HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-02-2011_Council Meeting Packet
Arlington City Council
May 2, 2011 – 7 PM
City Council Chambers
110 E. Third
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
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS
-Chief Bruce Stedman & Barb Tolbert ~ EMS Levy Report & EMS Week
-Chief Nelson Beazley ~ National Police Week
PUBLIC COMMENT For members of the public to speak to the Council regarding matters NOT on the agenda.
Please limit remarks to three minutes
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of the April 18 & 25, 2011 meetings ATTACHMENT A
2. Accounts Payable
3. Relay for Life “Paint the Town Purple” Proclamation ATTACHMENT B
4. National Police Week Proclamation May 15-21, 2011 ATTACHMENT C
5. EMS Week Proclamation May 15-21, 2011 ATTACHMENT D
6. National Public Service Week Proclamation May 1-7, 2011 ATTACHMENT E
7. Juror Appreciation Week Proclamation, May 1-7, 2011 ATTACHMENT F
8. Cemetery Board renewal for Christie Christianson to 4-1-2015 ATTACHMENT G
PUBLIC HEARING
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
1. WWTP Change Order #9 ATTACHMENT H
2. Authority for Mayor to sign $195K DOE Grant Agreement ATTACHMENT J
3. Fire Station 46 Change Orders #1 & 2 ATTACHMENT K
4. Janitorial Contract ATTACHMENT L
DISCUSSION ITEMS
INFORMATION
ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS
MAYOR’S REPORT
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS – OPTIONAL
EXECUTIVE SESSION
-To review collective bargaining negotiations, grievances, or discussions regarding the interpretation
or application of a labor agreement [RCW 42.30.140(4)]
-Discussion of pending or potential litigation [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)]
RECONVENE
ADJOURNMENT
Revised
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT A
COUNCIL WORKSHOP DATE:
April 25 , 2011
SUBJECT: Purchase of Modular Building from
Pacific Mobile for PW Utility Administration
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Public Works – Utilities Division James Kelly
ATTACHMENTS:
• Memorandum summarizing procurement process and Lease vs. Own options
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $1,030,000 (Est, includes building, tax, and
KCDA fee)
BUDGET CATEGORY: Water Capital Fund, Sewer Capital Fund,
WWTP Fund, Storm Fund
LEGAL REVIEW: Pending Final Review by City Attorney
DESCRIPTION – Proposal from Pacific Mobile for the fabrication and construction of a modular
office building to house the Public Works Utility Administration office.
HISTORY: – The PW Utilities Administration offices are currently housed in a leased modular
building that was leased from William-Scotsman in 2004. The lease will expire in October 2011
and the building is in such poor condition that it needs to be replaced.
Staff has researched several different building construction options including, stick built,
prefabricated, and modular construction. Of the various building construction options, modular
construction is the lowest cost per square foot and the best overall value.
Staff worked with the new Haller Park design and began looking for a larger, permanent
modular office building to provide a park presence, a large community meeting room (Stilly
Conference Room), and offices for Utility & PW Admin staff (see attached floor plan). The City
solicited comparable proposals from William-Scotsman and Pacific Mobile for the new office;
Pacific Mobile provided a price quote that was more than 20% lower. Pacific Mobile is under the
KCDA purchasing plan and the City will procure the building through KCDA with a 2%
processing fee.
ALTERNATIVES:
• Renew lease for modular office
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discussion only – no action will be taken.
City of Arlington
Public Works
Memo
To: Mayor Larson and City Council
From: James Kelly
cc: Allen Johnson, Paul Ellis, Kris Wallace, Eric Scott, Dick Warren
Date: May 2, 2011
Re: Utility Administration Building Project recommendation
Realizing that the lease on the current Public Works (PW) Utility Administration building was set to expire
in October 2011 and, due to the buildings condition and the fact that the lease was not going to be renewed,
the PW Utility Administration staff began planning for construction of a new permanent Utility
Administration building in the summer of 2010. The project was funded in the City’s 2011 capital budget
in the amount of $900,000; $450,000 from Water CIP and $450,000 from Sewer CIP.
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a summary as to the status of the PW Utility
Administration building project regarding design, procurement and construction, and to evaluate the
purchase of a new building versus the continuation of a lease of a modular type office. This information is
presented in the following sections of this memorandum:
1. History
2. Project Team
3. Selection of Building Construction Type
4. Space Planning
5. Identification of Modular Building Contractors and Solicitation of Quotations
6. Building Floor Plan and Exterior Design
7. Building Cost Savings
8. Other Construction Costs
9. Total Project Cost Summary
10. Funding Summary
11. Rent vs. Own Analysis
12. Value Engineering Study
1. History
Page 2
The existing PW Utility Administration building is a 5-module, 3,360 square foot assembly of mobile
structures that was first leased from William Scotsman in 2003 and occupied by the Utility Administration
department in 2004. This building is a used modular structure that was previously occupied by one of the
refineries in Anacortes; as such, the City was able to obtain a below market lease for the building.
Since the 2003 original lease signing, the PW Utility Administration department has paid over $220,000 in
lease payments for this building; the current lease rate is $0.71 per square foot per month. This is a very
below market lease that will expire in October 2011; current market rates for buildings of similar
construction is $1.39 per square foot per month.
In the summer of 2010 the PW Utility Administration department began planning for construction of a
new permanent PW Utility Administration building by October 2011. The PW Utility Administration
office is a crucial piece of utility infrastructure providing a very much needed service to the City’s utility
departments necessary to keep them operating in a financially solvent manner and in compliance with all
necessary state and federal regulations. Given its need for successful utility operation, both the water
utility comprehensive plan (2011) and sewer utility comprehensive plan (2008) identified construction of a
new PW Utility Administration building in their long range capital improvement program. This project
has been funded in the amount of $900,000 through the Council approved 2011 Water Utility and Sewer
Utility capital budgets.
2. Project Team
Following the approved funding for 2011 construction of a new PW Utility Administration building, a City
project team was selected for this project. This team consists of Paul Ellis, Linda Taylor, and Jim Kelly.
Outside consultant Dick Warren, was brought in to provide Value Engineering (VE) on this analysis and
recommendation; the VE report is an independent study submitted under separate cover.
3. Selection of Building Construction Type
The city's project team first evaluated three different types of construction for the new PW Utility
Administration building. These types of construction included architectural design/stick built construction,
prefabricated building, and modular construction.
- Custom Design Construction
: Custom Design Construction, also referred to as architecturally
designed/stick built construction, allows an office building to be designed specific for the
office function and site location. However, of the three building construction types
investigated, this type is the most expensive per square foot and has the longest lead time.
