Final Contract Cost $ 330,433.69___ The contract award amount includes the cost of CXT, Inc., Backstrom Curb and Sidewalk and supplies required by staff to complete the project. Staff recommends official acceptance by the City. If you concur, please sign below: On behalf of the City of Arlington, I accept the construction performed under the contract award by the Arlington City Council for Haller Park Restrooms and Concessions. Mayor Barbara Tolbert Date cc: City Council Kristin Garcia, Finance Director City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #4 Attachment D COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 10, 2017 SUBJECT: Bill Quake Memorial Field Ball Park Project Closeout ATTACHMENTS: Construction Acceptance Letter DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community & Economic Development – Marc Hayes EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $665,622.99 BUDGET CATEGORY: 594 76 63 14 BUDGETED AMOUNT: LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Hellas Construction, Inc. has completed the Bill Quake Memorial Park Ball Field Project, attached is the final paperwork. HISTORY: This project renovated the north and south baseball fields. The renovation included drainage, irrigation, synthetic turf infields and ADA compliant asphalt pedestrian walkways. The project was funded with $250,000.00 Snohomish County Recreation Conservation Office, $350,000.00 Snohomish County REET 2 funds and the remaining $65,622.99 from the city’s park funds. ALTERNATIVES Remand to staff for addition information Table pending additional discussion RECOMMENDED MOTION: Workshop; discussion only. Consent agenda approval and authority for the Mayor to sign the Construction Acceptance Letter for the Bill Quake Memorial Park Ball Field Project is scheduled for the July 3rd, 2017 Council meeting. City of Arlington Community & Economic Development 18204 59th Avenue NE - Arlington, WA, 98223 - 360-403-3551 – www.arlingtonwa.gov Date: July 3, 2017 To: Mayor Barbara Tolbert and Arlington City Council From: Marc Hayes, Interim Community and Economic Development Director Subject: PROJECT ACCEPTANCE Project Name: Bill Quake Memorial Park Ball Fields Project No.: Project P02.416 Staff has certified the construction performed by Hellas Construction, Inc. as complete and in compliance with the terms of the construction contract as awarded by the City Council. The final accounting of the cost of the project is as follows: Contract Award Amount $ 598,336.00___ Change Orders Added $ ________ Change Orders Deducted $________________________ Over‐runs/Under‐runs $ _______________ WA Sales Tax $________55,486.99_____ Final Contract Cost $ 665,622.99 _ The contract award amount did not include sales tax and subsequently was paid by the city in addition to the awarded amount. Staff recommends official acceptance by the City. If you concur, please sign below: On behalf of the City of Arlington, I accept the construction performed under the contract award by the Arlington City Council for Bill Quake Memorial Park Ball Fields. Mayor Barbara Tolbert Date cc: City Council Kristin Garcia, Finance Director City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #5 Attachment E COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 10, 2017 SUBJECT: Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Discussion ATTACHMENTS: Information from Facilitator Karen Reed DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Administration; contact Paul Ellis – 360‐403‐4603 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A BUDGET CATEGORY: BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Discussion regarding the potential Regional Fire Authority with the City of Marysville and Fire District 12. HISTORY: Council approved Resolution 2016‐011 to form a regional fire protection service authority (RFA) planning committee with Marysville in August 2016. The planning committee has been meeting since November 2016. ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Workshop; discussion only. 1 of 6 City of Marysville, City of Arlington and Fire District 12 – Regional Fire Authority Discussions Summary of Themes from Interviews/Surveys of Councilmembers, Commissioners and Lead Staff June 21, 2017 Prepared by Karen Reed Introduction In May, 2017, the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Planning Committee composed of elected officials from the City of Marysville, the City of Arlington and Fire District 12 hired facilitator/consultant Karen Reed to explore the next steps in the RFA discussions that have been ongoing for the last several months. Karen recommended that this exploration begin with surveying all members of the Planning Committee, all other Councilmembers, and lead staff from each jurisdiction. All Councilmembers, Commissioners, the two Fire Chiefs and two City Chief Administrators were invited to complete a short survey and forward it to Karen, or to speak with her by phone. Of those invited to complete the survey, all responded. The Deputy Chief from