The URL can be used to link to this page

2010.04.13 CC Agenda PacketAGENDA Edmonds City Council Meeting Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds April 13, 2010 5:00 p.m. - Executive session regarding negotiations for the purchase of real estate. 6:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. Roll Call 3. Potential action regarding the purchase of real estate which may include approval of a purchase and sale agreement, and appropriation of funds for studies and consultant services associated with the purchase. 4. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments 5. (15 Minutes)Council Comments Adjourn to City Council Committee Meetings City Council Committee Meetings The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the public but are not public hearings. The Committees will meet in separate meeting rooms as indicated below. 6.Community/Development Services Committee Meeting Room: Council Chambers A. AM-2947 (20 Minutes) Hwy 99/CG-3 proposal for new mixed use zone. B. AM-2948 (20 Minutes) Building Code revisions to include reference to LEED standards. C. AM-2962 (15 Minutes) Discussion on motorized mobile vendors. 7.Finance Committee Meeting Room: Jury Meeting Room A. AM-2915 (20 Minutes) Upcoming labor negotiations. B. AM-2973 (20 Minutes) Health Insurance Transition. Packet Page 1 of 187 C. AM-2929 (20 Minutes) Discussion concerning potential cost cutting measures. D. AM-2969 (10 Minutes) General Fund Report E. (10 Minutes)Public Comments (3 minute limit per person) 8.Public Safety Committee Meeting Room: Police Training Room A. AM-2960 (15 Minutes) Emergency Responder Radio Coverage. B. AM-2961 (20 Minutes) Discussion on residential sprinkler requirements. C. AM-2972 (10 Minutes) Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force, 2010-2011 Interlocal Argeement. D. AM-2971 (10 Minutes) South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force Interlocal Agreement. Packet Page 2 of 187 AM-2947 6.A. Hwy 99/CG-3 Proposal for New Mixed Use Zone Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:04/13/2010 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:20 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Information Committee:Community/Development Services Information Subject Title Hwy 99/CG-3 proposal for new mixed use zone. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Attached is a rudimentary draft beginning prepared by the Planning Department staff that might be helpful as a structure for a revised zone off Highway 99. In order to develop a new zone that encourages both a) sustainable building practices and b) new or rehabilitative development, I suggest we closely canvas the neighborhoods first in order to find out what people want … so that we can determine what we want. I suggest we look more closely at “form based” zoning codes, so that the code we draft relates more to what we want the buildings to look like (regardless of architectural style) so that they passively encourage lower energy use over the lifetime of the building. I suggest that any expansion of commercial or residential space allowed over current zoning (if that is the decision) be done solely on the condition that LEED or similar building standards are achieved. In other words, I suggest that nothing beyond current zoning be permitted unless the entire resulting building can be shown to be at least more sustainable than the result of current practices. Also attached is the Firdale Village rezone result. With each of our “mini-zone re-writes,” perhaps we can move closer and closer incrementally to a superior form-based, sustainable comprehensive zoning code. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: ATTACH 1 - HWY 99-CGT-3 initial draft cg3 Link: ATTACH 2 - HWY99-CG -3 Firdale Village Mixed Use Form Routing/Status Packet Page 3 of 187 Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/08/2010 09:33 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/08/2010 10:05 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 04/08/2010 10:20 AM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 04/01/2010 08:52 AM Final Approval Date: 04/08/2010 Packet Page 4 of 187 Packet Page 5 of 187 Packet Page 6 of 187 Packet Page 7 of 187 Packet Page 8 of 187 Packet Page 9 of 187 Packet Page 10 of 187 Packet Page 11 of 187 Packet Page 12 of 187 Packet Page 13 of 187 Packet Page 14 of 187 Packet Page 15 of 187 Packet Page 16 of 187 Packet Page 17 of 187 Packet Page 18 of 187 Packet Page 19 of 187 Packet Page 20 of 187 Packet Page 21 of 187 Packet Page 22 of 187 Packet Page 23 of 187 Packet Page 24 of 187 Packet Page 25 of 187 Packet Page 26 of 187 Packet Page 27 of 187 Packet Page 28 of 187 Packet Page 29 of 187 Packet Page 30 of 187 Packet Page 31 of 187 Packet Page 32 of 187 Packet Page 33 of 187 Packet Page 34 of 187 Packet Page 35 of 187 Packet Page 36 of 187 Packet Page 37 of 187 Packet Page 38 of 187 Packet Page 39 of 187 Packet Page 40 of 187 Packet Page 41 of 187 Packet Page 42 of 187 Packet Page 43 of 187 Packet Page 44 of 187 Packet Page 45 of 187 Packet Page 46 of 187 Packet Page 47 of 187 Packet Page 48 of 187 Packet Page 49 of 187 Packet Page 50 of 187 Packet Page 51 of 187 Packet Page 52 of 187 Packet Page 53 of 187 Packet Page 54 of 187 Packet Page 55 of 187 Packet Page 56 of 187 Packet Page 57 of 187 Packet Page 58 of 187 AM-2948 6.B. Building Code Revisions to Include Reference to LEED Standards Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:04/13/2010 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:20 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Information Committee:Community/Development Services Information Subject Title Building Code revisions to include reference to LEED standards. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Attached are three resources. First is a guide for advocating local green building policies published by the Sierra Club and the US Green Building Council. Second is a memo from local resident Brian Goodnight suggesting energy-conserving measures for local building and zoning codes. Third is a draft LEED building code I wrote, based on the Sacramento code. I suggest that all new building and rehabilitation in Edmonds be required to conform to some sort of sustainability standards. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: ATTACH 1 - 4-13-2010 Cool Cities Guide Link: ATTACH 2 - 4-13-2010 Goodnight memo Link: ATTACH 3 - 4-13-2010 sab draft building code LEED Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/08/2010 09:33 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/08/2010 10:05 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 04/08/2010 10:20 AM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 04/01/2010 08:54 AM Final Approval Date: 04/08/2010 Packet Page 59 of 187 Packet Page 60 of 187 Packet Page 61 of 187 Packet Page 62 of 187 Packet Page 63 of 187 Packet Page 64 of 187 Packet Page 65 of 187 Packet Page 66 of 187 Packet Page 67 of 187 Packet Page 68 of 187 Packet Page 69 of 187 Packet Page 70 of 187 Packet Page 71 of 187 Packet Page 72 of 187 Packet Page 73 of 187 Bernheim draft building code October 2007 draft. 1 1. Short title. This chapter shall be known as the “green building practices ordinance.” 2. Purpose. The city recognizes that building construction, maintenance and operations consume resources which have a direct impact on the public welfare and the natural environment. Therefore, it is the purpose of this chapter to: A. Enhance the public welfare and assure that civic and private sector development is consistent with the city’s desire to create a more sustainable community by incorporating green building measures into the design, construction, and maintenance of buildings; B. Improve the health of residents, visitors, and workers by counteracting negative environmental impacts associated with building construction and occupation; C. Promote development that fosters sustainable sites, improves energy and resource efficiency, decreases waste and pollution generation, and improves the health and productivity of a building’s occupants over the life of the building. 3. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and terms are defined as follows: A. “Applicant” means any individual, person, firm, limited liability company, association, partnership, political subdivision, government agency, municipality, industry, public or private corporation, or any other entity filing an application in compliance with this chapter who is: 1. The owner or lessee of property; 2. A party who has contracted to purchase property contingent upon that party’s ability to acquire the necessary approvals required for that action in compliance with the zoning code, and who presents written authorization from the property owner to file an application with the city; or 3. The agent of either of the above who presents written authorization from the property owner to file an application with the city. B. “Building” means any structure used for support or shelter of any use or occupancy, as defined in the Washington State Building Code. C. “City” means the city of Edmonds. D. “City building” means a building which was built for use by the city or which is located on city-owned land. E. “Construction” means the building of any building or structure or any portion thereof. F. “Green building compliance official” means the director of planning and development or his/her designee. G. “Gross floor area” means the total enclosed area of all floors of a building measured to the inside face of the exterior walls including halls, stairways, elevator shafts at each floor level, service and mechanical equipment and mechanical equipment rooms and basement or attic areas having a height of more than seven feet, but excluding area used exclusively for vehicle parking or loading. H. “LEEDTM accredited professional” means a person who is recognized by the United States Green Building Council as having the knowledge and skills necessary to participate in the design process, to support and encourage integrated design, and to streamline the LEEDTM project application and certification process. 1ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 74 of 187 Bernheim draft building code October 2007 draft. 2 I. “LEEDTM’s Green Building Rating System (Rating System)” means the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System approved by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) and as that Rating System may be amended from time to time by the USGBC. J. “LEEDTM’s checklist” means the credit and point checklists developed by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System for measuring the sustainability, efficiency, and environmental soundness of a building. K. “Mixed-use project” shall have the definition as set forth in the city’s zoning code. L. “Multi-family residential” shall have the definition as set forth in the city’s zoning code. M “Tenant improvement” means any improvement which requires a permit pursuant to the Edmonds Building Code. 4. Applicability. A. Projects meeting the following thresholds shall comply with the provisions of this chapter: 1. City buildings of 10,000 square feet or more of new gross floor area; 2. Nonresidential buildings of 10,000 square feet or more of new gross floor area; 3. Tenant improvements of 10,000 square feet or more of new gross floor area and requiring a building permit as determined by the building official or designee; 4. Mixed-use projects and multi-family residential projects that include a residential building which has three stories in height, or more, of new construction. 5. Standards for compliance. A. The city shall adopt by reference the United States Green Building Council LEEDTM (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System as the standard for which a project shall be measured as a green building. The specific actions required for project compliance with this chapter are as follows: 1. All applicable projects are required to retain the services of a LEEDTM accredited professional and complete LEEDTM project registration prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. All applicable projects shall submit a LEEDTM checklist and supporting documentation indicating points meeting at a minimum LEEDTM “certified” level incorporated into documentation for a building permit. The LEEDTM checklist shall be prepared, signed, and dated by the project LEEDTM accredited professional. All building documents shall indicate in the general notes and/or individual detail drawings, where feasible, the green building measures employed to attain the applicable LEEDTM rating. 3. Applicable city buildings are required to attain LEEDTM certification and meet, at a minimum, LEEDTM certified level. 4. Building commissioning, although specified as a prerequisite for LEEDTM certification, is not required for applicable projects under this chapter except for city buildings. Applicants are encouraged to verify that fundamental building systems are designed, installed, and calibrated to operate as intended. 6. Compliance. 2 Packet Page 75 of 187 Bernheim draft building code October 2007 draft. 3 3 The green building compliance official shall: A. Verify LEEDTM project registration and review the required LEEDTM checklist and supporting documentation prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. B. Verify that the building measures and provisions indicated on the project LEEDTM checklist and on the supporting approved documentation, including approved plan sets, are being implemented at foundation inspection, framing inspection, and prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. C. Conduct any inspection as needed to ensure compliance with this chapter. 7. Penalties and administrative remedies. A. If, as a result of any inspection, the green building compliance official determines that the applicable project does not comply with the approved documentation, a stop work order may be issued. At the discretion of the green building compliance official, such a stop work order may apply to the portion of the project impacted by noncompliance or to the entire project. The stop work order shall remain in effect until the green building compliance official determines that the project is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter or meets the requirements of subsection B of this section. B. If the green building compliance official determines that the applicable project has not met the requirements of the LEEDTM checklist, as set forth in Section 6 of this chapter, he or she shall determine on a case-by-case basis whether the applicant has made a good faith effort to comply with this chapter. In making this determination, the green building compliance official shall consider the availability of markets for materials to be recycled, the availability of green building materials and technologies, and the documented efforts of the applicant to comply with this chapter. The green building compliance official may require additional reasonable green building measures be included in the operation of the covered project to mitigate the failure to comply fully with this chapter. Packet Page 76 of 187 AM-2962 6.C. Discussion on Motorized Mobile Vendors Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:04/13/2010 Submitted By:Kernen Lien Submitted For:Kernen Lien Time:15 Minutes Department:Planning Type:Action Committee:Community/Development Services Information Subject Title Discussion on motorized mobile vendors. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff None required. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The City of Edmonds has had some recent requests from persons who wished to operate motorized mobile food vending services (taco buses and other food served from vehicles) within the City. There is confusing and conflicting language within the Edmonds City Code (ECC) and Edmonds Community Development Code as to whether motorized mobile vendors are an allowed activity within Edmonds. The relevant codes (ECC 4.12 and Title 16 ECDC) are being reviewed to see if they need to be updated to clarify operating restrictions for motorized mobile vendors or revised to specifically prohibit motorized mobile vendors. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Motorized Mobile Vendor Memorandum Link: Exhibit 2: Wall Street Journal Article - Food Truck Nation Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/06/2010 11:43 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/06/2010 11:43 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/07/2010 01:38 PM APRV Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 04/06/2010 10:58 AM Final Approval Date: 04/07/2010 Packet Page 77 of 187 City of Edmonds Date: April 6, 2010 To: City Council: Community/Development Services Committee From: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Subject: Motorized Mobile Vendors ________________________________________________________________________ Background Mobile food vendors are a growing trend across the United States. “Taco trucks” have almost become ubiquitous, and gourmet food trucks (not the tacos are not gourmet food) are growing in numbers as well. See the attached article Food Truck Nation published in the Wall Street Journal regarding this trend. Some of these vendors move from location to location (such as parking lots or vacant lots) without staying at any one location for a significant period of time; others park at one specific location to setup shop and may even leave the vehicle at the location over night, while others may take the vehicle home at night but return to the same location day after day. The City of Edmonds has had some recent requests from persons who wished to operate motorized mobile food vending services (taco buses and other food served from vehicles) within the City. There is confusing and conflicting language within the Edmonds City Code (ECC) and Edmonds Community Development Code as to whether motorized mobile vendors are an allowed activity within Edmonds. Existing Code Edmonds City Code (ECC) 4.12 provides the framework for licensing Peddlers, Solicitors and Street Vendors. ECC 4.12.010 defines these different types of activities as: A. “Solicitor” or “peddler” means any person who shall sell, offer for or expose for sale, or who shall trade, deal or traffic in any goods or services in the city by going from house to house or from place to place or by indiscriminately approaching individuals. 1. Sales by sample or for future delivery, and executory contracts of sale by solicitors or peddlers are included; provided, however, that this section shall not be deemed applicable to any salesman or canvasser who solicits trade from wholesale or retail dealers in the city. 2. Any person who, while selling or offering for sale any goods, services or anything of value, stands in a doorway, any unenclosed vacant lot, parcel of land, or in any other place not used by such person as a permanent place of business shall be deemed a MEMORANDUM Packet Page 78 of 187 solicitor or peddler within the meaning of this chapter, except as noted in subsection B of this section. B. “Street vendor” means any person who shall sell food, flowers, nonalcoholic beverages only, and/or other goods or services from a nonmotorized mobile vending unit, in the commercially zoned areas of the city of Edmonds, including unzoned property or right-of- way adjacent to or abutting on commercially zoned areas, shall be deemed a street vendor subject to the regulations contained in this chapter. The commercially zoned areas are those zoned Neighborhood Business (BN), Community Business (BC), Planned Business (BP), Commercial Waterfront (CW); and General Commercial (CC, CG2). C. “Mobile vending unit” means a cart, kiosk or other device capable of being pushed by one person, with at least two functional wheels and positive wheel-locking devices. Motorized mobile vendors fit within the broad definition of solicitor in that they sell “goods” from “place to place”. However, motorized mobile vendors do not fit into the more narrow definition of street vendor which refers to “nonmotorized mobile vending unit” such as hot dog carts. So under these definitions, motorized mobile vendors may operate as a solicitor under a solicitors license obtained from the City Clerk. However, where they could operate is limited by the zoning code. Within Title 16 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), many of the commercial zones (Downtown Business, Neighborhood Business, Community Business, General Commercial, and Commercial Waterfront) have operating restrictions which state that, “All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building…” with different exceptions depending on the zone. ECDC 21.10 defines a building as “any structure having a roof, excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized.” So while a motorized mobile vendor may be allowed to operate under a solicitors license, the areas they would most likely locate restrict uses to buildings, which would exclude motorized mobile vendors. As the code currently stands, it appears that motorized mobile vendors may be permitted, but their operation is restricted to certain zones which include the residential zones, Public, and Planned Business. Questions and Options Does the City want to allow Motorized Mobile Vendors within the City? If yes, we recommend forwarding this matter to the Planning Board to amend ECC 4.12 and review draft regulations clarifying operating restrictions for motorized mobile vendors. Some items to consider while drafting regulations for motorized mobile vendors include:  What zones are appropriate for this type of use.  Should access to restrooms be required.  Are items used for the operation allowed to stay on location overnight, or should they be removed each day.  If the vendor is located over existing parking stalls, the overall site should be verified for compliance with required number of parking stalls.  Should permits be required for temporary structures.  Should design review be required for the motorized mobile vending units. If no, we recommend clarifying in ECC 4.12 that motorized mobile vending units are prohibited. Packet Page 79 of 187 Packet Page 80 of 187 Packet Page 81 of 187 Packet Page 82 of 187 AM-2915 7.A. Upcoming Labor Negotiations Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:04/13/2010 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Council President Steve Bernheim Time:20 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Information Committee:Finance Information Subject Title Upcoming labor negotiations. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative This is a presentation by two labor lawyers, Ron Knox and Larry Shapero, who will offer their perspectives on how professional labor negotiators can assist the City with upcoming labor negotiations. The City might consider hiring an outside labor negotiator in order to maximize benefits to both sides in upcoming labor negotiations. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Attach 1 - Knox Info Link: Attach 2 - Shapero Info Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/08/2010 08:38 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/08/2010 08:45 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/08/2010 08:53 AM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 03/18/2010 09:11 AM Final Approval Date: 04/08/2010 Packet Page 83 of 187 Ronald J. Knox - Attorney in Seattle , WA | Professionals | Garvey Schubert Barer | Law Firm http://www.gsblaw.com/professionals/ronald_j_knox/[3/18/2010 2:39:40 AM] Contact Site Map Privacy & Disclaimer Extranet Attorney Advertising Copyright © 2000-2010 Garvey Schubert Barer. All Rights Reserved.Site by Inherent, Inc. Home > Professionals > Ronald J. Knox Professionals Advanced Search Ronald J. Knox Owner - Seattle rknox@gsblaw.com 206.816.1356 Tel 206.464.0125 Fax Download vCard Print Bio to PDF Since 1981 Ronald Knox has practiced primarily in the areas of labor and employment law. His clientele includes both public and private sector companies, with special emphasis on municipal corporations, regional service and manufacturing businesses, and public service corporations. He also represents clients in the computer software industry. Mr. Knox's experience encompasses personnel management, consultation and advocacy, labor and business negotiations, business contract negotiation, administrative and civil litigation. Mr. Knox serves clients and is licensed to practice in Washington and Oregon. Professional Activities Member, Washington State Bar Association Member, Washington Defense Trial Lawyers Association Trustee, King County Bar Association, 2000-2003 Member, Oregon State Bar Association Member, Loren Miller Bar Association Former Advocate, King County Superior Court, Court Appointed Special Advocate Program Member, Board of Visitors, Willamette University College of Law, 1996-present; Chair, 2006- 2007 Member, American Arbitration Association, Employment Mediation & Arbitration Panel Advisory Board Member, Washington State Bar Leadership Institute, 2006-present; Chair, 2007- 2008 Community Activities Member, Board of Directors, PROVAIL (formerly United Cerebral Palsy of King-Snohomish Counties), 1998-2004 Member, Board of Directors, Epilepsy Association of Western Washington, 1985-1990; President, Board of Directors, 1989 Volunteer Attorney, Habitat for the Humanities, 1991-2000; Member, Board of Directors, 1992; President, Board of Directors, 1992-1994 Member, Board of Directors, Affordable Housing Committee, Seattle Commons, 1993-1996 Services Labor and Employment Labor and Employment Litigation Alternative Dispute Resolution Indian Law Industries Government