Many of the tasks that contribute to the high cost and long lead time include selecting an
architect, coordinating design, bidding the project and selecting a general contractor. Typical
costs for similar office construction per RS Means cost estimation data, 2009 Seattle area
average is $170.00 per square foot.
Page 3
- Prefab Steel Building
: Prefabricated steel buildings are standardized, predesigned structures
that are fabricated in a factory, transported to a building site, and assembled or reconstructed
on the building site. The prefabricated buildings that were researched by the project team were
too industrial to be set in the Haller Park environment and did not meet the functional
requirements of the Utility Administration Department. The average cost range for a prefab
steel building is $130.00 to 160.00 per square foot.
- Modular Construction
: With modular construction, a building is constructed (or assembled) in
a factory, trucked to a building location, and erected on site. Modular office buildings have
come a long way over the years in design and construction, permanent modular construction
does not look like the mobile trailers of yesterday. The prefab buildings of today function just
as well as their conventional counterparts and can be customized to almost any specification
the City needs.
The cost savings and quality in construction of modular buildings is achieved by doing a vast
amount of the construction work in a factory, with our building being constructed in
Marysville. The pieces of the office will be built off site and then later assembled at our
building location on West Cox Ave. Overall, this type of construction leads to a faster project
schedule, which keeps costs down, and increases building quality with regular code
compliance by state inspectors. Typically, it takes 12 to 20 weeks to construct the building in
a factory and less than three weeks to erect it on site (complete build-out).
The average building cost per sq ft for modular construction is $130.00 to $150.00 per square
foot.
- Recommendation: This construction process is the lowest cost and provides the best value to
the City for a permanent, long term Utility Administration Building. When compared to
traditional construction, modular construction is usually 20 to 30 percent lower than other
types of construction. After evaluating the available types of construction, the project team
recommended that this project move forward with the modular type construction
.
4. Space Planning
After selecting a building construction type (modular), the next phase was to review space planning needs
for the new building. This involved an evaluation of the internal building space needs as well as the space
planning and external construction needs the building would require as part of the Haller Park
environment. During the planning phase the following functions were identified for the PW Utility
Administration building:
• Provide for a Parks & Recreation Office • Be a City presence at Haller Park
• Provide a large public meeting area • Provide for future expansion
• Provide for an IT center (IT is running out of space in its current location)
Page 4
The minimum internal space needs of the PW Utility Administration building include a minimum of seven
offices, one or two conference rooms, a lunchroom/breakroom and restrooms for employees, and a file
room sized sufficient to accommodate 52 file cabinets. In addition, since this building was to be part of the
Haller Park environment, we need to provide a public use portion of the building. To that extent, the
building needs to have a large public meeting area that would be sized sufficiently to accommodate public
meetings and sized to accommodate professional meetings for the Public Works Department (Utilities,
Engineering, M&O, etc.).
After evaluating all the requirements of Haller Park and the Utility Administration building, the project
team came up with the following minimum space requirements:
Room L W Area
File room 20 28 560 52 file cabinets, 2 flat files, and rolled paper files
Large Conference 30 40 1200 conf room, open for public meetings, multi media
Small Conf Room (2) 20 12 480 Two conf rooms, white board, 8-10 people
Breakroom/Kitchen 20 16 320 Table, counter, sink, coffee maker, fridge, oven etc
Copier/Plotter/Printer 10 15 150 General purpose with supplies
Public Restrooms (2) 15 15 450 Two stall with dual sink, ADA compliant
Employee Restroom (2) 12 10 240 Restroom with shower
Foyer/Entry 20 25 500 General meeting area for public
Parks & Rec Office 20 15 300 Office with table for meetings
PW Director (Jim) 20 15 300 Office with table for meetings
Water Resources (Mike) 10 13 130 Standard office
Staff Accountant (Kris) 15 15 225 Standard office (includes space for additional files)
Stormwater Utility (Ken) 10 13 130 Standard office
Utility Spec (Reta) 10 13 130 Standard office
CCC Office (Gus) 10 13 130 Standard office
Admin (Linda) 10 13 130 Open area near Jims office (with glass walls)
GIS (Abe) 40 20 800 Set up for four cubicles (pod style)
Utility Manager 10 13 130 Vacant, for future
Vacant (spare) 9 12 108 TBD
Vacant (spare) 9 12 108 TBD
Telecom/Comp Closet 10 8 80 Telecom, security, wireless network
Mechanical room 8 8 64 Plumbing, HVAC
Janitorial Closet 6 8 48 Cleaning supplies, mop sink
Walking Space (8%) Estimate for halls & open space 522
7,235
Office Space 2,621sf
Employees 9 current 291 SF per person
Employees 15 future 175 SF per person
Page 5
This space plan was provided to the modular contractors as a guide to assemble modules that would fit the
City’s need. Based on the modular contractor’s recommendation, staff elected to move forward with the
new PW Utility Administration building having approximately 7,480 square feet.
5. Identification of Modular Building Contractors and Solicitation of Quotations
The project team evaluated how to best proceed with procuring the modular type construction for the
utility administration building. After reviewing available options, it was decided that the easiest method
would be to select a modular building contractor that was included on the KCDA purchasing contract.
By selecting a modular building contractor that was listed on the KCDA purchasing contract, the City
would eliminate the need to prepare a bid specification package, eliminate the need for public advertising,
and eliminate the need to prepare a contract.
With the contractor listed on the KCDA vendor list, the unit costs for construction have already been bid
and negotiated, and the supplier is under a master agreement. To purchase a building through KCDA, the
City would work with the modular contractor for a building design to meet the Utility Administration
needs (space, room layout, finishings, etc.) and request a quotation based on the KCDA pricing. The City
would then issue a Purchase Order to KCDA for the building, KCDA would require a 2% handling fee.
The city identified two modular building contractors that were on the KCDA purchasing list, one was
William Scotsman Company and the other was Pacific Mobile Construction. The project team first
approached William Scotsman and outlined our requirements for the new building – internal requirements
and external requirements. We also discussed our accelerated timeframe to have the building erected.
Williams Scotsman company provided the city with a draft floor plan and a quotation for a building that
met all of our needs (please see attached Williams Scotsman).
After speaking with the William Scotsman Company, the project team met with Pacific Mobile and
requested a quotation for the same exact building; every specification requested from Pacific Mobile was
the same as requested from Williams Scotsman. Pacific Mobile provided a quotation that was
approximately 20% lower than the quotation provided by William Scotsman (please see attached Pacific
Mobile quotation). A summary of the two quotations, including sales tax at 8.6% and 2% KCDA fee is
provided below:
William
Scotsman Pacific Mobile
Base Price $ 1,081,522.00 $ 889,020.00
Sales tax $ 93,010.90 $ 76,455.72
KCDA Fee $ 21,630.44 $ 17,780.40
Total $ 1,196,163.34 $ 983,256.12
Page 6
After evaluating the two costs, the two designs, and the two contractors; the project team elected to move
forward with Pacific Mobile as the preferred modular building contractor for the PW Utility
Administration building.
