HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-10-2011_Council Workshop Packet
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 / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
WORKSHOP ITEMS ~ NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN
1. (15 minutes) Tourism Promotion Area Interlocal ATTACHMENT A
2. 35th Street discussion
3. (5 min) Addendum #1 to Waste Management NW Contract ATTACHMENT B
4. (10 min) Water/Wastewater Treatment Plant Security System ATTACHMENT C
5. (5 min) Gifford Sidewalk Project Close-Out ATTACHMENT D
6. (10 min) Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement for Municipal ATTACHMENT E
Court Services with the City of Marysville
7. Miscellaneous Council items
ADJOURNMENT
To download all attachments, click here
Arlington City Council Workshop
January 10, 2011 – 7 PM
City Council Chambers ~ 110 E. Third
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT A
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
January 10, 2011
SUBJECT:
Interlocal Agreement authorizing
establishment of the Snohomish County
Tourism Promotion Area
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Executive
ATTACHMENTS:
- Interlocal Agreement authorizing establishment of the Snohomish County Tourism
Promotion Area
- Information from the September 2010 “Tourism Today” publication from the
Snohomish County Tourism Bureau that explains the Tourism Promotion Area
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: -0-
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
The attached Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County would confirm the City’s approval
of the formation of a Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) in Snohomish County. The TPA is being
requested by the Snohomish County Lodging Association with support from the Snohomish
County Tourism bureau. The TPA is authorized by RCW 35.101 and does not impact the city’s
budget in any way. The TPA authorizes the collection of lodging charges from lodging
businesses located within the Snohomish County TPA to fund tourism promotion. The cost will
be $1.00 per occupied room, per day.
HISTORY:
The Snohomish County Lodging Association, in conjunction with the Snohomish County
Tourism Bureau, requested the formation of a TPA in December 2008. The lodging association
has spent the past two years gaining support and approvals from the lodging industry
throughout Snohomish County, in accordance with the steps outlined in Chapter 35.101 RCW.
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review proposed Interlocal Agreement and recommend placement on the January 18, 2011
Council Agenda for formal action.
TOURISM TODAY 3rd Quarter – September 2010
WHAT’S INSIDE: (Click on Sub-Title to go to page)
News You Can Use
Work Continues to Update Snohomish County Tourism Plan Page 2
STAR Reports Shows Strengths, Continued ADR Drop Page 2
Moving Forward: Tourism Promotion Area Page 3
Tulalip Tribes to Host Native American Conference, September 19-22 Page 5
Focus on Farming Conference Set for November 4 Page 5
Reaching Travelers On-The-Go Page 6
Twisitor Center: Using Twitter to Answer Visitor Questions Page 6
Travel, Tourism & Hospitality
Showing Off to Travel Writers Page 7
Big Sales Push Ahead for Bureau Page 7
Two Venues Garner Top Awards Page 8
McMenamins Opts for Historic Anderson Site in Bothell Page 9
Contest Launches Hilton Garden Inn Grand Opening Page 10
The “Sports Section”
Sports Commission Welcomes New Board Members Page 11
A New Sporty Logo Page 11
Snohomish County Sports Hall of Fame, Thursday, September 23 at 5:30 p.m. Page 12
Welcome Bags Score Big with Teams, Businesses Page 12
A Summer Wrap Up of Races, Tourneys Page 13
Around Snohomish County
Vintage Aircraft Weekend, September 4 & 5 Page 14
Everett Philharmonic Orchestra Debuts Page 14
“Did You Hear…?” Page 15
A Bounty of Harvest Fun along with the ‘Red Rooster Route’ in Snohomish County Page 16
17th Annual Everett Coho Salmon Derby Woos Thousands for Fishing, Food, and Fun Page 18
“Get Out & About”
Snohomish County Arts, Culture and Heritage Page 20
What’s Happening
Get ready for a busy fall season of harvest festivals, performances, children’s activities, events and
fun! Here is just a sample of the upcoming events. You can find plenty more.
Upcoming Events Page 22
93
SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOURISM BUREAU
909 SE Everett Mall Way, C-300 Everett, Washington 98208
425.348.5802 Fax 425.348.5701 email visitor@snohomish.org www.snohomish.org
3
peak summer months. Due to the increase in occupancy, RevPar was up 8.4% ending at $69.03
and in 6th place as compared to other STAR report participating counties.
For July, King County continued to show improvement and recorded a 83.3% occupancy (up 5.6%
over last year – increasing for the seventh month in a row); ADR was UP 2.5% and RevPar was up
as well at $104.88; up 8.2% over last year. All strong numbers.
Snohomish County ended above Pierce County in all three measurements (occupancy, rate and
RevPar). Pierce County recorded a 0.7% increase in occupancy as compared to last year, was down
6.9% in ADR and down 6.2% in RevPar.
For June 2010, Snohomish County saw improvement over 2009 numbers for the third month by
ending the month up 19.5% in occupancy over the previous year at 77.1%. The county finished first
in occupancy as compared to other participating counties, however the average rate continues to
slide. ADR (Average Daily Rate) was down 2.6% ending at $83.38, an improvement over May
numbers but 12th in comparison to other counties. Due to the big increase in occupancy, RevPar
was up 16.4% ending at $64.29 and in second place as compared to other STAR report participating
counties.
For June, King County continued to show improvement and recorded 75.7% occupancy (up 3.3%
over last year – increasing for the sixth month in a row); ADR was down 5.4% and RevPar was down
2.3% as a result.
Snohomish County edged above Pierce County in all three measurements (occupancy, rate and
RevPar) recording a 12.0% increase in occupancy as compared to last year, down 7.3% in ADR and
up 3.8% in RevPar at $56.82.