Arlington also submitted a response. There were a total of 24 respondents. The survey results were designed to identify priorities and concerns of the respondents with respect to the RFA, and assist in developing recommendations for whether and how to move forward. To promote frankness in responses, the commitment was made that responses will not be published and no statements or specific positions will be attributed to any individual. The exception to the non‐ attribution rule is a summary statement from the Chiefs developed after discussion with Karen, and presented in this document: the Chiefs opinions cannot effectively be hidden by the “non‐attribution” rule. A couple of important caveats: this summary subjective to the extent it is dependent on Karen’s interpretation of what respondents say to her and/or write in responses. Most of the respondents chose to respond in writing rather than by telephone interview (the latter tends to give a richer sense of priorities and concerns). A few respondents did not answer all questions. Points of Agreement between the Three Jurisdictions Nearly all respondents observed that there is strong public support for the level of fire and EMS services in their respective jurisdictions. Several noted, however, that that the public probably does not have information to judge where there may be weaknesses in existing services, or to know about the risks to longer‐term sustainability of the operations. Most expressed that they have no knowledge about the fire and EMS service levels provided by the other operational group. Nearly all respondents also place a very high value on the importance of securing a sustainable model for affordable fire and EMS service delivery. This was the highest rated item of eight different goals/issues surveyed. All but one respondent placed importance on the idea of securing opportunities for efficiency in Fire and EMS advice delivery over time through regionalization. 2 of 6 Most of the City elected officials expressed concern that neither efficiencies nor cost savings have been demonstrated through the staff presentations to date. Motivations: What is Important to Each Group? The survey included a section to rank the importance of eight different issues. While this was the last question in the survey, discussing it first can potentially illuminate the reasons for why people responded as they did on other questions—or raise interesting questions for further exploration. For these eight issues, force ranking was not required. Rather, each respondent was asked to rate each issue as to its importance from 1‐10, with 10 being the most important. As noted above, the issue of “developing a sustainable model for affordable service delivery” was the most highly rated issue: nearly all respondents gave it a “10.” On all other seven issues, there was an extremely wide range of ratings amongst each jurisdictions’ respondents. There were also some interesting differences in how each group elected officials rated the eight items. An overview is provided below: 1.Improving service levels. This is an important motivator for all three groups. A strong majority of respondents from all three agencies rated this a 7 or higher. 2.Stabilizing service levels through more funding that is stable over time. Again, a strong majority of respondent from all 3 agencies rated this a 7 or higher. 3.Relieving pressure on my City’s general fund. This was a significantly more important issue for Arlington elected officials than for Marysville respondents. Several Marysville elected officials noted that their budget is not under much pressure, and/or referenced the possibility of creating a City fire department (interestingly, some Marysville elected officials noted that an earlier study on this subject had indicated a City fire department was not feasible, but others felt the study concluded the opposite.) 4.A cost neutral outcome (or savings) for taxpayers in my jurisdiction overall. There was basically no consensus on this issue in any jurisdiction. A handful felt it was extremely important, some said it was generally important, some noted it was impossible, some rated it as a neutral “5”, and some gave it the lowest possible rating. 5.Securing opportunities for efficiency in service delivery over time through regionalization. The vast majority of respondents in all three jurisdictions rated this a 7 or higher. 6.Securing an equitable structure for the RFA governance board. The word “equitable” is purposely vague, since different people define equity differently. So, without more discussion, one cannot determine what the preferred outcome is. A majority of elected officials from all three jurisdictions rated this issue an 8 or higher. 3 of 6 7.Maintaining local control over fire and EMS service delivery. There was basically no consensus on this issue in any jurisdiction: elected officials were widely divided on the issue. Those that supported the idea of an RFA tended to place a lower importance on this issue, and vice versa. 