6. Building Floor Plan and Exterior Design
The City worked with Pacific Mobile to refine the floor plan and to develop a building exterior that
matched all of the requirements developed in the City’s space planning analysis. The below are
preliminary designs, more detailed designs will be prepared as the design phase progress:
Page 7
7. Building Cost Savings
Following the April 25, 2011 Council Workshop, staff returned to the building construction detail and
eliminated options saving $55,299 in building costs. A summary of the eliminated items is summarized in
the below table:
Do not upgrade floor to 1 1/8” T & G plywood with 1/2” hardie underlayment
Eliminated Options
- 13,565.00
Keep standard ceiling tiles to 2’x2’ Tegular USG Radar fine fissured tiles - 9,994.00
Remove KMC DDC Controls to HVAC System for the operation of HVAC and heat pumps - 16,677.00
Keep Hardiplank Siding, do not install Board and Batt siding - 5,660.00
Do not Upgrade Canopies on two main entry points (see below drawing) - 22,968.00
TOTAL Savings on Options $ 68, 864
8. Other Construction Costs
In addition to the building cost, the following costs are also required for this project:
- Utility Service (water, sewer, gas)
-
: The project team also investigated utility service for the
new building. Water and sewer service is in the road and available to the building. After
meeting with Cascade Natural Gas, service is nearby and available, it just needs to be extended
to the building; City crews will excavate and trench for new gas service.
Electric Service
-
: Electric service for the new Utility Administration building will be provided
from the utility plant distribution system. This will allow the building to be connected to the
Plant’s emergency generator and have a back-up power source in the event of a power failure.
Power is available at the building site will be 500 amp 120/208 volt service, actual power load
to be determined as design moves forward.
Telephone and IT service: Telecom service will remain a combination of fiber optic and 100-
pair copper wire. Costs for the telecom service will be for splicing and extending fiber to the
new office. The communication closet will be large enough to house an expansion for the
City’s IT Department server system.
Page 8
- Site improvements (landscaping, sidewalks, parking lot)
: Project costs also include funding
for site improvements associated with the new building. These improvements include storm
drainage, new sidewalks, a parking lot, and landscaping (by City’s M&O crew). Design of the
site improvements will be completed in-house and be coordinated with the modular building
contractor’s foundation plan.
9. Total Project Cost Summary
The total project cost summary for the construction of the Utility Administration building, utilities, and site
improvements, is summarized in the below table.
Modular Building Construction & Finishing $930,069.00
Tax $79,986.00
Permitting $19,000.00
KDCA $18,601.00
Site Survey $4,200.00
Water and Sewer $2,300.00
Electric Utilities $23,000.00
Communication Utilities and Communication System $3,000.00
Site work (concrete, paving, parking lot, landscaping) $12,344.00
Misc tasks $7,500.00
Total $1,100,000.00
10. Funding summary
The utility funding for the Utility Administration project comes from several sources, as summarized
below:
PW Utility Admin Building Funding Summary
Water Utility CIP (2011 budget) $ 450,000.00
Sewer Utility CIP (2011 budget) $ 450,000.00
Storm Utility $ 50,000.00
WWTP Fund $ 150,000.00
Total Funding $ 1,100,000.00
11. Rent vs Own cost Analysis
A “Lease vs. Own” analysis was performed to look at the net present value of continuing a lease for a
similar building, a lease for a similar building with more area, and construction of a modular permanent
office as described above. A 30 year and 40 year time frame were evaluated.
Option #1
NPV = $ 1,100,000 (actual cost estimate for building, utilities and site work)
– Procure permanent modular building
Page 9
Option #2
- Interior layout to include 8 offices, 1 fax room (small), 1 storage room, 1 telecom/elec closet, 2
bathrooms (male/female), and a plan lay down area
– Lease 3,600 sf building, this option assumes:
- Monthly lease $6,350.00; setup fee $16,940 (quote attached to memorandum)
- Annual lease escalation is 1.0% and cost of funds at 2.2%
NPV (30 years) = $ 1,973,653 NPV (40 years) = $ 2,476,937
Option #3
- Interior layout to include 8 offices, 1 fax room (small), 1 storage room, 1 telecom/elec closet, 2
bathrooms (male/female), 1 conference room, a plan lay down area, and a breakroom
– Lease 5,040 sf building, this option assumes:
- Monthly lease $8,000.00; setup fee $16,940 (quote attached to memorandum)
- Annual lease escalation is 1.0% and cost of funds at 2.2%
NPV (30 years) = $ 2,489,243 NPV (40 years) = $ 3,123,301
12. Value Engineering
The City coordinated with Dick Warren to perform a value Engineering (VE) for this analysis; this study is
not attached to this memorandum and is being submitted under separate cover. In general, the VE study
concluded that the option with the best value is Option 1.
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT B
COUNCIL WORKSHOP DATE:
May 9, 2011
SUBJECT: 67th Avenue Amenities
Presentation
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Public Works – Jim Kelly
ATTACHMENTS:
• PowerPoint Presentation
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $ 0
BUDGET CATEGORY: Transportation Improvement Fund 310
LEGAL REVIEW: N/A
DESCRIPTION: Presentation of retaining wall styles and street amenities for the 67th Ave
Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3.
HISTORY: The City has been engaged in the design of upgrades and improvements to the
third phase of the 67th Ave Rehabilitation Project. Now that the project is moving into the
final design stages, staff will be discussing options for street amenities and retaining wall
options for this project.
Since this section of 67th Ave is the southern entrance to the City, the proposed street amenities
will be the same as incorporated in the Olympic Ave project. The current retaining wall has
several options to make it less industrial looking and more visually attractive as part of a
Down Town Corridor.
ALTERNATIVES:
Defer to staff for additional design/planning.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action requested – discussion only.
Agenda
Wall Selection
•Options
•Cost Summary
•Option Features and Overview
Street Furniture
•Style Overview
•Locations
Wall Options
•Existing Concrete Cast-in-Place (CIP) is a key
decision point
Consistent appearance is
desired
Decorative Fascia or pattern?
Mural?
2,400 SF of existing wall;
7,900 SF new wall needed
Wall Options
4 primary decisions to make
1.Do all walls in corridor need
to have consistent
appearance?
2.CIP wall or block wall?