Moving Forward: Tourism Promotion Area
The Snohomish County lodging community has been hard at work for over two years to educate and
survey lodging establishments in Snohomish County for the purpose of forming a Tourism Promotion
Area. Washington State Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.101 authorizes this designated area
to levy special assessments to fund tourism promotion. The Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) is a
shared goal of the County and the countywide lodging industry to increase tourism’s contribution to
the local economy from the present rate of $911.6 million annually to $1 billion annually. Part of the
strategy for realizing this objective is a substantial enhancement to the resources available for
tourism promotion. Accordingly, the county lodging industry anticipates assessing itself to provide an
additional nearly $1 million annually for promotion that will be co-managed by the County and the
industry.
Tourism promotion funding is very limited in Washington State and in Snohomish County. A TPA is a
tool Washington State has provided through the RCW for local communities to generate tourism
promotion revenues. A TPA in Snohomish County would:
Keep tourism marketing of the county competitive with communities that are vying for the
same business Snohomish County is trying to attract.
Allow for more aggressive tourism marketing program development in new markets and
existing markets including advertising, trade show attendance, sales missions and other
marketing promotions.
Provide funds to improve and develop tourist attractions in the County.
Give the lodging industry a controlling voice on how the funds they collect (via the TPA) are
allocated for tourism development.
95
SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOURISM BUREAU
909 SE Everett Mall Way, C-300 Everett, Washington 98208
425.348.5802 Fax 425.348.5701 email visitor@snohomish.org www.snohomish.org
4
Though not all hotels would benefit directly from marketing to these types of events, this
creates compression in the community by the increased occupancy of the hotels participating
and therefore it is a benefit to all hotels.
Due to the cyclical nature of the lodging industry, additional funding to promote Snohomish
County will provide a way to attract future business not only in the off-season but to assist
the industry in pulling out of the current recession.
A minor increase in room assessment will not impact our competitiveness, as Snohomish
County is still lower than King County. King County taxes are 15.6% as compared to
Snohomish County at 10.6% to 10.9%.
A TPA assessment is controlled by the lodging community and can be disestablished by the local
lodging community. The TPA funds can be used for tourism marketing and facility development
including “activities and expenditures designed to increase tourism and convention business…for the
purpose of attraction and welcoming tourist and operating tourism destination marketing
organizations”.
Potential recipients of this additional funding can include the Snohomish County Sports Commission,
Snohomish County Tourism Bureau, arts, culture, festivals, and sports organizations that in their
application can document actual return on investment in overnight hotel stays as a result of their
marketing efforts.
The Snohomish County lodging industry will determine the uses within those parameters which are
detailed in the county resolution. The TPA Board of Directors will create the application process, the
requirements for application, the inclusive dates the grants monies may be used, the potential uses
for the fund and all other details. The TPA Board will operate as the administrator of the program
and review and recommend applications based on these details.
The newly elected, inaugural TPA board members are:
Hotel members:
Andy Tift, Holiday Inn Express Marysville – Lodging Representative District 1
Keith Lander, Best Western Cascadia Inn, Everett – Lodging Representative District 2
Georgia Borg-Leon, Residence Inn, Lynnwood – Lodging Representative District 3
LeeAnne Brawner, Hilton Garden Inn, Bothell – Lodging Representative District 4
Currently vacant – Lodging Representative District 5
Doug Bartells, Holiday Inn Downtown Everett – At-Large Lodging Representative
Ernie Matthews, Courtyard by Marriott, Lynnwood – At-Large Lodging Representative-
Lynnwood
Shawn Walker, 360 Hotel Group, hotels in Everett, Mukilteo & Lynnwood – At-Large Lodging
Representative-Everett
Julie Horrigan, Embassy Suites, Lynnwood – At-Large Lodging Representative (Snohomish
County Lodging Association)
Non-hotel members:
Edith Farrell, About the WOW/Granite Falls Visitors Center – District 1
Wendy Becker, Snohomish County Office of Economic Development – District 2
Stephen Clifton, Director, Community Services & Economic Development, City of Edmonds –
District 3
Nancy Stoll, Bothell Country Village – District 4
Debbie Emge, Economic Development Manager, City of Snohomish – District 5
96
TOURISM TODAY 3rd Quarter – September 2010
WHAT’S INSIDE: (Click on Sub-Title to go to page)
News You Can Use
Work Continues to Update Snohomish County Tourism Plan Page 2
STAR Reports Shows Strengths, Continued ADR Drop Page 2
Moving Forward: Tourism Promotion Area Page 3
Tulalip Tribes to Host Native American Conference, September 19-22 Page 5
Focus on Farming Conference Set for November 4 Page 5
Reaching Travelers On-The-Go Page 6
Twisitor Center: Using Twitter to Answer Visitor Questions Page 6
Travel, Tourism & Hospitality
Showing Off to Travel Writers Page 7
Big Sales Push Ahead for Bureau Page 7
Two Venues Garner Top Awards Page 8
McMenamins Opts for Historic Anderson Site in Bothell Page 9
Contest Launches Hilton Garden Inn Grand Opening Page 10
The “Sports Section”
Sports Commission Welcomes New Board Members Page 11
A New Sporty Logo Page 11
Snohomish County Sports Hall of Fame, Thursday, September 23 at 5:30 p.m. Page 12
Welcome Bags Score Big with Teams, Businesses Page 12
A Summer Wrap Up of Races, Tourneys Page 13
Around Snohomish County
Vintage Aircraft Weekend, September 4 & 5 Page 14
Everett Philharmonic Orchestra Debuts Page 14
“Did You Hear…?” Page 15
A Bounty of Harvest Fun along with the ‘Red Rooster Route’ in Snohomish County Page 16
17th Annual Everett Coho Salmon Derby Woos Thousands for Fishing, Food, and Fun Page 18
“Get Out & About”
Snohomish County Arts, Culture and Heritage Page 20
What’s Happening
Get ready for a busy fall season of harvest festivals, performances, children’s activities, events and
fun! Here is just a sample of the upcoming events. You can find plenty more.