Healthcare Indian Tribes Manufacturing and Distribution Maritime Companies and Fisheries Education Willamette University College of Law, J.D., 1981 Northwestern University, B.A., 1978 Admissions Oregon, 1981 Washington, 1986 News Related News Events Related Events Professional Recognition Named by peers to The Best Lawyers in America in the area of Labor and Employment, 2009-2010 Named by peers as a "Super Lawyer" in Washington Law & Politics magazine, 2003-2004 and 2006-2009 Named to "Top Business Lawyers in Washington" list in the area of Employment, published in Washington CEO magazine and based on Avvo ratings, 2008 Martindale-Hubbell AV/5.0 Peer Review Rated Home Firm Overview Diversity Public Service Offices Contact Professionals Services & Industries News & Publications Events Careers த ೔ຊޠ Packet Page 84 of 187 Laurence A. Shapero | Riddell Williams http://www.riddellwilliams.com/people/shapero-laurence-a.html[3/18/2010 2:38:10 AM] Laurence A. Shapero Principal Larry represents and counsels employers in labor, employment and employee benefits matters. Larry's practice includes both litigation and counseling in such matters as ADA and FMLA compliance, federal and state wage/hour law compliance, protection of trade secrets and prevention of unfair competition by former employees, workplace privacy rights, union election and representation issues, prevention of employment discrimination and workplace harassment, the appropriate classification of workers as employees or independent contractors, and other workplace legal matters. Employers call on Larry for advice and assistance in managing employee performance issues, and in developing and administering prudent human resources policies and practices. Larry is also experienced in providing employers with compliance advice and other legal advice regarding their 401(k) plans and other tax-qualified retirement plans, group health plans, executive compensation arrangements and other employee benefit plans. Larry has served as employment and/or benefits counsel for local manufacturing companies, software design firms, regional bottling and beverage distribution companies, insurance companies, airlines, biomedical research firms, not- for-profit hospitals, healthcare providers, and other employers of all sizes. Representative clients include Microsoft Corporation, Idaho Power Company, Scripps Health, Raleigh America, Zones, Inc., Nippon Paper USA Co., Ltd., Group Health Permanente and T-Mobile USA. Before joining Riddell Williams in 2001, Larry was an associate in the Chicago office of Katten Muchin Zavis (now known as Katten Muchin Rosenman), where he practiced exclusively in the area of employee benefits and executive compensation. In addition to his experience as an attorney, Larry has substantial experience as a human resources manager and generalist, and also has served in a variety of line and staff management positions. At Six Flags, Inc., Larry managed safety, security, workers compensation and general litigation matters for the company's Southern California facility. Later, at United Airlines, Larry served as General Manager in Contact lshapero@riddellwilliams.com T: 206.389.1661 F: 206.389.1708 vCard Practice Areas Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits Labor and Employment Litigation Packet Page 85 of 187 Laurence A. Shapero | Riddell Williams http://www.riddellwilliams.com/people/shapero-laurence-a.html[3/18/2010 2:38:10 AM] Vancouver, B.C. before serving in several assignments in United's World Headquarters near Chicago, Illinois. Education and Admissions Larry earned his B.A. in Psychology, summa cum laude, and an M.B.A from California State University, Northridge. He received his J.D., with honors, Order of the Coif, from the DePaul University College of Law in Chicago, Illinois, where he was a Dean's Scholar and a Notes and Articles Editor for the DePaul Law Review. Larry is admitted to practice in Oregon, Washington and Illinois. Memberships American Bar Association, King County Bar Association, Oregon State Bar Association, Washington State Bar Association. Larry is a Trustee of the Labor & Employment Section of the King County Bar Association. Awards and Recognition Larry has been recognized as a Super Lawyer® by Washington Law & Politics magazine. In 2004 he received a Leadership and Service Award from Seattle University in recognition for his pro bono work on behalf of the University's Access to Justice Institute . In 2007, Larry and other members of the Pro Bono Panel of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington received the District's Federal Bar Association Pro Bono Service Award for their pro bono representation of individuals in matters pending before the District Court. Publications Larry authored or co-authored a variety of articles that appeared in The Benefits Law Journal and in The Employee Relations Law Journal in 2002, 2003, and 2005. Speeches, Presentations, Faculty Larry is a frequent speaker on a variety of employment law topics, and, in recent years, has served as a faculty member for human resources seminars sponsored by The Seminar Group, The Council on Education for Management and The Lorman Group. Larry is serving in his sixth year as a member of the Planning Committee for the King County Bar Association's Pacific Coast Labor & Employment Law Conference, the Pacific Northwest's premier continuing legal education seminar for employment lawyers. In the course of his planning committee work, Larry has co-authored or edited CLE presentation materials for the Packet Page 86 of 187 Laurence A. Shapero | Riddell Williams http://www.riddellwilliams.com/people/shapero-laurence-a.html[3/18/2010 2:38:10 AM] Conference in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. © RIDDELL WILLIAMS P.S. | DISCLAIMER 206.624.3600 | MORE CONTACT INFO Packet Page 87 of 187 AM-2973 7.B. Health Insurance Transition Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:04/13/2010 Submitted By:Linda Hynd Submitted For:Sandy Chase Time:20 Minutes Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information Committee: Information Subject Title Health Insurance Transition. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 04/09/2010 10:00 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/09/2010 10:01 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 04/09/2010 10:37 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 04/09/2010 09:45 AM Final Approval Date: 04/09/2010 Packet Page 88 of 187 AM-2929 7.C. Discussion Concerning Potential Cost Cutting Measures Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:04/13/2010 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Councilmember Bernheim Time:20 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Information Review Committee:Finance Committee Action: Information Subject Title Discussion concerning potential cost cutting measures. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative To date, there have been two opportunities for members of the public to comment on potential budget-cutting, cost-saving measures. Comments from the public on this topic are attached. Further opportunities will be scheduled for future council meetings. Attach 1 - March 16 2010 CM re Public Comment on Budget Cuts Attach 2 - March 23 2010 CM re Public Comment on Budget Cuts Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Attach 1 - March 16 2010 CM re Public Comment on Budget Cuts Link: Attach 2 - March 23 2010 CM re Public Comment on Budget Cuts Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/08/2010 09:56 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/08/2010 10:05 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 04/08/2010 10:20 AM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 03/25/2010 02:26 PM Final Approval Date: 04/08/2010 Packet Page 89 of 187 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2010 Page 13 commonly owned perimeter buffer with no lot lines, the result would be the lot lines would be removed from the buffer area but the useable space would not change. Councilmember Wilson commented the original intent of the PRD when created by the State was a tool to allow for maximum flexibility for parcels with difficult topography or other environmental features. The intent was to allocate the environmentally sensitive areas to the lot total and allow the same number of units but smaller lots and a large conservation area. He wanted to ensure the subdivision regulations continued to provide maximum flexibility for developments with environmental sensitive areas and/or topography challenges. He