3.Cost
4.Wall finish options
Cost Summary
•Options
1 –Exist CIP remain, new block $316K
2 –Exist CIP remain, new CIP $988K
3 –Exist CIP remain, new CIP, all new fascia $1.6M
4 –Remove exist CIP, new block $472K
5 –Remove exist CIP, new CIP $1.5M
Option 1 –Exist CIP remain, new block wall
$316K
•Lowest Cost
•Simple Construction
•Minimal BNSF Impact
•Non-Uniform Appearance
Option 2 –Exist CIP remain, new CIP $988K
•Uniform Appearance
Flat concrete finish
Could have mural
•Graffiti potential
•Minimal BNSF Impact
Option 3 –Exist CIP remain, new CIP, all new
fascia $1.6M
•Highest Cost
•Uniform Appearance
All walls would be patterned, many options
•Minimal BNSF Impact
•Difficulty attaching fascia panels to exist. wall
Option 4 –Remove exist CIP, new block $472K
•2nd Lowest Cost
•Uniform Appearance
All walls would be block, many options
Block walls can be considered less attractive than
concrete fascia or form liner
•More Significant BNSF Impact
Option 5 –Remove exist CIP, new CIP $1.5M
•2nd Highest Cost
•Uniform Appearance
CIP walls can be patterned uniformly without fascia
•More Significant BNSF Impact
Block Wall Finish
•Endless array of possibilities
•Can combine colors for a pattern
•Needs more regular maintenance
Concrete Wall Finish
•Form Liner
Numerous finishes
Less expensive
•Fascia Panels
Can apply to existing wall
More expensive
Street Amenities
•Potential uses
Lights
Benches
Bike Racks
Bulletin Board
Trash Receptacles
Lights Used on Olympic Ave.
Street Furniture Used on Olympic Ave.
Trash Receptacles Used on Olympic Ave.
Requested Council Input
•Preferred Wall Option
1 –Exist CIP remain, new block $316K
2 –Exist CIP remain, new CIP $988K
3 –Exist CIP remain, new CIP, all new fascia $1.6M
4 –Remove exist CIP, new block $472K
5 –Remove exist CIP, new CIP $1.5M
•Approval to continue use of Olympic amenities
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT C
COUNCIL WORKSHOP DATE:
May 9, 2011
SUBJECT: Cemetery Office Remodel DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Public Works – Jim Kelly
ATTACHMENTS:
• Proposed Layout/Design
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $34,000
BUDGET CATEGORY: Cemetery Improvement Fund 116
LEGAL REVIEW: Pending review by City Attorney
DESCRIPTION: Expand the Cemetery Office to include waiting area, display area,
office/meeting room, and private consultation room.
HISTORY: The current Cemetery Office is a small room situated in the cemetery maintenance
building. Since this is the main sales office for the Cemetery, the office area needs to be
updated and remodeled in order to provide a more comfortable and professional environment
for Cemetery clientele. The Cemetery Board has requested that staff upgrade and expand the
existing Cemetery Office in 2011.
Staff generated in-house conceptual drawings for the Cemetery office upgrade and expansion.
Preliminary discussions with contractors indicate that the cost of expansion will be
approximately $34,000. Though this was not a 2011 budgeted item, the Cemetery has pre-sold
23 acre feet of its water rights to the Water Utility. Funding from the pre-sale of water rights
will pay for capital improvements.
This work will be offer to firms listed on the City’s Small Works Roster.
ALTERNATIVES:
Defer to staff for additional design/planning.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action requested – discussion only.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Office
Display Room Meetin gRoom
Storage
ExistingStorage
Kitchen/Lunch room
ExistingBathroom
GarageCovered Storage
17' 0"
11' 6"
4' 6"
8' 0"
Electrical
Panel
DRAFT
0 105 Feet"
City of Arlington Municipal C em eteryOffice Building LayoutMaps and GIS data are distributed “AS -IS” without warranties of any kind, either express or im plied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use. Map data are compiled from a variety of sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the inform ation do so at their own risk. Users agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liabili ty of any nature arising out of or resulting from the l ack of accuracy or correctness of the data, or the use of the data presented in the maps.Scale:
Date:
File Name:
Carto gra pher:5/5/2011 lb
CemeteryB ldgLayout11x17_1 11 inch = 6 feet
Legend
Walls
Counter
Furn ature
Dimension
Door
\\Ga rag e Door
Op en
Applia nce
Fixture
Temporary Com ponent
Window
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT D
COUNCIL WORKSHOP DATE:
May 9, 2011
SUBJECT: Washington St. and Lenore St.
Water Main Replacement Project
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Public Works – Water
ATTACHMENTS:
• None
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $300,000 ($250,000 was budgeted in 2011, but
project expansion has increased cost)
BUDGET CATEGORY: Water Capital Improvement Fund 405
LEGAL REVIEW: City Attorney will review all contract
documents prior to Bid Advertisement.
DESCRIPTION: Request for authorization to advertise the 2011 Water Main Improvements
project to contractors on the City’s Small Works Roster.
HISTORY: The City’s 2011 approved budget includes $250,000.00 in water Capital
Improvement funds for the replacement of under-sized and failing asbestos-concrete water
main on Washington and Lenore streets. As the planning and design phase progressed,
additional pipe was identified in the area that also needed to be replaced – the additional water
main replacement is in 1st St and in Stillaguamish Ave.
Though the requested amount exceeds the 2011 budgeted amount for this project, there are
sufficient funds in the Water Capital Improvement Fund. It is intended to have this work
completed before installing a cape seal on Stillaguamish Ave and before school starts.
ALTERNATIVES:
Defer to staff for additional design/planning.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action requested – discussion only.
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT E
COUNCIL WORKSHOP DATE:
May 9, 2011
SUBJECT: Stillaguamish Avenue Paving
Project – Authority to Bid
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Public Works – Jim Kelly
ATTACHMENTS:
• None
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $140,000 (a 2011 budgeted item; costs to be shared
with Stillaguamish Tribe)
BUDGET CATEGORY: Transportation Improvement Fund 310
LEGAL REVIEW: City Attorney will review all contract
documents prior to Bid Advertisement.
DESCRIPTION: The City’s 2011 approved budget includes funding the resurfacing of
Stillaguamish from Highland to First St. This agenda bill requests authorization to bid the
project from the City’s Small Works Roster.
HISTORY: As part of a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Arlington and
the Cascade Valley Hospital, a City partner, the City agreed to rehabilitate Stillaguamish Ave
after the Hospital’s expansion project was completed. The hospital project is complete and the
City is now ready to rehabilitate Stillaguamish Ave between Highland and maple (grind,
compact, and pave).