Upcoming Events Page 22
93
SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOURISM BUREAU
909 SE Everett Mall Way, C-300 Everett, Washington 98208
425.348.5802 Fax 425.348.5701 email visitor@snohomish.org www.snohomish.org
2
Work Continues to Update Snohomish County Tourism Plan
Recognizing the significant impact of tourism to the local economy, the Snohomish County Office of
Economic Development has been working with a team of consultants to update the county’s tourism
plan. The team is led by Erika Schmidt of Frause, a Seattle marketing communications firm, and
includes BERK & Associates, Calyx, and Site Story.
Phase one of the Tourism Plan development process is winding down and a final report will be issued
in the fall. The county and its consulting team members are working to finalize the tourism
community feedback process. This represents a comprehensive approach to tourism planning that
includes economic analysis, data review, communications, innovative ideas, and sensitivity to
cultural heritage groups.
The project’s second feedback phase includes focus groups, one-on-one interviews, an online survey
and hidden asset review.
Parallel to the feedback process, the Frause team is conducting a data review, situational analysis,
full asset inventory and innovative tourism audit. The new plan will incorporate all the elements and
provide recommendations that address the stakeholder feedback and provide strategies for growing
the Snohomish County tourism industry in scope, revenue and profitability.
The plan development will cover tourists in general, including the leisure traveler and the business
traveler. If you have been unable to attend the community focus groups, it’s not too late to
participate. The link below will connect you to an on-line survey that will allow you to anonymously
provide your perspectives on tourism in Snohomish County. You can feel comfortable sharing your
honest and open opinion. Feel free to forward the survey to those you feel might have solid feedback
to share. The survey will take about eight to ten minutes to complete.
The deadline for completing the survey is September 13, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. Go to
http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22B4UY2BCGF
Visitors spend $911.6 million in Snohomish County annually, contributing more than $66.3 million in
state and local tax revenues. Direct visitor spending benefits retailers, restaurants, attractions,
transportation services, hotels and other businesses, and provides employment for over 9,600
people in Snohomish County.
STAR Reports Shows Strengths, Continued ADR Drop
Congratulations to the hotels for a strong July. For July 2010, Snohomish County saw improvement
over 2009 numbers for the fourth month in a row by ending the month at 80.3% in occupancy; up
10.6% over the previous year. We finished third in occupancy as compared to other participating
counties, however the average rate continues to slide. ADR (Average Daily Rate) was down 2.0%
ending at $86.01, an improvement over June numbers but 11th in comparison to other counties.
Areas with more resort destination properties generally outperform Snohomish County in rate in the
NNEEWWSS YYOOUU CCAANN UUSSEE
94
SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOURISM BUREAU
909 SE Everett Mall Way, C-300 Everett, Washington 98208
425.348.5802 Fax 425.348.5701 email visitor@snohomish.org www.snohomish.org
3
peak summer months. Due to the increase in occupancy, RevPar was up 8.4% ending at $69.03
and in 6th place as compared to other STAR report participating counties.
For July, King County continued to show improvement and recorded a 83.3% occupancy (up 5.6%
over last year – increasing for the seventh month in a row); ADR was UP 2.5% and RevPar was up
as well at $104.88; up 8.2% over last year. All strong numbers.
Snohomish County ended above Pierce County in all three measurements (occupancy, rate and
RevPar). Pierce County recorded a 0.7% increase in occupancy as compared to last year, was down
6.9% in ADR and down 6.2% in RevPar.
For June 2010, Snohomish County saw improvement over 2009 numbers for the third month by
ending the month up 19.5% in occupancy over the previous year at 77.1%. The county finished first
in occupancy as compared to other participating counties, however the average rate continues to
slide. ADR (Average Daily Rate) was down 2.6% ending at $83.38, an improvement over May
numbers but 12th in comparison to other counties. Due to the big increase in occupancy, RevPar
was up 16.4% ending at $64.29 and in second place as compared to other STAR report participating
counties.
For June, King County continued to show improvement and recorded 75.7% occupancy (up 3.3%
over last year – increasing for the sixth month in a row); ADR was down 5.4% and RevPar was down
2.3% as a result.
Snohomish County edged above Pierce County in all three measurements (occupancy, rate and
RevPar) recording a 12.0% increase in occupancy as compared to last year, down 7.3% in ADR and
up 3.8% in RevPar at $56.82.
Moving Forward: Tourism Promotion Area
The Snohomish County lodging community has been hard at work for over two years to educate and
survey lodging establishments in Snohomish County for the purpose of forming a Tourism Promotion
Area. Washington State Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.101 authorizes this designated area
to levy special assessments to fund tourism promotion. The Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) is a
shared goal of the County and the countywide lodging industry to increase tourism’s contribution to
the local economy from the present rate of $911.6 million annually to $1 billion annually. Part of the
strategy for realizing this objective is a substantial enhancement to the resources available for
tourism promotion. Accordingly, the county lodging industry anticipates assessing itself to provide an
additional nearly $1 million annually for promotion that will be co-managed by the County and the
industry.
Tourism promotion funding is very limited in Washington State and in Snohomish County. A TPA is a
tool Washington State has provided through the RCW for local communities to generate tourism
promotion revenues. A TPA in Snohomish County would:
Keep tourism marketing of the county competitive with communities that are vying for the
same business Snohomish County is trying to attract.
Allow for more aggressive tourism marketing program development in new markets and
existing markets including advertising, trade show attendance, sales missions and other
marketing promotions.
Provide funds to improve and develop tourist attractions in the County.