8.Developing a sustainable model for affordable service delivery. As noted above, this was the most highly rated item. All but five respondents gave this a “10” and the other five rated it an 8 or 9. As yet unanswered, however, is whether the group can reach agreement on how to define “sustainable” or “affordable.” Overall Level of Support for Creating a Marysville‐Arlington‐FD 12 RFA Individual respondents have widely varying opinions on the importance of creating an RFA. A very few respondents offered the alternative of simply doing specific interlocal service agreements—to recover costs of mutual aid responses, or provide certain administrative services. There is some concern about the three agencies wanting different things from an RFA, but there is no groundswell of opinion that any one party should go its own way or that the effort should be disbanded. The focus in the survey responses is on figuring out whether the various goals and priorities of the respondents can in fact be addressed by an RFA. Most feel they don’t know the answer to this yet. Marysville Mayor and Council: A minority of the Marysville elected officials are strong supporters of trying to secure agreement on an RFA between the three jurisdictions. Most of the elected officials are open to the possibility but feel there may be better options and/or have a variety of concerns about the concept. A minority appear to be basically opposed to an RFA Arlington Mayor and Council: Similar to Marysville, a minority of the elected official group are strong supporters of the RFA, at least conceptually. A majority of the elected official group are not convinced that an RFA is the best solution. Overall, their views were somewhat more skeptical of the idea of an RFA than those expressed by Marysville. A minority appear to be basically opposed to an RFA. Fire District 12 Commissioners: The Fire District 12 commissioners are strong supporters of the RFA concept. They raised concerns about the process and/or some potential outcomes. Fire Chiefs: Both Chiefs strongly support the concept of an RFA as the preferred means to secure sufficient and sustainable funding for a combined operation over time. They believe that an RFA can deliver immediate improvements in service levels, and over time can secure substantial cost avoidance and efficiencies in operations. Both Chiefs believe that adequate funding of an RFA, based on current expenses, facilities/equipment needs and reserve levels, will require a full $2.00 property tax funding level (EMS levy and fire levy combined). (Note: this statement has been reviewed and approved by Chief Stedman and Chief McFall as an accurate reflection of their views). Process Concerns Three points stand out on this topic: An observation that the relationship between City of Marysville elected officials and Fire District 12 elected officials has been strained by the last round of RFA discussions. 4 of 6 A general sense that full and frank dialogue has not been forthcoming at the table between the three organizations—for a variety of reasons‐‐ and that is a barrier to reaching agreement. An overall view by the elected officials and administrators that the Chiefs have not effectively “made the case” for why an RFA is the best outcome moving forward. The components of that “case” differ for different members. In terms of communicating the work of the planning committee out to others, most elected officials observed that periodic email summaries or short briefings at council meeting would be an appropriate way to ensure elected officials remain up to date on the deliberations. Governance City elected officials were quite divided on the importance of maintaining local control over fire and EMS services. As noted above, those who are more skeptical about an RFA tended to give a higher rating to the importance of local control. A majority of elected officials from all three jurisdictions gave a rating of 8 or higher to the issue of “securing an equitable structure for the RFA governance Board.” Proportional Board Representation based on population of the three jurisdictions: A strong majority of the Marysville and Fire District 12 elected officials support a consolidated board structured based on proportional representation—at least if this remains a three‐way discussion. In contrast, a majority of Arlington elected officials are more concerned about having “equal representation” for the two cities, or to ensure Arlington is “not overpowered by Marysville.” City Council Members Serving on Governance Board: A majority of Marysville elected officials stated that they want city councilmembers to serve on the RFA board. This position was expressly stated by only one Arlington elected official, but several councilmembers from both cities expressed the importance of RFA board members understanding the full context of how taxing decisions by an RFA will impact the local communities. Funding an RFA As noted above, sustainable, affordable funding is a high priority for all respondents. However, “sustainable” and “affordable” are not yet defined. A small number of respondents expressed concern about the sustainability of the RFA financial model—noting the need for recurring levy lid lifts or questioning whether $2.00 would be sufficient funding over time. Cost savings and Efficiencies. A very small number of City elected officials expressed that immediate cost savings are a necessary component of an RFA solution. In contrast, the majority of elected officials see this as a longer‐term proposition; they expressed an interest in ensuring an improvement of service levels under RFA and being able to demonstrate that an RFA will enable administrative and operational efficiencies over time. Several expressed the position that whatever the funding level is, the group must be able to justify the cost to the public in terms of demonstrated service level improvements. 5 of 6 Funding Levels. A majority of Marysville elected officials view a $2.00 funding level as problematic, and expressed that is it important to them that an RFA be funded below that amount. Arlington elected officials were focused more on the challenge of funding sustainable service levels. One elected official from Arlington and one from Fire District 12 explicitly supported the $2.00 funding level. Funding Options. There was no interest expressed in pursuing a fire benefit charge as part of the initial funding for an RFA. A couple of individuals thought a fire benefit charge might be helpful in the future. RFA Services and Facilities Many ideas, not enough data. Elected officials offered many ideas for how services could be improved or made more efficient through an RFA. However, many noted that their ideas had not been reflected in the presentations from the Chiefs, and/or they would want to see if their ideas were borne out by actual data. As noted above, improving service levels was an important issues for most—but not all ‐‐ respondents. Among the ideas and questions most frequently mentioned in terms of services and facilities: We must show an increase in service levels in order to justify an increase in cost What specific improvement in service levels can be secured? Combine the two stations currently serving Smokey Point Administrative consolidation, for example, an RFA will not need 2 chiefs What is the future of Station 61 (a leased facility)? Ability for the RFA to provide fire marshal services to Arlington What efficiencies or economies of scale can be demonstrated? Conclusions The path forward on an RFA including the three jurisdictions will not be easy, but it is not impossible. While there are tensions between the three agencies, and frustration about the lack of progress made in discussions over the last six to seven months, the surveys do not suggest a strong desire for any one party to leave the table, or to end the discussions. There is a lot of skepticism and many unanswered questions, particularly on the part of the city elected officials. That said, all three agencies share some important values and priorities‐‐a necessary foundation for a lasting agreement. It would be helpful to do some work to expand upon that foundation of shared values and priorities through further discussion to help develop a consensus around the goals of an RFA and reaffirm whether each agency still wants to proceed. In particular, there is strong consensus as to the importance of developing a sustainable model for affordable service delivery. As yet unanswered, however, is whether the group can reach agreement on how to define “sustainable” or “affordable.” There are some important points on which the agencies diverge internally, key among these being the openness to cost increases in exchange for other benefits. For cities in particular this is a multi‐ dimensional question: What is the cost taxpayers will be asked to pay for fire and EMS service with an 6 of 6 RFA, as compared to the current operational model? What is the net impact on city taxpayers after an RFA levy is added but the city is no longer responsible for funding fire & EMS service? As between the agencies, the issue of proportional governance seems fairly settled with Marysville and Fire District 12—at least if this remains a three‐way discussion‐‐ but less so with Arlington. Progress from here will require that the Chiefs provide further explanation and detail as to the service level improvements, efficiencies, economies of scale, and cost avoidance that they believe can be secured through an RFA ‐‐ and when those benefits would be realized. It will also require each jurisdiction to evaluate the trade‐offs of the cost and service levels provided under current operations as compared to the cost and service levels potentially offered by an RFA. City of Marysville, City of Arlington, Fire District 12 June 29, 2017 Recommended Next Steps Prepared by Karen Reed Based on the feedback in the surveys and interviews of the two City Councils and the Fire District Commissioners, the Chiefs, and lead City staff, I recommend that in the next month, each legislative body convene to discuss the following three questions, and be prepared to discuss their views at the July RFA Planning Committee Meeting. 