suggested the City’s current PRD ordinance did not adequately reflect the original intent of the PRD legislation. Mr. Chave explained the intent was to provide flexibility for developments with environmentally sensitive areas as well as provide a mechanism for alternative forms of home ownership/development such as cottage housing, zero lot line, etc. The City does not allow attached housing in a PRD but does permit alternate forms of home ownership. For example the standard way of developing a lot requires setbacks on all sides which dramatically reduces the usable area for a small lot; a zero lot line makes the space around the house more usable by concentrating it and having the house on one property line. That type of development cannot be done in a standard subdivision; a PRD is the only option. Mr. Chave explained the PRD ordinance was an alternative form of subdivision but was contained in a separate chapter, making it somewhat confusing. The intent is to combine the PRD regulations with the subdivision regulations, holding density constant but giving more flexibility at the subdivision design phase. Councilmember Wilson suggested staff provide a table identifying tools in the current PRD ordinance versus the subdivision ordinance and the State’s intent of the original PRD. He wanted to ensure the benefits of the original PRD legislation were not lost. Mr. Chave suggested staff provide periodic updates to the Community Services/Development Services Committee as the Planning Board’s review progresses. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CRAFT AN INTERIM ORDINANCE THAT WOULD RESTORE COUNCIL APPEAL TO PRDs AND ELIMINATE OVERLAPS BETWEEN PERIMETER SETBACKS AND REAR SETBACKS AND BRING IT BACK FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION BY THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO. 9. PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE SUBJECT OF BUDGET CUTS. Council President Bernheim explained this was scheduled on the agenda as an opportunity to gather public input regarding potential budget cuts. There will be another opportunity to comment at the March 23 Council meeting. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented the City’s budget crisis was similar to that experienced by other cities, counties and states; the need for more revenue, budget cuts and tax increases. He provided the following suggestions: wage increases this year should be very conservative as the City cannot afford to provide raises; employee furloughs should continue or employees offered a choice of layoffs or furloughs; utilize retirements and not filling vacancies as a way to reduce staff; make budget cuts before increasing taxes; and delay a levy another year as residents are unlikely to support a tax increase at this time. Councilmember Orvis spoke in favor of a proforma analysis of the budget which matches fees to the service provided. A proforma analysis was very helpful to the Health Board, allowing the Board to identify programs that pay for themselves and programs that rely on discretionary revenue. Packet Page 90 of 187 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2010 Page 4 SNOCOM’s adopted 2010 budget is approximately $4.4 million with funding from 911 excise tax, VRMs and assessments. The 2010 budget had two separate assessments, one for the SNOCOM operating budget and one for New World project. There are no new positions or new project expenditures in the 2010 budget and the administrative staff was reorganized to improve efficiency. She provided SNOCOM’s 2010 goals with regard to personnel, training and projects. She highlighted the Community Notification system, a reverse 911 system used to notify residents in the event of an emergency. Terry Peterson, Information Systems Manager, SNOCOM, described the New World System, a county-wide single database for dispatch, records, corrections, fire and mobile in which 52+ agencies within Snohomish County will participate. From RFP to implementation, the New World System will be a 4-5 year project. He explained the existing configuration has limited interface between police, fire and the correction records management system, making it difficult to track crimes outside a jurisdiction. The New World System will be a single county-wide database into which dispatch, records, corrections, fire and mobile will enter and retrieve information. The New World System will replace aging public safety communications equipment including Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), Records Management System (RMS), and Corrections Management System (CMS) and add Automated Field Reporting (AFR) and Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL). AFR will make a police vehicle a mobile office, allowing an officer to start, finish, upload and complete all reporting from their vehicle. AVL is similar to GPS and allows the dispatch center to recommend and dispatch the unit closest to the incident. The total system cost of the New World system is approximately $8 million, SNOCOM’s portion is approximately $2.7 million. He described the budgetary impact to SNOCOM and project funding via $1 million from SNOCOM’s CAD/RMS Reserve Balance and a loan for the remainder. He described implementation of the New World System, explaining the system is currently being configured, corrections will be live in January 2011 and CAD/RMS will be live in June 2011. Ms. Grady invited Councilmembers to visit SNOCOM and do a “sit-along” with a dispatcher. She also invited them to National Telecommunicators Week events April 11-17, SNOCOM’s picnic in August and the holiday open house in December. Councilmember Wilson commented he hears many exemplary comments about SNOCOM and SNOCOM is often referred to as an organization whose operations other organizations should aspire. Mayor Haakenson remarked in the 14 years he has been on the Council and as Mayor, this is the first time SNOCOM has ever made a presentation to the Council. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE SUBJECT OF BUDGET CUTS. Council President Bernheim explained this was an opportunity for the public to provide their ideas regarding budget cuts. The Council will be considering a tax increase later this year as well as continuing to identify cuts to the budget. As the cost of providing services increases and caps on tax increases take effect, the gap between the cost of services and available funds widens. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested the Council identify cuts that have been made in the past. As an example, he pointed out the City Clerk’s office provides a person making a public records request a minimal number of pages at no charge and charges a fee for additional pages. He also cited the removal of the bird watching pier which used to attract numerous birdwatchers to the City. He suggested Police Packet Page 91 of 187 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2010 Page 5 Department overtime also be considered, noting in the past it was less expensive to pay overtime than hire another officer. He suggested each Councilmember develop a list of budget cuts for public comment. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the suggestions he made last week such as being conservative, employee furloughs, and not filling vacancies created by retirements. After making a public records request, he was surprised to see the volume of email between staff. He suggested a great deal of staff time was being wasted on email. Next, he pointed out in difficult times, personal budgets focused on essentials such as food and shelter and unnecessary expenditures were omitted. He expressed concern with the Council’s expenditure of $15,000 for the Cascade Conservancy, pointing the City could not afford to go green this year and any unnecessary expenditures should be eliminated. Councilmember Buckshnis read an email that posed the following questions: the cost of in-house versus using outside counsel, ways not to use consultants as much, and why the City was paying for Blackberry cell phone service for Fire District 1 administrative staff. Councilmember Wilson recalled one of the issues he raised last week was the potential unfunded pension and retiree health benefits. After speaking with Mayor Haakenson and Human Resources Director Debi Humann, he learned the City has a very limited liability, due primarily because several years ago the State took over the majority of retirement benefits. The City currently has liability for pension and health benefits for 39 retirees, 4 who draw a small pension ($3000/month