Since this road section is listed on the Indian Reservation Road (IRR) inventory, the City
contacted the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians and inquired if they wanted to partner on this
project. Casey Steven of the Stillaguamish Tribe agreed and the City and the Tribe began
planning for this road repaving project.
The design is complete and we are now ready to bid the project.
ALTERNATIVES:
Defer to staff for additional design/planning.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action requested – discussion only.
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT F
COUNCIL WORKSHOP DATE:
May 9, 2011
SUBJECT: Stillaguamish Ave Cape Seal –
Authority to Contract with Snohomish
County
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Public Works – Jim Kelly
ATTACHMENTS:
• Proposal from Snohomish County
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $ 38,000
BUDGET CATEGORY: Transportation Improvement Fund 310
LEGAL REVIEW: City Attorney will provide a final review of
the Snohomish County work order
DESCRIPTION: Request authorization for the City to issue a Work Order to Snohomish
County for installation of a micro-surfacing pavement preservation procedure known as a
Cape Seal on Stillaguamish Ave between Maple and 1st.
HISTORY: The City is responsible for maintaining all of the roads in Arlington; this is a big task
to that has a small budget. As such, the City tries to utilize the most cost effective approach to
pavement preservation on city streets.
Micro-surfacing is one of the most cost effective pavement preservation procedures available, a
cape seal is a micro-surfacing procedure. A cape seal is applied when the pavement deterioration
is greater than what a slurry seal is designed to correct, yet has not deteriorated to the point of
requiring an expensive asphalt overlay. A cape seal prevents water penetration reducing
subsequent damage to the road bed, along with providing a new wearing surface. Cape seals are
used on residential streets due to its ability to provide the strength of a chip seal with the
smoothness of a slurry seal. Used with crack sealing and surface patching, a cape seal significantly
extends the life of a neighborhood street.
This project will first seal cracks and pre-level Stillaguamish Ave (cost $18,600 or $1.57 per sf) and
then install the cape seal (cost $17,200 or $1.46 per sf). This will be the first cape
seal ever used in Arlington and we will measure its effectiveness.
ALTERNATIVES:
Defer to staff for additional design/planning.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action requested – discussion only.
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT G
COUNCIL WORKSHOP DATE:
May 9, 2011
SUBJECT: Slurry Seal Pavement Preservation
Project Bid Rejection
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Public Works – Engineering
ATTACHMENTS:
• Bid Tab
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None
BUDGET CATEGORY: Transportation Improvement Fund 310
LEGAL REVIEW: N/A
DESCRIPTION: A request to reject all bids received for the Slurry Seal Project.
HISTORY: The Slurry Seal Pavement Project was advertised for bid in April with a bid
opening date of April 28th. The Small Works Roster was utilized and project notification
announcements were mailed to 22 contractors identified as asphalt paving contractors. Only
one bid was received, this was from Intermountain Slurry Seal, Inc., and the submitted bid was
70% higher than the estimate.
Since there was only one bid received for this project, it appears that there is only one
contractor capable of performing this work. By rejecting all of the bids, the City will be able to
invite the Contractor to visit the project site and then enter into a project negotiation as a sole
source contractor.
ALTERNATIVES:
Defer to staff for additional design/planning.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discussion only.
Page 1
ITEM
NO.
UNIT DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT COST TOTAL
COST
Unit Costs Total Costs
PREPARATION
1 L.S.MOBILIZATION 1 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ $13,042.00 $13,042.00
2 L.S.REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE AND OBSTRUCTION 1 500.00$ 500.00$ $300.00 $300.00
3 L.F.REMOVING PLASTIC LINE 96 2.00$ 192.00$ $5.00 $480.00
4 S.F.REMOVING PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE 75 2.00$ 150.00$ $3.00 $225.00
HOT MIX ASPHALT
5 S.Y.PAVEMENT REPAIR 200 20.00$ 4,000.00$ $80.00 $16,000.00
6 S.Y.PRELEVELING 200 20.00$ 4,000.00$ $45.00 $9,000.00
7 L.F.CRACK SEALING 2,000 1.50$ 3,000.00$ $4.00 $8,000.00
8 S.Y.SLURRY SEAL 26,352 1.80$ 47,433.60$ $2.50 $65,880.00
TRAFFIC
9 S.F.PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE 75 2.80$ 210.00$ $3.00 $225.00
10 L.F.PLASTIC STOP LINE 96 3.70$ 355.20$ $5.00 $480.00
11 L.S.PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ $15,000.00 $15,000.00
OTHER
12 EST.FORCE ACCOUNT 1 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ $2,000.00 $2,000.00
13 EST.REIMBURSEMENT FOR THIRD PARTY DAMAGES 1 500.00$ 500.00$ $500.00 $500.00
14 L.S.SPCC PLAN 1 750.00$ 750.00$ $500.00 $500.00
15 L.S.CONTRACT BOND EXTENSION 1 500.00$ 500.00$ $500.00 $500.00
TOTAL 74,590.80$ $132,132.00
16 5% CONTINGENCY 1 3,729.54$ 3,729.54$
78,320.34$
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE #1
PREPARATION
2 L.S.REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE AND OBSTRUCTION 1 500.00$ 500.00$ $100.00 $100.00
3 L.F.REMOVING PLASTIC LINE 48 2.00$ 96.00$ $5.00 $240.00
4 S.F.REMOVING PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE 25 2.00$ 50.00$ $3.00 $75.00
HOT MIX ASPHALT
5 S.Y.PAVEMENT REPAIR 50 20.00$ 1,000.00$ $80.00 $4,000.00
6 S.Y.PRELEVELING 75 20.00$ 1,500.00$ $45.00 $3,375.00
City of Arlington
BID TAB - 2011 SLURRY SEAL
4/290/2011
Prepared by: LCP
Intermountain Slurry Seal
585 West Beach Street
Watsonville, CA 95076
Engineer's
Estimate
Page 2
ITEM
NO.