Give the lodging industry a controlling voice on how the funds they collect (via the TPA) are
allocated for tourism development.
95
SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOURISM BUREAU
909 SE Everett Mall Way, C-300 Everett, Washington 98208
425.348.5802 Fax 425.348.5701 email visitor@snohomish.org www.snohomish.org
4
Though not all hotels would benefit directly from marketing to these types of events, this
creates compression in the community by the increased occupancy of the hotels participating
and therefore it is a benefit to all hotels.
Due to the cyclical nature of the lodging industry, additional funding to promote Snohomish
County will provide a way to attract future business not only in the off-season but to assist
the industry in pulling out of the current recession.
A minor increase in room assessment will not impact our competitiveness, as Snohomish
County is still lower than King County. King County taxes are 15.6% as compared to
Snohomish County at 10.6% to 10.9%.
A TPA assessment is controlled by the lodging community and can be disestablished by the local
lodging community. The TPA funds can be used for tourism marketing and facility development
including “activities and expenditures designed to increase tourism and convention business…for the
purpose of attraction and welcoming tourist and operating tourism destination marketing
organizations”.
Potential recipients of this additional funding can include the Snohomish County Sports Commission,
Snohomish County Tourism Bureau, arts, culture, festivals, and sports organizations that in their
application can document actual return on investment in overnight hotel stays as a result of their
marketing efforts.
The Snohomish County lodging industry will determine the uses within those parameters which are
detailed in the county resolution. The TPA Board of Directors will create the application process, the
requirements for application, the inclusive dates the grants monies may be used, the potential uses
for the fund and all other details. The TPA Board will operate as the administrator of the program
and review and recommend applications based on these details.
The newly elected, inaugural TPA board members are:
Hotel members:
Andy Tift, Holiday Inn Express Marysville – Lodging Representative District 1
Keith Lander, Best Western Cascadia Inn, Everett – Lodging Representative District 2
Georgia Borg-Leon, Residence Inn, Lynnwood – Lodging Representative District 3
LeeAnne Brawner, Hilton Garden Inn, Bothell – Lodging Representative District 4
Currently vacant – Lodging Representative District 5
Doug Bartells, Holiday Inn Downtown Everett – At-Large Lodging Representative
Ernie Matthews, Courtyard by Marriott, Lynnwood – At-Large Lodging Representative-
Lynnwood
Shawn Walker, 360 Hotel Group, hotels in Everett, Mukilteo & Lynnwood – At-Large Lodging
Representative-Everett
Julie Horrigan, Embassy Suites, Lynnwood – At-Large Lodging Representative (Snohomish
County Lodging Association)
Non-hotel members:
Edith Farrell, About the WOW/Granite Falls Visitors Center – District 1
Wendy Becker, Snohomish County Office of Economic Development – District 2
Stephen Clifton, Director, Community Services & Economic Development, City of Edmonds –
District 3
Nancy Stoll, Bothell Country Village – District 4
Debbie Emge, Economic Development Manager, City of Snohomish – District 5
96
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT B
COUNCIL WORKSHOP DATE:
January 10, 2011
SUBJECT: Waste Management Northwest
Contract Amendment.
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Public Works – James Kelly
ATTACHMENTS:
Contract Amendment #1
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Pending final review by City Attorney
DESCRIPTION: Contract Amendment #1 with Waste Management to correct confusion in
Multi-Family and Commercial Services.
HISTORY: City of Arlington entered into a new contract with Waste Management Northwest
on September 2010 for the refuse and recycling franchise within the City. It has been
discovered that the contract is in need of minor revisions to the wording in four sections.
ALTERNATIVES:
- None
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
- No action requested – workshop only.
ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT FOR SOLID WASTE,
RECYCLING, AND COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS COLLECTION, AND DISPOSAL
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON
AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WASHINGTON, INC.
THIS ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT FOR SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING, AND COMPOSTABLE
ORGANICS COLLECTION, AND DISPOSAL BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON
AND WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WASHINGTON, INC. (this “Addendum”) is made as of November __,
2010 by and between the City of Arlington, a Washington municipal corporation (the “City”), and Waste
Management of Washington, Inc., a Washington corporation (“Contractor”). Each of Company and Contractor
is sometimes referred to herein as a “Party” and together as the “Parties
”. Capitalized terms used in this
Addendum and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.
RECITALS
A. City and Contractor are parties to that certain Contract for Solid Waste, Recycling, and
Compostable Organics Collection, and Disposal, dated effective as of September 7, 2010 (the “Agreement
”);
and
B. City and Contractor recently entered into the Agreement and have since discovered certain
errors and omissions in the Service Rate Schedule, which is attached to the Agreement as Exhibit B; and
C. City and Contractor now desire to correct these errors and omissions and amend and restate
in its entirety the Service Rate Schedule attached to the Agreement as Exhibit B, upon the terms set forth
herein.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties mutually agree as follows:
1. Revised Service Rate Schedule. The Service Rate Schedule attached to the Agreement as
Exhibit B (the “Old Rate Schedule”) is hereby amended and restated in its entirety by the Service Rate
Schedule attached to this Addendum as Attachment B (the “New Rate Schedule
”). The rates set forth
in the New Rate Schedule shall entirely replace and supersede the rates set forth in the Old Rate
Schedule, and will be applied retroactively back to the effective date of the Agreement. For
convenience, below is a summary of the changes being made and reflected in the New Rate Schedule:
• Section F (Multi-family Recycling) was removed from the Multi-Family & Commercial
Services page and added as Section F of the Residential Services page under the heading
“Multi-family Garbage and Recycling Rates,” and the line items “2-96 gal provided at no
cost,” “1 can monthly charge,” and “1.25 yard container monthly charge” were removed.