total) and 35 law enforcement employees and firefighters for whom the city pays health benefits. These employees have rich benefits and often very costly healthcare, likely totaling $3 - $4 million, an unfunded amount. A study was done by an actuarial firm in 2004 who identified ongoing costs of approximately $380,000 annually. Although this is a very manageable amount, it may be appropriate to conduct another actuarial study to determine whether it was still necessary to transfer that amount. He estimated the cost of an actuarial study at approximately $10,000. Due to the need to identify alternate healthcare benefits for City employees, Councilmember Wilson suggested the City consider self insurance. He acknowledged the City was self-insured in the 1990s and had a bad experience. A number of local cities are self-insured and many companies with over 200 employees self-insure. His preliminary analysis indicates the City could realize a $1 million - $1.5 million savings via a self-insurance model. He recognized there were costs associated with self-insurance including stop loss coverage which the City did not have in the 1990s. Self-insurance would allow the City to maintain the same or better benefits for its employees at a reduced cost. He urged the group considering insurance alternatives to present options to the Council this summer prior to the budget process. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Lora Petso, Edmonds, was disappointed in the lack of action on a PRD fix, pointing out although the issue had not been dropped, the flaws remained in place, allowing a new application to take advantage of those flaws. She was also disappointed with the new stormwater ordinance, pointing out the definition section contained new words including variance and exception. She did not support exceptions to drainage requirements and the associated litigation it could create. She expressed concern with allowing only the applicant to appeal the Public Works Director’s decision on an exception and not allowing the public to appeal a decision. She was also concerned with private ownership of stormwater facilities and suggested private ownership not be allowed in areas with historic storm drainage issues. She pointed out the importance of properly maintaining stormwater facilities and her preference that the City be responsible for maintenance rather than a private owner. She commented phrases in the code such as 100 year storm were replaced with flow control credits. She urged the Council to determine whether the proposed stormwater code increased or reduced stormwater regulations. To Councilmember Wilson’s Packet Page 92 of 187 AM-2969 7.D. General Fund Report Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:04/13/2010 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director Time:10 Minutes Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information Committee:Finance Information Subject Title General Fund Report Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Information only. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director, will provide the General Fund Report at the meeting. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/07/2010 01:37 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/07/2010 01:43 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/08/2010 08:53 AM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 04/07/2010 01:33 PM Final Approval Date: 04/08/2010 Packet Page 93 of 187 AM-2960 8.A. Emergency Responder Radio Coverage Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:04/13/2010 Submitted By:John Westfall Submitted For:John Westfall Time:15 Minutes Department:Fire Type:Information Committee:Public Safety Information Subject Title Emergency Responder Radio Coverage. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Fire marshal submits for discussion and recommends the inclusion of International Fire Code (IFC) Appendix J, EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE specifications to support mandatory radio coverage requirement in upcoming IFC adoption. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Radios are lifelines for emergency first responders. Buildings without adequate radio coverage can endanger the lives of fire, medical, and law enforcement responders if they are cut off from communication while responding to an emergency. Straightforward simple emergencies can grow into small disasters without a timely resolve. A new section in the coming edition of International Fire Code (IFC 2009 ed.) provides for EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE that requires approved public safety radio coverage for new and existing buildings. Adoption of Section 510 Emergency Responder Radio Coverage in the main body of the IFC identifies the requirement but does not provide supportive information for these “communications booster” systems. No identifying minimum design, technical requirements, or acceptance test procedures are called out in the new state-wide requirement. IFC Appendix J provides these minimum design specifications, along with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) compliance, local permitting, and maintenance requirements for a booster system to always remain operable once installed. The state-mandate includes existing building coverage; no “existing conditions” will be allowed. Fire Services and Police are not anticipating an active program of enforcement evaluating each building and enforcing problem structures for repair. We will find communication problems in existing buildings during future emergency responses while inside. Although conditions vary, wood-framed buildings allow excellent radio-frequency penetration, concrete buildings adequate, and metal buildings to be those type of buildings that could actually shield the radio energy and pre-empt portable radio communications. No buildings currently have been identified for Packet Page 94 of 187 enforcement. IFC Appendices are locally adopted chapters that support the state-wide IFC requirements but are not universal to every fire jurisdiction in Washington. The chain of communications in South Snohomish begins with adequate public radio operated by SNOCOM, proper radio system purchasing and maintenance by Snohomish Fire District #1 and Edmonds Police Department. Appendix J will provide the last and important link in the chain of communications for public safety radio within private buildings where emergencies occur. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/06/2010 08:22 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/06/2010 08:47 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/06/2010 11:43 AM APRV Form Started By: John Westfall Started On: 04/05/2010 03:26 PM Final Approval Date: 04/06/2010 Packet Page 95 of 187 AM-2961 8.B. Discussion on Residential Sprinkler Requirements Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:04/13/2010 Submitted By:John Westfall Submitted For:John Westfall Time:20 Minutes Department:Fire Type:Action Committee:Public Safety Information Subject Title Discussion on residential sprinkler requirements. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Identify the acceptable Edmonds community level for the infrequent but continual fatalities, injuries, and property losses in challenging economic times. Reduce the construction limits when residential fire sprinklers will be required for installation. Previous Council Action None. Narrative CODE DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION PROCESS: The International Code Council (ICC) International Residential Code (IRC) 2009 advisory group has adopted and written fire sprinkler requirements for all residential construction including townhouses and single-family dwellings. The IRC sprinkler advisory group heard and responded to input from fire and code officials, construction professionals and industry experts before adopting a residential sprinkler mandate. WA State has repackaged all dwelling-related sprinkler language into two pertinent IRC appendix chapters that may be adopted locally. IRC Appendix R specifies HOW a dwelling sprinkler system can be installed and Appendix S specifies WHERE a residential sprinkler system will be required. Appendix R must be adopted in its entirety as the installation standards are nationally-recognized requirements. Appendix S may be adopted locally for new single-family, duplex, or any small multiple-residential buildings. The State Building Code Council that oversees and approves state housing development requires only notification of the