UNIT DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT COST TOTAL
COST
Unit Costs Total Costs
City of Arlington
BID TAB - 2011 SLURRY SEAL
4/290/2011
Prepared by: LCP
Intermountain Slurry Seal
585 West Beach Street
Watsonville, CA 95076
Engineer's
Estimate
7 L.F.CRACK SEALING 500 1.50$ 750.00$ $3.50 $1,750.00
8 S.Y.SLURRY SEAL 8,864 1.80$ 15,955.20$ $2.50 $22,160.00
TRAFFIC
9 S.F.PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE 25 2.80$ 70.00$ $3.00 $75.00
10 L.F.PLASTIC STOP LINE 48 3.70$ 177.60$ $5.00 $240.00
11 L.S.PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ $1,225.50 $1,225.50
TOTAL 21,098.80$ $33,240.50
12 5% CONTINGENCY 1 1,054.94$ 1,054.94$
22,153.74$
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE #2
PREPARATION
2 L.S.REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE AND OBSTRUCTION 1 500.00$ 500.00$ $100.00 $100.00
3 L.F.REMOVING PLASTIC LINE 84 2.00$ 168.00$ $5.00 $420.00
4 S.F.REMOVING PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE 50 2.00$ 100.00$ $3.00 $150.00
HOT MIX ASPHALT
5 S.Y.PAVEMENT REPAIR 50 20.00$ 1,000.00$ $80.00 $4,000.00
6 S.Y.PRELEVELING 75 20.00$ 1,500.00$ $45.00 $3,375.00
7 L.F.CRACK SEALING 500 1.50$ 750.00$ $3.50 $1,750.00
8 S.Y.SLURRY SEAL 7,303 1.80$ 13,145.40$ $2.50 $18,257.50
TRAFFIC
9 S.F.PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE 50 2.80$ 140.00$ $3.00 $150.00
10 L.F.PLASTIC STOP LINE 84 3.70$ 310.80$ $5.00 $420.00
11 L.S.PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ $1,200.00 $1,200.00
TOTAL 18,614.20$ $29,822.50
12 5% CONTINGENCY 1 930.71$ 930.71$
19,544.91$
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT H
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
May 9, 2011
SUBJECT:
Minor Land Use Code Amendments –
Annual Docketing Process for Comp Plan
Amendments
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Community Development – David Kuhl, Todd Hall
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Council Workshop Memo.
2. Proposed text amendments to Chapter 20.96.
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: -0-
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
N/A
DESCRIPTION: Minor land use code amendments to AMC Chapter 20.96 Amendments to
establish the annual docketing process for Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
HISTORY: Planning Commission reviewed the amendments at their meeting on May 3, 2011.
ALTERNATIVES: No action.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
None proposed at this time. Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendments at their
last meeting on May 3, 2011. A public hearing will be scheduled at the Planning Commission
meeting on May 17, 2011. A public hearing is expected at the June 20, 2011 City Council meeting
to hear from the public and consider adoption.
th; 05/09/11
Page 1 of 1
Community Development
Planning Division
City Council Workshop Memo
Date: May 9, 2011
To: Arlington City Council
From: David Kuhl, AICP, Community Development Director
Todd Hall, Associate Planner
Re: Proposed Amendments to Title 20 Land Use Code
The attached amendments are City-initiated, City-wide, minor amendments to Chapter 20.96 of
Arlington Municipal Code, Title 20, Land Use Code. The proposed amendments are to establish the
annual docketing process for Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Comprehensive Plan Amendments are permitted annually once per year, with all amendments
being submitted to the Planning department by January 31st. The attached amendments provide
the procedures with which applicants and City shall follow.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.96: Amendments
City of Arlington 20.96 - 1 1/31/2011April 2011
Chapter 20.96
AMENDMENTS
Sections:
20.96.010 Amendments in General.
20.96.020 Initiation of Amendments.
20.96.030 Docketing Procedures - Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
20.96.040 Selection and Decision Criteria - Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
20.96.050 Selection and Decision Criteria - Text and Zoning Map Amendments.
20.96.030060 Public Hearings on Amendments.
20.96.050070 Planning Commission Consideration of Proposed Amendments.
20.96.060080 Council Action on Amendments.
20.96.070090 Ultimate Issue Before Council on Amendments.
20.96.100 Minor Corrections Exempt.
20.96.010 Amendments in General.
(a) Amendments to the text of this Title or to the zoning map may be made in accordance with
the provisions of this chapter.
(b) The term major map amendment shall refer to an amendment that addresses the zoning
district classification of five or more tracts of land in separate ownership or any parcel of land
(regardless of the number of lots or owners) in excess of 50 acres. All other amendments to
the zoning district map shall be referred to as minor map amendments.
(c) Amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan or to the Land Use Map may be made
in accordance with provisions of this chapter.
(d) With the exception to those instances listed in AMC 20.96.010(e), Tthe Comprehensive Plan
may not be amended more than once a year (RCW 36.70A.130) and therefore requests for
amendments will be deferred to the time of an annual public hearing. Only amendments
submitted no later than the last working day of January each calendar year will be reviewed
for the annual cycle.
(e) Exceptions to Annual Cycle. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may be considered
more frequently than once per year in any of the following circumstances:
1. Resolution of an emergency condition or situation. Council shall confirm the Director’s
finding that such an emergency exists.
2 Resolution of a decision by an administrative agency or court of competent jurisdiction.
(d) (3) For any reasons specified in RCW 36.70A.130(2), as hereinafter amended. (Amended
by Ord. xxx, x/x/11)
20.96.020 Initiation of Amendments.
(a) Whenever a request to amend this Title is initiated by the City Council, the Pla nning
Commission, or the City Administration, the City Attorney in consultation with the planning
staff shall draft an appropriate ordinance and schedule a public hearing before the Planning
Commission, unless the code amendment is of an emergency nature, in which case a public
hearing can be scheduled before the City Council without Planning Commission
consideration.
(b) Any other person may also petition the Council to amend this Title by submitting an
application for a Code Amendment, signed by both the applicant and the property owner.
The application shall be filed with the Community Development Department and shall
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.96: Amendments
City of Arlington 20.96 - 2 1/31/2011April 2011
include, among the information deemed relevant by the Community Development Director or
his or her designee: (Amended by Ord. 1312, 11/17/03; and by Ord. 1365, 6/13/05)
1. The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant,
2. A description of the land affected by the amendment if a change in zoning district
classification is proposed,
3. Public Notice Materials as required by §20.24.020 (Public Notice),
4. A description of the proposed map change or a summary of the specific objective of any
proposed change in the text of this Title, and,
5. If necessary, an environmental checklist and any other documentation needed to comply
with SEPA (including but not limited to special studies).
(c) Upon receipt of a petition as provided in Subsection (b), the Community Development
Director shall either: (Amended by Ord. 1312, 11/17/2003)
1. Treat the proposed amendment as one initiated by the city administration and proceed in
accordance with Subsection (a) if he believes that the proposed amendment has
significant merit and would benefit the general public, or
2. Forward the petition to the appropriate hearing body for a public hearing.
(d) Comprehensive Plan amendments shall comply with the procedures as required by
§20.96.030 and §20.96.040. (Amended by Ord. xxx, x/x/11)
20.96.030 Docketing Procedures – Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
(a) The City shall compile and maintain a list, know as a ―docket,‖ of all City-initiated and
privately-initiated proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. The list shall be organized as to
amendment type and include a description of the amendment in nontechnical terms, as well as
the name of the applicant and date of submission to the City. The preliminary docke t shall be
made available to the public for review and comment for at least 15 days prior to consideration
by the Planning Commission. Written comments that are submitted by the end of the comment
period shall be added to the preliminary docket. The final docket will be determined as
described in AMC 20.96.030(b).