• Section G (Commercial Recycling) was removed from Multi-Family & Commercial
Services page and added as Section F of Commercial Services page and relabeled
“Commercial Recycling per pick-up, and the line item “3 bins per unit” was removed.
Commercial Recycling as an option for embedded service was removed as this is not an
option in the current contract.
• Sections H and I were removed from Multi-Family & Commercial Services page.
• Section D (Special Collections) was relabeled “Special Collections for Temporary
Service (per pick-up).” Temporary Service is described as any commercial service
account set up for less than 90 days.
2. Full Force and Effect. Except as otherwise provided in this Addendum, all other terms
and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
[Signature Page Follows]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Addendum as of the date set forth above.
CITY OF ARLINGTON
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WASHINGTON,
INC.
By: ____________________________ By: _____________________________
Name: __________________________ Name: ___________________________
Title: __________________________ Title: ___________________________
Attest:
By: ____________________________
Name: __________________________
Title: __________________________
[SIGNATURE PAGE TO ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT FOR SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING, AND
COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS COLLECTION, AND DISPOSAL BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON AND WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WASHINGTON, INC.]
ATTACHMENT B
NEW RATE SCHEDULE
SERVICE TOTAL 2010 2011 2012
CURRENT Total Total Total
CLASS RATE SERVICE FEE SERVICE FEE SERVICE FEE
Percentage Increase 3.60%3.60%3.60%
RESIDENTIAL SERVICES
A. Weekly Residential Single Family
1 Can once per month 6.38$ 6.61$ 6.85$ 7.10$
1 Can service (20 gal. Mini-can))8.44$ 8.74$ 9.06$ 9.39$
1 Can (32 gal.)11.42$ 11.83$ 12.26$ 12.70$
2 Cans 17.62$ 18.25$ 18.91$ 19.59$
3 Cans 24.86$ 25.75$ 26.68$ 27.64$
4 Cans 32.05$ 33.20$ 34.40$ 35.64$
5 Cans 38.83$ 40.23$ 41.68$ 43.18$
20 gal Cart 9.84$ 10.19$ 10.56$ 10.94$
35 gal Cart 12.82$ 13.28$ 13.76$ 14.26$
64 gal Cart 19.00$ 19.68$ 20.39$ 21.12$
96 gal Cart 20.42$ 21.16$ 21.92$ 22.71$
Each additional can (32 gal)7.21$ 7.47$ 7.74$ 8.02$
Extra can, bag, or box (32 gal)4.68$ 4.85$ 5.02$ 5.20$
B. Once per month Residential Single Family
1 Can service (32 gal)6.38$ 6.61$ 6.85$ 7.10$
C. Single Family Recyclable Collection Rate
Residential Single Family Curbside Recycling: 3.88$ 4.02$ 4.16$ 4.31$
D. Single Family Yard Debris Collection Rate
Residential Single Family Curbside Yard Debris where
service is optional:
Per month for one container 9.39$ 9.73$ 10.08$ 10.44$
Additional 96gal Yard Debris Cart Rent per month 1.83$ 1.90$ 1.96$ 2.03$
E. SPECIAL COLLECTIONS
Mini Can each 1.89$ 1.96$ 2.03$ 2.10$
Garbage Cans, bundles, or wheeled containers each 4.50$ 4.66$ 4.83$ 5.00$
Carry Out over 5' but under 25'0.58$ 0.60$ 0.62$ 0.64$
Carry Out each additional 25' or fraction thereof 0.58$ 0.60$ 0.62$ 0.64$
Stairs & Steps each up or down 0.05$ 0.05$ 0.05$ 0.05$
Overhead Obstruction each less than 8' from ground 0.58$ 0.60$ 0.62$ 0.64$
Sunken or elevated can or unit above or below 4'0.58$ 0.60$ 0.62$ 0.64$
Drive-Ins on private roads or driveways of over 125'2.33$ 2.41$ 2.50$ 2.59$
F. Multi-family Garbage and Recycling Rates
(Contractor furnished detachable container for recyclables)
64 gal toter monthly charge 25.12$ 26.02$ 26.96$ 27.93$
1 yard container monthly charge 76.74$ 79.50$ 82.36$ 85.32$
1.5 yard container monthly charge 103.66$ 107.39$ 111.26$ 115.27$
2 yard container monthly charge 131.65$ 136.39$ 141.30$ 146.39$
3 yard container monthly charge 183.49$ 190.10$ 196.94$ 204.03$
4 yard container monthly charge 226.63$ 234.79$ 243.24$ 252.00$
6 yard container monthly charge 282.64$ 292.82$ 303.36$ 314.28$
8 yard container monthly charge 376.96$ 390.53$ 404.59$ 419.16$
1 of 4
CITY OF ARLINGTON
Attachment B
Residential Rates
TOTAL 2010 2011 2012
SERVICE CURRENT Total Total Total
CLASS RATE SERVICE FEE SERVICE FEE SERVICE FEE
Percentage Increase 3.60%3.60%3.60%
COMMERCIAL SERVICE
A. Can/Unit Garbage Collection
Per Can/Unit (customer owned)2.68$ 2.78$ 2.88$ 2.98$
Minimum monthly rate 16.10$ 16.68$ 17.28$ 17.90$
B. Container Garbage Collection Minimum 1x/wk service
64 gal cart per month 22.01$ 22.80$ 23.62$ 24.47$
1 yard per month 65.78$ 68.15$ 70.60$ 73.14$
1.5 yard per month 89.96$ 93.20$ 96.56$ 100.04$
2 yard per month 115.22$ 119.37$ 123.67$ 128.12$
3 yard per month 161.59$ 167.41$ 173.44$ 179.68$
4 yard per month 193.79$ 200.77$ 208.00$ 215.49$
6 yard per month 238.85$ 247.45$ 256.36$ 265.59$