1.Is your jurisdiction willing to continue the RFA discussion with the other two jurisdictions? Knowing what you know, do you see enough positive potential for an RFA to be willing to work over the next several months to develop an RFA plan involving all three jurisdictions? 2.What values and principles are important to your jurisdiction in this discussion? 3.Are there any process changes you would recommend to make future deliberations more constructive? Addendum: At last evening’s RFA Planning Committee meeting, the group agreed that it would be most helpful if each jurisdiction could share their answers to these three questions in writing with one another in the next couple of weeks so that, assuming all three want to proceed, we can make the July meeting as productive as possible. Marysville Fire District – FD 12 – Marysville – Arlington: Comparative 2017 Expenditures/Levies v.6.21.17 # Item Marysville Fire Dept. Arlington Fire Dept. 1 2017 Operating Expense budget for fire service operations w/in jurisdictional boundaries. Defined as the Total 2017 Ops. Budget… Excluding o debt service o 2017 capital acquisitions $ 18,353,501 $_5,695,952 FD 12 Marysville 2 General Operations Budget support expressed as a property tax levy rate $1.18 $1.18 $1.05 3 EMS levy rate $0.39 $0.39 $0.42 4 Reserves contribution in 2017 Budget expressed as levy rate if it were paid for by the member agencies $0.29 $0.29 $0.10 5 Total levy rate equivalent supporting Net 2017 Operating Budget (defined as operating levy rate + EMS levy + reserves spending equivalent) $1.86 $1.86 $1.57 6 Transport Revenues, expressed as levy rate $0.29 $0.29 $0.44 7 Contract Revenues, expressed as levy rate $0.07 $0.07 $0.44 8 Other revenues (investment interest, rents, misc svc fees, etc.) expressed as a levy rate $0.02 $0.02 $0.06 9 Total Net 2017 Operating Budget as a levy rate for the jurisdiction $2.24 $2.24 $2.51 10 Total Levy Rate Equivalent in Row 5 expressed in Dollars $ 3,309,997 $11,946,842 $3,557,146 11 Total Levy Rate Equivalent in Row 5 expressed as a percentage of City 2017 General Fund N/A 24.9% 23% 12 2017 fire‐related debt service obligation N/A N/A $691,650 # Item Marysville Fire Dept. Arlington Fire Dept. 13 Brief description of fire‐related debt service: applied to fund what Equipment/facilities? Year debt scheduled to retired? N/A N/A Fire Station 46 Maturity – 2030 Outstanding Balance ‐ $2,755,000 Apparatus – Engine/Ladder Maturity – 2025 Outstanding Balance ‐ $1,422,220 FD 12 Marysville 14 Annual debt service expense expressed as property tax rate within the jurisdiction. N/A N/A $0.31 15 2017 estimated ending Fund Balances dedicated for Fire& EMS $12,195,000 (MFD & FD12 Funds Combined) $273,000 16 Average residential home value $281,129 $248,700 $245,400 17 2016 Population (1) 14,512 64,940 18,620 18 Assessed Value MFD Combined Value $8,210,322,220i $2,265,698,000 $1,785,173,123ii $6,425,149,097 Both Net 2017 Budgets combined (Row 5), expressed as a tax rate across all 3 jurisdictions: $1.80/ $1,000 A.V. If Arlington debt service is added: $1.86/$1,000 A.V. i FD 12 EMS Levy Assessed Valued Used in calculating combined MFD Value ii Regular Levy amount (slightly less than EMS levy amount) (1) 2016 Population Data obtained from the Office of Financial Management RFA Comparison Chart‐‐prepared by staff from Snohomish County Fire District 1 and City of Lynnwood date: March 2017 1 Renton Region Fire Authority West Benton Fire & Rescue North Mason Regional Fire Authority Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (formerly Kent RFA) Southeast Thurston Fire Authority Member Agencies City of Renton, King County FPD #25 City of Prosser, Benton County FD#3 Mason County FD #2 & FD #8 City of Kent, King County FPD #37 City of Yelm, Thurston County FPD #2 & #4 Year Est. 2015 2015 2014 2010 2010 Board Composition Total: 6 + 1 nonvoting 3 Renton City Councilmembers 3 FD 25 Commissioners 1 non‐voting member from KCFD #40. Total: 5 (4 districted seats + 1 at‐large) 2 districted seats from within Prosser city limits 2 districted seats from FD #3 territory 1 at large. Initially 8 appointed members, reducing to 5 over 18 months. All 3 FD #8 commissions All 5 FD#2 commissioners. Planned reduction to 5 members accomplished through vacancies, & thereafter commissioners to be elected at large. Total: 6 + 2 non‐voting 3 Kent City Councilmembers 3 Fire District 37 Commissioners 1 non‐voting from Covington 1 non‐voting from SeaTac Total: 6 2 from Yelm 2 from FD#2 2 From FD #4 Terms of Office Unspecified in the plan. 2 6‐year (1 from each area), 1 4‐year (at‐ large), 2 2‐year (1 from each area). 6‐year Kent members are appointed annually; FD 37 members are elected to staggered 6‐year terms. 