(b) Preliminary review – Determination of Final Docket.
1. Staff Evaluation. The Community Development Director shall conduct a brief initial
evaluation of all privately-initiated proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to ascertain
whether the proposals meet the preliminary review criteria in AMC 20.96.030(c) and to
assess the extent of review that would be required under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA). The Director shall make a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to
which proposed amendments should be included in the final docket, along with any City-
initiated proposed amendments.
2. Joint Workshop. During each annual amendment cycle, the City Council and Planning
Commission may, at the City Council’s discretion, hold a noticed joint workshop to serve as
an informational meeting between the two governmental bodies.
3. Planning Commission Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a noticed hearing
on selection of proposed amendments for the final docket.
4. City Council Decision. The City Council shall consider the Planning Commission’s
recommended final docket. Council may adopt the proposed final docket without a public
hearing; however, in the event that a majority of the Council decides to add or subtract
amendments, it shall first hold a public hearing. No additional amendments may be
considered after Council adoption of the docket for that year, except as provided in AMC
20.96.010(e). The final docket shall be approved by resolution. (Amended by Ord. xxx,
x/x/11)
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.96: Amendments
City of Arlington 20.96 - 3 1/31/2011April 2011
20.96.040 Selection and Decision Criteria – Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Considering that the Comprehensive Plan was developed after significant study and public
participation, the principles, goals, objectives, and policies contained therein shall be granted
substantial weight when considering any proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof
for justifying a proposed amendment rests with the applicant. The City Council’s approval,
modification, deferral, or denial of an amendment proposal shall be based on the following
criteria:
(a) Proposed amendments that meet one of the following criteria may be included in the final
docket:
1. If the proposed amendment is site specific, the subject property is suitable for
development in general conformance with adjacent land use and the surrounding
development pattern, and with zoning standards under the potential zoning
classifications.
2. State law requires or a decision of a court or administrative agency has directed such
a change.
3. There exists an obvious technical error in the pertinent Comprehensive Plan
provision.
(b) Proposed amendments that do not meet one of the criteria in subsection (1) of this
section shall meet all of the following criteria:
1. The amendment represents a matter appropriately addressed through the
Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed amendment demonstrates a public benefit and
enhances the public health, safety and welfare of the City.
2. The amendment does not raise policy or land use issues that are more appropriately
addressed by an ongoing work program approved by the City Council.
3. The proposed amendment addresses significantly changed conditions since the last time
the pertinent Comprehensive Plan map or text was amended. ―Significantly changed
conditions‖ are those resulting from unanticipated consequences of an adopted policy, or
changed conditions on the subject property or its surrounding area, or changes related
to the pertinent Comprehensive Plan map or text, where such change has implications of
a magnitude that need to be addressed for the Comprehensive Plan to function as an
integrated whole.
4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other goals
and policies of the City, the Countywide Planning Policies, the Growth Management Act,
other State or Federal law, and the Washington Administrative Code and other
applicable law. (Amended by Ord. xxx, x/x/11)
20.96.050 Selection and Decision Criteria – Text and Zoning Map Amendments.
(a) The City Council’s approval, modification, deferral, or denial of an amendment proposal
shall be based on the following criteria:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan;
2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the scope and purpose of the City’s zoning
ordinances and the description and purpose of the zone classification applied for;
3. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning
map or district to warrant the proposed amendment;
4. The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with the uses and zoning of
surrounding property;
5. The property that is the subject of the amendment is suited for the uses allowed in the
proposed zoning classification;
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.96: Amendments
City of Arlington 20.96 - 4 1/31/2011April 2011
6. Adequate public services could be made available to serve the full range of proposed
uses in that zone. (Amended by Ord. Xxx, x/x/11)
20.96.03020.96.060 Public Hearings on Amendments.
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), an open record public hearing before either the
Planning Commission is required for all amendments to this Title or the Comprehensive
Plan. In addition, on text, or major map amendments or Comprehensive Plan amendments,
a hearing before the City Council may also be held if the Council so chooses.
(b) Emergency ordinances may go to the City Council directly pursuant to and in compliance
with the RCW governing emergency ordinances.
(c) The City shall give public notice as required per §20.24.020 (Public Notice).
20.96.050 070 Planning Commission Consideration of Proposed Amendments.
(a) The Planning Commission shall endeavor to review the proposed amendment in a timely
fashion. However, if the Planning Commission is not prepared to make recommendations at
conclusion of the public hearing, the Community Development Director may forward the
matter to City Council without a Planning Commission recommendation. (Amended by Ord.
1312, 11/17/2003)
(b) The Council need not await the recommendations of the Planning Commission before taking
action on a proposed amendment, nor is the Council bound by any recommendations of the
Planning Commission that are before it at the time it takes action on a proposed
amendment.
20.96.060 080 Council Action on Amendments.
(a) On text or minor map amendments, the Council shall hold a closed record hearing prior to
rendering a final decision. For text, or major map amendments or Comprehensive Plan
amendments, the Council may, at their discretion, hold either a closed or open record
hearing prior to rendering a final decision.
(b) At the conclusion of its consideration on a proposed amendment, the cCouncil may proceed
to vote on the proposed ordinance, refer it to a committee for further study, or take any other
action consistent with its usual rules of procedure.
(c) The cCouncil is not required to take final action on a proposed amendment within any
specific period of time, but it should proceed as expeditiously as practicable on petitions for
amendments since inordinate delays can result in the petitioner incurring unnecessary
costs.
(d) Voting on amendments to this Title or the Comprehensive Plan shall proceed in the same
manner as other ordinances.
20.96.070 090 Ultimate Issue Before Council on Amendments.
In deciding whether to adopt a proposed amendment to this tTitle or the Comprehensive Plan,
the central issue before the council is whether the proposed amendment advances the public
health, safety, or welfare. All other issues are irrelevant, and all information related to other
issues at the public hearing may be declared irrelevant by the presiding official and excluded. In
particular, when considering proposed minor map amendments:
(a) The cCouncil shall not consider any representations made by the petitioner that if the
change is granted the rezoned property will be used for only one of the possible range of
uses permitted in the requested classification. Rather, the council shall consider whether the
entire range of permitted uses in the requested classification is more appropriate than the
range of uses in the existing classification.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.96: Amendments
City of Arlington 20.96 - 5 1/31/2011April 2011
(b) The cCouncil shall not regard as controlling any advantages or disadvantages to the
individual requesting the change, but shall consider the impact of the proposed change on
the public at large.