8 yard per month 311.26$ 322.47$ 334.08$ 346.11$
3 yard compactor 398.53$ 412.88$ 427.74$ 443.14$
4 yard compactor 484.64$ 502.09$ 520.17$ 538.90$
6 yard compactor 652.29$ 675.77$ 700.10$ 725.30$
C. Container Garbage Monthly Rent
64 gal cart 1.77$ 1.83$ 1.90$ 1.97$
1 yard 3.57$ 3.70$ 3.83$ 3.97$
1.5 yard 4.74$ 4.91$ 5.09$ 5.27$
2 yard 6.42$ 6.65$ 6.89$ 7.14$
3 yard 8.08$ 8.37$ 8.67$ 8.98$
4 yard 9.51$ 9.85$ 10.20$ 10.57$
6 yard 14.57$ 15.09$ 15.63$ 16.19$
8 yard 16.66$ 17.26$ 17.88$ 18.52$
D. Special Collections for Temporary Service* (per pick-up)
Garbage Cans, bundles or wheeled containers 7.71$ 7.99$ 8.28$ 8.58$
1 cubic Yard detachable container 20.09$ 20.81$ 21.56$ 22.34$
1.5 cubic yard detachable container 23.30$ 24.14$ 25.01$ 25.91$
2 cubic Yard detachable container 31.44$ 32.57$ 33.74$ 34.95$
3 cubic yard detachable container 42.08$ 43.59$ 45.16$ 46.79$
4 cubic yard detachable container 49.45$ 51.23$ 53.07$ 54.98$
6 cubic yard detachable container 59.78$ 61.93$ 64.16$ 66.47$
8 cubic yard detachable container 76.40$ 79.15$ 82.00$ 84.95$
3 yard compactor 94.51$ 97.91$ 101.43$ 105.08$
4 yard compactor 114.37$ 118.49$ 122.76$ 127.18$
6 yard compactor 153.02$ 158.53$ 164.24$ 170.15$
10 cubic yard detachable container + dump fees 80.01$ 82.89$ 85.87$ 88.96$
20 cubic yard detachable container + dump fees 80.01$ 82.89$ 85.87$ 88.96$
2 of 4
*Temporary Service is any commercial service account set up for less than 90 days.
CITY OF ARLINGTON
Attachment B
Commercial Rates
CITY OF ARLINGTON
Attachment B
TOTAL 2010 2011 2012
SERVICE CURRENT Total Total Total
CLASS RATE SERVICE FEE SERVICE FEE SERVICE FEE
E. Extra Charges
Carry out over 5' under 25'0.12$ 0.12$ 0.12$ 0.12$
Carry out each additional 25'0.12$ 0.12$ 0.12$ 0.12$
Stairs & Steps each up or down 0.05$ 0.05$ 0.05$ 0.05$
Overhead Obstructions less than 8' from ground 0.10$ 0.10$ 0.10$ 0.10$
Sunken or Elevated Can above or under 4'0.10$ 0.10$ 0.10$ 0.10$
Drive-Ins on private roads or driveways over 125'0.59$ 0.61$ 0.63$ 0.65$
Extra Can/Bag 2.68$ 2.78$ 2.88$ 2.98$
Extra Yard 15.18$ 15.73$ 16.30$ 16.89$
Container Exchange 11.66$ 12.08$ 12.51$ 12.96$
Return Trip 2.55$ 2.64$ 2.74$ 2.84$
Lock Deposit 11.33$ 11.74$ 12.16$ 12.60$
Time Charge 1.81$ 1.88$ 1.95$ 2.02$
Delivery Drop Box 35.88$ 37.17$ 38.51$ 39.90$
Deliver Can/ Cart 11.64$ 12.06$ 12.49$ 12.94$
F. Commercial Recycling per pick-up
(Contractor furnished detachable container for recyclables)
2-96 gal provided at no cost -$ -$ -$ -$
64 gal cart 2.68$ 2.78$ 2.88$ 2.98$
90 gal cart 3.59$ 3.72$ 3.85$ 3.99$
1 yard container 8.64$ 8.95$ 9.27$ 9.60$
2 yard container 13.39$ 13.87$ 14.37$ 14.89$
3 yard container 18.42$ 19.08$ 19.77$ 20.48$
4 yard container 21.55$ 22.33$ 23.13$ 23.96$
6 yard container 25.36$ 26.27$ 27.22$ 28.20$
8 yard container 30.62$ 31.72$ 32.86$ 34.04$
3 of 4
Commercial Rates
TOTAL 2010 2011 2012
SERVICE CURRENT Total Total Total
CLASS RATE SERVICE FEE SERVICE FEE SERVICE FEE
Percentage Increase 3.60%3.60%3.60%
A. Drop Box Garbage Collection *
10 yard per pick-up 77.76$ 80.56$ 83.46$ 86.46$
15 yard per pick-up 77.76$ 80.56$ 83.46$ 86.46$
20 yard per pick-up 77.76$ 80.56$ 83.46$ 86.46$
25 yard per pick-up 77.76$ 80.56$ 83.46$ 86.46$
30 yard per pick-up 77.76$ 80.56$ 83.46$ 86.46$
40 yard per pick-up 77.76$ 80.56$ 83.46$ 86.46$
B. Drop Box Container Monthly Rent
10 yard 41.85$ 43.36$ 44.92$ 46.54$
15 yard 41.85$ 43.36$ 44.92$ 46.54$
20 yard 41.85$ 43.36$ 44.92$ 46.54$
25 yard 49.48$ 51.26$ 53.11$ 55.02$
30 yard 57.10$ 59.16$ 61.29$ 63.50$
40 yard 63.45$ 65.73$ 68.10$ 70.55$
C. Compactor Garbage Collection *
10 yard Compactor Haul 115.47$ 119.63$ 123.94$ 128.40$
15 yard Compactor Haul 115.47$ 119.63$ 123.94$ 128.40$
20 yard Compactor Haul 115.47$ 119.63$ 123.94$ 128.40$
25 yard Compactor Haul 115.47$ 119.63$ 123.94$ 128.40$
30 yard Compactor Haul 115.47$ 119.63$ 123.94$ 128.40$
35 yard Compactor Haul 115.47$ 119.63$ 123.94$ 128.40$
40 yard Compactor Haul 115.47$ 119.63$ 123.94$ 128.40$
4 of 4
* 15% Markup on disposal pass through charges $105 x 1.15% = $120.75
CITY OF ARLINGTON
Attachment B
Roll Off Rates
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT C
COUNCIL WORKSHOP DATE:
January 10 , 2011
SUBJECT: Security System Upgrade for
Water-Wastewater Treatment Plants
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Public Works – Utilities Division
James Kelly
ATTACHMENTS:
Memo summarizing need for security system (attached)
Proposal from Simplex Grennel (handout at Council Workshop)
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $ 57,036.00 (approximate)
BUDGET CATEGORY: Water CIP Find (405)
WWTP Fund (408)
LEGAL REVIEW: N/A
DESCRIPTION – Proposal for installing a security system at the Utility Plant and at the PW
Utility Administration Building.