6‐year Latecomer Provisions In Plan None. Yes. None. None. Contract Cities or Districts also served that are not RFA members Fire District 40 None. None. Covington and Sea‐Tac None. RFA Comparison Chart‐‐prepared by staff from Snohomish County Fire District 1 and City of Lynnwood date: March 2017 2 Renton Region Fire Authority West Benton Fire & Rescue North Mason Regional Fire Authority Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (formerly Kent RFA) Southeast Thurston Fire Authority Population Served (including contract cities/districts) 134,439 13,095 11,911 175,397 24,862 Number of Fire Stations 6 Fire Stations 1 to be constructed 2017 2 Fire Stations 2 Fire Stations, 1 Part‐time Fire Station 2 Fire Stations 3 Fire Stations, 1 Main Operations/Admin Building Staff 1 Fire Chief, 2 Deputy Chiefs, 6 Battalion Chiefs, 6 Fire Captains, 15 Fire Lieutenants, 126 Fire Fighters 1 Fire Chief 2 Captains, 1 Lieutenant, 24 Volunteer Fire Fighters 1 Fire Chief, 1 Assistant Fire Chief, 2 Assistants, 4 Captains 18 Fire Fighters 105 Volunteer Fire Fighters 10 Battalion Chiefs, 11 Admin, 4 Fire IT, 4 Emergency Management, 9 Support Services 1 Chief, 3 Captains, 6 Career Fire Fighters Fire Benefit Charge If yes, was it included in the original plan? Additional comments Yes Yes No Has been/is being considered by Board No Had FBC when a Fire District (expired in 2008), but did not include in Plan for RFA Yes Yes No RFA Comparison Chart‐‐prepared by staff from Snohomish County Fire District 1 and City of Lynnwood date: March 2017 3 West Thurston Regional Fire Authority South Whatcom Fire Authority Riverside Fire Authority Valley Regional Fire Authority North County Regional Fire Authority Member Agencies Thurston County FPD #1 & FPD #11 Whatcom County FPD #2, #6, #9, & #10 Cities of Centralia, Lewis County FD #12 Cities of Algona, Auburn, Pacific Snohomish County FPD #14 & #18 Year Est. 2009 2009 2008 2007 2007 Board Composition Total: 6 3 from FPD#1 3 from FPD #11 Has a mechanism to reduce to 5 elected (not appointed) positions: ‐ 2 districted from each former FD service area + 1 at large from the RFA area. This has not been implemented. Total: 5 1 member each elected from 5 distinct districts Total: 6 Members elected at large. Total: 9 Auburn Mayor + 2 Auburn Councilmembers Algona Mayor + 2 Algona Councilmembers Pacific Mayor + 2 Pacific Councilmembers Total: 6 All 3 FD #14 commissioners and All 3 FD #18 Commissioners are appointed to serve on the RFA Board. 3 (The Fire Districts were not dissolved.) Terms of Office Unspecified in the plan. 6‐year Unspecified in the plan. Unspecified in the plan. Unspecified in the plan. Latecomer Provisions In Plan Yes. None. None. None. Contract Cities or Districts also served that are not RFA members None. None. Chehalis pays for Fire Marshall Services South King Fire and Rescue None. Population Served (including contract cities/districts) 22,156 12,851 22,954 85,776 RFA Comparison Chart‐‐prepared by staff from Snohomish County Fire District 1 and City of Lynnwood date: March 2017 4 West Thurston Regional Fire Authority South Whatcom Fire Authority Riverside Fire Authority Valley Regional Fire Authority North County Regional Fire Authority Number of Fire Stations 6 Fire Stations 6 Fire Stations 8 Fire Stations 6 Fire Stations 5 Fire Stations Staff 1 Fire Chief, 1 Operations Chief, 18 Career Fire Fighters, 2 Administrative, 20 Volunteer Fire Fighters 1 Fire Chief, 1 Assistant Fire Chief, 6 Career Firefighters, ~70 Volunteers 1 Fire Chief, 1 Assistant Chief, 28 Career Fire Fighters, ~50 Volunteers 2 Deputy Chiefs, 4 Battalion Chiefs, 97 Career Fire Fighters 1 Fire Chief, 23 Career Firefighters, ~50 Volunteer Firefighters Fire Benefit Charge If yes, was it included in the original plan? Additional comments No No No Yes Yes, since its inception No Data sourced from websites, phone calls, and Washington State Fire Service Directory RFA Comparison Chart‐‐prepared by staff from Snohomish County Fire District 1 and City of Lynnwood date: March 2017 5 Proposed South Snohomish County RFA* Will be before the voters on August 1, 2017 Member Agencies City of Lynnwood and Fire District 1 Year Est. If approved, will be created effective October 1, 2017 Board Composition Initial transition board: 5 Fire District Commissioners, 2 City Councilmembers (or Mayor). This reflects the proportional population of the 2 agencies. Permanent board: 5 districted positions (elected in primary by persons living in those districts. 2 districts encompassing Lynnwood; 2 at‐large positions. Districted positions will be elected in 2019; at‐large positions in 2021. Terms of Office 4 year terms. Latecomer Provisions In Plan None. But plan does speak to allowing future new city members to have non‐voting board seats pending election of new districted positions. Contract Cities or Districts also served that are not RFA members Edmonds, Brier, Montlake Terrace Population Served (including contract cities/districts) Lynnwood and FD 1 combined population: 182,096 Including all Contract Cities: 250,641 Number of Fire Stations 14 Staff 258 Fire Benefit Charge  If yes, was it included in the original plan?  Additional comments No. *Information on this table prepared by Karen Reed, June 2017