changes. No further review or approvals are required. WHY FIRE SPRINKLERS? Residential fire sprinklers are life safety systems designed to maintain a tenable atmosphere until the residents can escape fire in their home. A favorable side-effect is the sprinkler may completely extinguish a fire to preserve the structure (attachment). A fire event can be charted in TIME vs. PRODUCTS OF COMBUSTION (attachment). Time begins upon fire ignition and grows until FLASHOVER, which is a point of ignition for all contents in a structure and where death will absolutely occur. Smoke and hot gases often take victims prior to the point of flashover. Sprinklers restrict fire growth in a house soon after smoke alarms activate. Instead of fully involved structures, responding fire engines arrive to small room Packet Page 96 of 187 and content fires kept in check or even already extinguished. In Edmonds in January there was a fire fatality that would have a completely different outcome with the installation of a fire sprinkler. Lynnwood FD arrived to a house fire at 7:30 p.m. on 5th of April to house that was 50% involved. The homeowner who had escaped was transported to Harborview with 3rd degree burns over 30% of his body, and remains in critical care at the burn unit. Communities with legacy residential sprinkler ordinances such as Scottsdale, AZ and Prince George’s County MD have enjoyed reductions in fire fatalities, reduced property loss, and preservation of water resources when fires are kept small until firefighter’s arrival. Nationally, states such as California, Florida, S. Carolina, Pennsylvania, and others are fully accepting residential sprinklers as another system like lighting, heating, and sanitation utilities that will become one acceptable, additional part of dwelling habitability in their communities. SPRINKLER COSTS & SAVINGS Residential sprinkler costs include expenses and fees for the design, equipment, installation, permits, and water connection charges. The Fire Protection Research Foundation's Home Fire Sprinkler Cost Assessment report (attachment), accepted by code officials and development professionals finds NATIONAL cost averages for installing home fire sprinkler systems at $1.61 per square foot of sprinkler-protected area for new construction. Ken Robinson, from Robinson Plumbing, a LOCAL licensed fire sprinkler designer typically finds a workable design in the $1.25-$1.50 per square foot. Protected areas include only those living spaces and not attics, garages, or small bathroom and closets. All sprinkler systems, even “flow-through” systems will require a state-licensed professional to design the installation, even if a plumber will be installing. Permits in the City of Edmonds for fire sprinkler systems are $200 plus a valuation charge for project expense. City of Edmonds Water meter connection rate and meter fee is $3070 for a one inch meter. According to Robinson, one inch meter will accommodate the water flow required for multiple purpose potable(domestic) and fire protection needs in most single-family structures. Olympic View Water charges $1160 for a one inch meter. Consumption charges for fire protection devices are insignificant month to month, preserved for the time you need it, in a fire emergency. From a consumer perspective, the cost of a sprinkler system is the same amount many people will pay for carpet upgrades, paving stone driveways, or whirlpool baths. Installing home fire sprinklers can help residents save an average of 0-10% on homeowner insurance premiums (attachment), depending upon your insurer. Residential sprinklers are intended to protect your life, and will often save your house as well. Nowhere were insurance penalties or fees associated due to concerns such as system leakage. Maria Figueroa of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) summarizes: “The cost impact of new homes and affordable housing are market driven. In most markets, construction costs do not drive the price of a new home, but rather what the market will bear, with sales prices rising and falling based on what buyers are willing to pay. In such markets, costs associated with mandatory Packet Page 97 of 187 sprinklers are absorbed into the price by adjusting other costs or features or builder markup.” RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS IN EDMONDS Today, the Community Development Code requires any multi-family building with 5 or more units requires a sprinkler system, shall that number be reduced when neighbors who share walls and attic spaces suffer from each other’s housekeeping and unsafe practices? There are a handful of dwellings that have been of a size or distance from the closest water supply that have required installation of dwelling sprinkler systems. Shall that be the standard to prevent life loss, to preserve property and keep our public safe? Our discussion tonight is intended to identify the acceptable community level for the infrequent and continual fatalities, injuries, and property losses in a challenging economic time. Can we continue to live without residential sprinklers in homes? Local builders are present who can provide input from the development industry and share how residential sprinkler requirements could impact them or already has. Committee Chair, Mr. Wilson, has given permission to hear their insight. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Highland Drive Link: Time v. Products of Combustion Link: Sprinkler Cost Assessment Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/08/2010 08:38 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/08/2010 08:45 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/08/2010 08:53 AM APRV Form Started By: John Westfall Started On: 04/05/2010 04:58 PM Final Approval Date: 04/08/2010 Packet Page 98 of 187 EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT NEWS RELEASE Date: January 24, 2000 To: The Edmonds Paper The Enterprise The Herald The Seattle Times The Seattle Post-Intelligencer Chambers Cable Television From: Fire Marshal John Westfall (425) 771-0213 (Three pages) Subject: Sprinkler Extinguishes Fire; Saves Edmonds Home An automatic fire sprinkler system installed in an Emerald Hills’ residence extinguished an unintentional fire caused by a worker on January 14 before serious damage occurred. Automatic fire sprinklers aid in the detection and control of residential fires, providing improved protection against injury, life loss, and property damage. Fire sprinklers activated by heat deliver water only onto the fire. The Edmonds home was under renovation and unoccupied at the time of the fire. A local alarm was not yet wired, and the sprinkler activation went undetected until the owner arrived around 9:30 the following morning. The incident occurred during the evening of January 14. The cause of the fire was determined to be a cigarette butt discarded in a trashcan filled with rubbish and construction materials. Total fire damage is estimated at $30, the cost of the waste container. Total property damage is estimated at $2,400, due to water-damaged drywall and replacement costs of three electrical low- voltage lighting transformers. The total property “saved” by the sprinkler is estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Water Department determined the single sprinkler operated for approximately 15 hours. The fire occurred in the heated garage area where Department officials had 1 Packet Page 99 of 187 encouraged the owner to extend sprinkler protection. Installation of residential sprinkler systems and working smoke detectors reduce the risk of dying in a fire by 97%. As an unoccupied home, the system had not yet been evaluated and accepted by the Fire Department. The average cost of sprinkler protection for this 4,200 square foot home was $1 per square foot, a small price when considering the value of life and property. The Snohomish County Council, coincidentally, on the same day of the incident, unanimously passed an ordinance improving the sprinkler requirements for commercial and multi-family residential occupancies in unincorporated areas of Snohomish County. Fire sprinklers save lives. Contact your local Fire Department to obtain more information regarding automatic fire sprinklers. Room of origin Sprinkler Area of fire origin Total fire damage Edmonds Fire Department (425) 771-0213. Technical Data: 2 Packet Page 100 of 187 3 The system was installed in a 4200 s.f. home with (28) quick response sprinkler heads in accordance with NFPA 13-D: Standard for sprinkler protection in single-family dwellings. The sprinkler was a Central