HISTORY: – This document recommended security improvements at the water treatment plant that
have yet been initiated; these improvements include building alarms and video monitoring. With the
recent upgrades to the wastewater treatment system, it is recommended that we proceed with the
improvements at this time.
Three firms were requested to provide proposals to provide security system that included a
multi-phased IP security camera system and building alarm system. Two firms included with
their cost a reoccurring monthly management fee, one firm designed a system that would be
connected to the WWTP SCADA system (and City’s internet) with no reoccurring monthly
management fee.
ALTERNATIVES:
Do not install a security system
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discussion only – no action will be taken.
City of Arlington
Public Works
Memo
To: Dick Butner and Allen Johnson
From: James Kelly
cc: Kris Wallace, file
Date: November 18, 2010
Re: Utility Plant Security System
Summary
With the completion of the upgrades to the Water Reclamation facility (Wastewater Treatment Plant),
the final aspect of the job is to evaluate the utility plant’s current security system and determine if it is
adequate to meet future security requirements.
:
Under the U.S. Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (PL
107188), drinking water utilities serving more than 3,300 customers were required to conduct
vulnerability assessments of their water systems. These assessments often recommended security
improvements to reduce the risk of malevolent acts, which may also reduce the risk associated with
natural events. Similar requirements for wastewater utilities have been drafted and are being promoted
by the USEPA.
In 2003 the City completed a Water System Emergency Response Plan that included a vulnerability
assessment (NCT Engineering, Feb 2003). This document recommended security improvements at the
water treatment plant that have yet been initiated; these improvements include building alarms and
video monitoring.
It is recommended that a utility plant security system be installed as part of the Water Reclamation
Plant improvements.
Working together, Public Works and IT solicited proposals for an alarm and video monitoring security
system for the Utility Plant (Water Reclamation Facility and Water Treatment Plant) and the Utility
Administration building. Three firms provided proposals; SimplexGrinnell, ADT Commercial Security
Systems, and Sonitrol Pacific. Each of the proposals included building alarms with access code
verification and a closed circuit TV monitoring system.
Cost Summary
Utility Plant Security System
November 18, 2010
Page 2
A summary of the three proposals is as follows:
Initial Monthly System Cost
Proposal Payment Payment In 3-Years
Sonitrol - (owned) $ 66,369.00 $ 750.00 $ 93,369.00
ADT - (leased) $ 39,575.97 $ 753.50 $ 66,701.97
ADT - (owned) $ 51,075.85 $ 335.25 $ 63,144.85
SimplexGrinnel (owned) $ 57,036.00 $ 0.00 $ 57,636.00
Both the Sonitrol and ADT systems require a monthly service fee; this is a continuous system cost. The
SimplexGrinnel system has a onetime installation cost with no reoccurring monthly service charges.
Instead of a monthly service charge, the SimplexGrinnel will connect to the Water Reclamation
Facility’s SCADA system and alert the on-call personnel of alarms during non-working hours.
While the initial installation cost for the SimplexGrinnel system may be a bit higher than the ADT
system, there is no reoccurring service fee. A three year projected system operation cost clearly
demonstrates that the SimplexGrinnel system has the lowest overall cost.
It is recommended that the City move forward with the installation of the SimplexGrinnel security
system.
It is recommended that costs for the security system be shared between the Water Utility ($28,518) and
the Sewer Utility ($28,518). The work can be contracted by the Sewer Utility and fully funded out of
the WWTP fund. The Water Utility’s cost sharing will be realized by reducing the WWTP’s new water
service connection fee by $28,518 as follows:
Cost Sharing
Water Connection fee for 1st ERU $ 34,340.00
Water connection fee for 2nd ERU $ 4,300.00
Water meter installation 2” $ 2,230.00
Total fees due $ 40,870.00
Credit for 1 ERU on existing 5/8” meter $ 4,300.00
Credit for pre-existing 5/8’ meter $ 720.00
Water Dept share of new security system
Total credit due $ 33,538.00
$ 28,518.00
Total fees $ 40,870.00
Total credits
TOTAL DUE $ 7,332.00
$ 33,538.00
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT D
COUNCIL WORKSHOP DATE:
January 10, 2011
SUBJECT:
Gifford Sidewalk Project Construction
Acceptance Letter
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Public Works – James Kelly
ATTACHMENTS:
• Construction Acceptance Letter
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: ARRA Grant $92,000.00
Transportation Funds $20,566.58
BUDGET CATEGORY: Transportation Improvement
LEGAL REVIEW: N/A
DESCRIPTION: R Custom Excavation has completed the Gifford Sidewalk Project, attached are
copies of final acceptance paperwork.