(c) The Council shall consider Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Text and Zoning Map
Amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission using the criteria established in
AMC 20.96.040 and AMC 20.96.050, respectively. If there are substantial changes to the
proposed amendments after the public hearing by the Planning Commission, a second
public hearing before the Council is required. If there are no substantial changes, the
Council may choose whether or not to hold another public hearing. The City shall transmit a
copy of the Comprehensive Plan amendments to Department of Commerce within 10 days
of the City Council’s final adoption. (Amended by Ord. xxx, x/x/11).
20.96.100 Minor Corrections Exempt.
An amendment that does not result in any substantive change to the content or meaning of a
development regulation, such as a correction to punctuation or numbering or a typographical or
technical error, shall be exempt from the notice and hearing requirements of this chapter. In
such cases, the Director may make a recommendation directly to the City Council. (Amended by
Ord. xxx, x/x/11).
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT I
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
May 9, 2011
SUBJECT:
Contractual Agreement to care, detain or
destroy City of Arlington stray animals
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Police
Nelson Beazley, 360-403-3400
ATTACHMENTS:
Skagit Valley Animal Contract
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A
BUDGET CATEGORY: Police – Animal Contract
LEGAL REVIEW: Pending
DESCRIPTION:
A contractual agreement between the City of Arlington and the Humane Society of Skagit
Valley to receive all City of Arlington stray animals delivered to them by City of Arlington
employees or citizens of Arlington.
HISTORY:
Since 2010 the City of Arlington has had a contractual relationship with the Humane Society of
Skagit Valley to house all stray animals recovered within the City of Arlington. This agreement
has worked well for both parties and resulted in a substantial budgetary cost savings from
prior contracts with the Everett Animal Shelter.
ALTERNATIVES:
Take no action and allow existing contract to expire or return to Everett Animal Shelter at a
substantial increase in costs.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
There is no action requested at this time.
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT J
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
May 9, 2011
SUBJECT:
Renewal of the Interlocal Agreement with
Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Police
Contact: Nelson Beazley, 360-403-3400
ATTACHMENTS:
Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: An additional $14 for the remainder of 2011
BUDGET CATEGORY: Police – Narcotics Investigations Expenditures
LEGAL REVIEW: City Attorney Approved
DESCRIPTION:
This is an annual renewal of the interlocal agreement for the City of Arlington to participate in
the Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force. This agreement sets out the terms, the fees,
the organization and the operational conditions of this multi-agency task force and reflects an
approximate .033% increase over the current agreement.
HISTORY:
The Task Force was formed in 1988 and the City of Arlington has been a steady participant.
The Task Force was founded to work street narcotics and has evolved to investigating the
highest level of drug dealers. The Task Force is staffed by detectives from the Sheriff’s Office
and the City of Everett, and is assisted by a host of local and federal agencies. The Task Force
continues to provide essential assistance to the Police Department especially in the area of
training and undercover operations. The City’s financial contribution is only 2.43% of the total
but receives far more in returned services. The Task Force receives a large amount of funding
from the Federal government.
ALTERNATIVES:
Non-renewal and withdrawing from participation in the Task Force
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
There is no action required at this time.
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT K
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
May 9, 2011
SUBJECT:
Surplus of City Equipment
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Police – Nelson Beazley
ATTACHMENTS:
-Proposed Resolution
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Reviewed by City Attorney
DESCRIPTION:
The Police Department has two motor vehicles that are no longer viable for fleet use due to
their mechanical condition and need to be sold as surplus.
HISTORY:
The first vehicle was used as a full-time patrol unit before retiring to part-time use for Support
46 and is now valued at less than repair costs. The second vehicle, acquired through lawful
forfeiture, was used as a full-time detective vehicle before retiring for mechanical condition and
is now valued at less than repair costs.
ALTERNATIVES:
-Bring back for additional discussion at a later date
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action at this time.
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON DECLARING CERTAIN
PROPERTY AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZING ITS SALE
WHEREAS, the City has purchased, or acquired through lawful forfeiture, the
equipment listed on the attached Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the equipment identified on Exhibit “A” is surplus to the needs of the
City; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Arlington, acting by and through its City Council,
does hereby resolve as follows:
1. The equipment/property described on the attached Exhibit “A” is declared surplus
to the needs of the City.
2. Staff is instructed to sell all items for the best available price or properly dispose of
items that it is unable to sell.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Arlington at a regular meeting on the
____ day of _______, 2011.
________________________________
Steve Baker, Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kristin Banfield, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney
Exhibit “A”
Surplus Items Year/Make/Model/VIN
Motor Vehicle 2002 Ford Crown Victoria #2FAFP71W32X143696
Motor Vehicle 1998 Honda Passport #4S6CM58W3W4410688
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENT L
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
May 9, 2011
SUBJECT:
Approval of a proposed Resolution to surplus
a 1994 Ford ambulance and sell to Snohomish
County Fire Protection District #24
(Darrington) for $1.00
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN:
Fire
Contact: Bruce Stedman, 360-403-3601
ATTACHMENTS:
- Proposed Resolution to authorize staff to surplus a 1994 Ford ambulance and sell it to
Snohomish County Fire Protection District #24 (Darrington) for $1.00
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None
BUDGET CATEGORY: None
LEGAL REVIEW: City Attorney reviewed the proposed
resolution
DESCRIPTION:
The Arlington Fire Department has a 1994 Ford ambulance that is no longer in service.
Snohomish County Fire Protection District #24 (Darrington) has an immediate need to put an
ambulance to provide BLS services to the Town of Darrington and the area covered by Fire
District #24.
The Fire Department would like to surplus the ambulance and sell it to Fire District #24 for
$1.00.
ALTERNATIVES:
Do not approve the proposed resolution.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action at this time.
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-010
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-010
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON DECLARING CERTAIN
PROPERTY AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZING ITS SALE TO
SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT #24
(DARRINGTON) FOR $1.00
WHEREAS, the City has purchased the equipment listed on the attached Exhibit
“A”; and
WHEREAS, the equipment identified on Exhibit “A” is surplus to the needs of
the City; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Arlington, acting by and through its City
Council, does hereby resolve as follows:
1. The equipment described on the attached Exhibit “A” is declared surplus to the
needs of the City.
2. Staff is instructed to sell the equipment to Snohomish County Fire Protection
District #24 (Darrington) for $1.00
Passed by the City Council of the City of Arlington at a regular meeting on the
____ day of ________________, 2011.
________________________________
Margaret Larson, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kristin Banfield, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney
Exhibit A
1994 Ford Ambulance VIN #1FDKE30M7RHB49143