HISTORY: On February 11, 2010 R Custom Excavation of Port Orchard was awarded the
Gifford Sidewalk Project with a bid in the amount of $97,757.32. This project was originally
funded with a $92,000.00 ARRA Grant and Traffic Mitigation monies. The project
consisted of the installation of approximately 1600 linear feet of sidewalks, curb, gutter,
ADA ramps, driveways, surface restoration and other required items to make this
project complete. The project has been completed to the terms of the contract and to the
satisfaction of the City. A summary of the construction costs is as follows:
Engineer’s Estimate $ 113,730.00
Final Construction Cost $ 112,566.58
ALTERNATIVES:
• Remand to staff for additional information
• Table pending further discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is requested at this time. Approval and authority for the Mayor to sign the
Construction Acceptance Letter for the Gifford Sidewalk Project is scheduled for the January
18th, 2011 Council meeting.
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT E
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
January 10, 2011
SUBJECT:
Fourth Amendment to the Interlocal
Agreement for Municipal Court Services
between the City of Marysville and the City of
Arlington
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Executive
ATTACHMENTS:
- Proposed 4th Amendment to the ILA for Municipal Court Services
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED:
BUDGET CATEGORY: Criminal Justice
LEGAL REVIEW: City Attorney’s review is pending
DESCRIPTION:
The City of Marysville is requesting an amendment to its interlocal agreement with us for
Court Services. The amendment increases in the filing fee for criminal citations from $90 to
$110. The filing fee for infractions will remain at $42.
HISTORY:
The City of Arlington has contracted with Marysville for Court Services since 2002. The last
amendment to the Court ILA was executed in May 2009.
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review proposed amendment and recommend placement on the January 18, 2011 Council
Agenda for formal action.
Arlington agt amend 4 CS filing fee 2011
1
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
MUNICIPAL COURT SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE
AND THE CITY OF ARLINGTON
INCREASING FILING FEES TO $110.00 FOR CRIMINAL CITATIONS
THIS AMENDMENT to Interlocal Agreement for Municipal Court Services is made and
entered into this day by and between the City of Marysville, a municipal corporation in the State
of Washington (“Marysville”), and the City of Arlington, a municipal corporation in the State of
Washington (“Arlington”).
WHEREAS, Marysville and Arlington entered into an Interlocal Agreement for
Municipal Court Services recorded at the Snohomish County Auditor’s office on April 4, 2003;
and
WHEREAS, Marysville and Arlington entered into a First Amendment to Interlocal
Agreement for Municipal Court Services and First Renewal for Three Year term January 1, 2005
to May 30, 2008, which was recorded on November 12, 2005; and
WHEREAS, Marysville and Arlington entered into a Second Amendment to Interlocal
Agreement for Municipal Court Services between the City of Marysville and the City of
Arlington which was recorded on August 24, 2007; and
WHEREAS, Marysville and Arlington entered into a Third Amendment to the Interlocal
Agreement for Municipal Court Services on May 11, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the parties recognize the need for increased fees to fund the increased case
load and the agreement as revised in the Second Amendment provides in Paragraph 3 that fees
may be revised prior to the contract renewal date.
Paragraph 3. FEES. In consideration of the services and supplies enumerated in
Section 2 above, Arlington shall pay Marysville $35 for the fining of each
infraction and each criminal citation. The above-referenced fees may be revised
prior to contract renewals for the succeeding contract.
WHEREAS, the parties wish to agree to certain amendments and revisions to the
agreement regarding the increased filing fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF the terms and provisions hereof,
Arlington and Marysville agree to amend the Interlocal Agreement for Municipal Court Services
entered into on June 17, 2002 and the First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement for Municipal
Court Services dated October 10, 2005, and the Second Amendment to Interlocal Agreement for
Municipal Court Services between the City of Marysville and the City of Arlington entered on
Arlington agt amend 4 CS filing fee 2011
2
July 23, 2007, and the Third Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for Municipal Court
Services entered on May 11, 2009, the parties agree as follows:
1. Paragraph 3 is amended to read as follows:
3. FEES. In consideration of the services and supplies enumerated in Section 2
above, Arlington shall pay Marysville $42.00 for the fining of each infraction and
$110.00 for each criminal citation. The above-referenced fees shall be increased
at a rate of 100% of the Seattle CPI-W June Index for the year prior with a
minimum of 0% to a maximum of 2.25%. The rate increase will occur on January
1 of each year unless otherwise negotiated and agreed by the parties.
Effective date of the fees will be January 1, 2011
2. Except as provided herein, all other provisions of the Interlocal Agreement for
Municipal Court Services entered into on June 17, 2002 and the First Amendment
to Interlocal Agreement for Municipal Court Services dated October 10, 2005,
and the Second Amendment to Interlocal Agreement for Municipal Court
Services between the City of Marysville and the City of Arlington entered on July
23, 2007, and the Third Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for Municipal
Court Services entered on May 11, 2009 shall remain in full force and effect,
unchanged.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed.
CITY OF ARLINGTON CITY OF MARYSVILLE
By ______________________________ By ______________________________
MARGARET LARSON, Mayor JOHN NEHRING, Mayor
Date______________________________ Date_____________________________
APPROVED as to form: APPROVED as to form:
_________________________________ _________________________________
STEVEN J. PEIFFLE, City Attorney GRANT K. WEED, City Attorney
Date______________________________ Date_____________________________