Model LF 3/8” recessed pendent-type head, 155 degree F. A single sprinkler activated to suppress the fire. Design spacing is 20’x 20’. Design flow provides 16 GPM @ 28.4 psi for 1 head flowing. Available pressure on system is 58.89 psi for a single flowing head. System designed and installed by RPI Fire Protection/Robinson Plumbing of Arlington, WA, (360) 403-7462. (These images and others available via e-mail: westfall@ci.edmonds.wa.us) Packet Page 101 of 187 www.HomeFireSprinkler.org Packet Page 102 of 187 Home Fire Sprinkler Cost Assessment Final Report Prepared by: Newport Partners © September 2008 Fire Protection Research Foundation Packet Page 103 of 187 FOREWORD Residential fire sprinkler ordinances have been adopted by several hundred U.S. communities for use in single-family dwellings. Such systems have been shown to provide significant life safety benefits, however the installed cost of these systems remains as a point of uncertainty and a potential barrier to broader adoption. Informal estimates of typical installation costs can vary widely, and influence decision makers’ views on the viability of sprinkler systems in new homes. In order to provide information on this topic, and to understand the factors that may influence the costs and hence impede the widespread use of residential fire sprinklers, the Foundation undertook this study to provide a national perspective on the cost of home fire sprinklers by developing data on installation costs and cost savings for ten communities distributed throughout the United States. The study also explores the range of insurance premium discounts which are available to home owners with sprinkler systems in their houses. The Research Foundation expresses gratitude to the National Fire Protection Association for its sponsorship of the project, and to the project technical panelists listed on the following page. The content, opinions and conclusions contained in this report are solely those of the authors. Packet Page 104 of 187 Home Fire Sprinkler Cost Assessment Research Project Technical Panel David Butry, National Institute of Standards & Technology Mike Chapman, Chapman Homes Keith Covington, Third Coast Design Studio, LLC Paul Emrath, National Association of Home Builders Jeff Feid, State Farm Insurance Tony Fleming, Metropolitan Fire Protection J. Dennis Gentzel, Office of the State Fire Marshal (MD) Michael Kebles, Las Vegas Valley Water District Ron Murray, UA Local 290, Portland, OR Peg Paul, Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition James Tidwell, International Code Council Paul Valentine, Mt. Prospect (IL) Fire Department Keith Zaccard, Hanover Park (IL) Fire Department Gary Keith, NFPA liaison Principal Sponsor National Fire Protection Association Packet Page 105 of 187 Packet Page 106 of 187 i Fire Protection Research Foundation Home Fire Sprinkler Cost Assessment Final Report September 10, 2008 Packet Page 107 of 187 ii Acknowledgements This research project was performed for the Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF) under the direction of Kathleen Almand, by Newport Partners LLC of Davidsonville, MD. While these two groups oversaw and conducted the research, respectively, many of the project’s findings were made possible only through the cooperation of homebuilders, sprinkler contractors, local fire bureaus, and city officials. The design of this work called for a great deal of information gathering on the state of fire sprinklers in residential construction, and these groups helped to provide that information in the form of extensive documentation and responding to many requests for additional data. The authors of this report wish to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of dozens of individuals for their assistance. This project was also guided by the FPRF’s technical review panel, which provided valuable direction and feedback throughout the course of the project. The project authors wish to recognize this group and thank them for their participation and input: David Butry, National Institute of Standards and Technology Mike Chapman, Chapman Homes Keith Covington, Third Coast Design Studio Paul Emrath, National Association of Home Builders Jeff Feid, State Farm Insurance Tony Fleming, Metropolitan Fire Protection Dennis Gentzel, Maryland State Fire Marshal’s Office Michael Kebles, Las Vegas Valley Water District Ron Murray, UA Local 290 James Tidwell, International Code Council Paul Valentine, Mt. Prospect Fire Department Kenneth Zaccard, Hanover Park Fire Dept, Representing IAFC Liaison Peg Paul, Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition Gary Keith, National Fire Protection Association Packet Page 108 of 187 iii Executive Summary Residential fire sprinkler ordinances have been adopted by several hundred United States communities for use in single-family dwellings. Such systems have been shown to provide significant life safety benefits, however the installed cost of these systems remains as a point of uncertainty and a potential barrier to broader adoption. Informal estimates of typical installation costs can vary widely and influence decision makers’ views on the viability of sprinkler systems in new homes. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to provide a national perspective on the cost of home fire sprinklers by developing data on installation costs and cost savings for ten communities distributed throughout the United States. The study also explores the range of insurance premium discounts which are available to homeowners with sprinkler systems in their houses. To obtain information on the cost of installing residential sprinkler systems, ten case study communities were selected: nine in the United States, and one in Canada. The ten communities offer diversity in terms of sprinkler ordinance status, geographic location, housing style, and sprinkler system variables such as the type of piping material and the water supply source (municipal or on-site). For each of these communities, three building plans were collected from builders and sprinkler installers, along with sprinkler system cost data and other related cost and system information. The term “sprinklered square feet” (sprinklered SF) reflects the total area of sprinklered spaces, including basements, garages, and attics when applicable. This term is used to better characterize the cost of sprinklers per unit of space which is covered by the system, especially since many of the homes have sprinklers in spaces beyond the normal living space, such as a garage. In terms of absolute costs, the total sprinkler system costs to the homebuilder ranged from $2,386 to $16,061 for the 30 houses. The cost of sprinkler systems to the homebuilder, in dollars per sprinklered SF, ranged from $0.38 to $3.66. This range represents the 30 different house plans, with the average cost being $1.61 per sprinklered SF. The low end of this range Packet Page 109 of 187 iv ($0.38/sprinklered SF) represents a California house in a community with a long- standing ordinance, sprinklers in the attic and the garage (in addition to the living space), and some potential pricing benefits from a volume relationship with the sprinkler contractor. The high end of this cost range ($3.66/sprinklered SF) represents a Colorado house on well water and a system constructed with copper piping which utilized anti-freeze for freeze protection during the winter. These costs include all costs to the builder associated with the sprinkler system including design, installation, and other costs such as permits, additional equipment, and increased tap and water meter fees – to the extent that they apply. When accounting for any available credits given for the use of residential sprinklers (as was the case in Wilsonville, OR), the total sprinkler system costs to the builder averaged $1.49 per sprinklered SF. Variables associated with higher cost systems included extensive use of copper piping (instead of CPVC or PEX), an on-site water supply (instead of municipal water), local requirements to sprinkler additional areas like garages or attics, and higher local sprinkler permit fees. The cost data also support the concept that communities with sprinkler ordinances in effect for more than five years tend to experience market acceptance and increased competition leading to lower system costs. Credits or “trade-offs,” which could include incentives like greater fire hydrant spacing in a community with sprinklers, were also investigated in each of the ten communities. While trade-offs may be used in communities as part of the zoning approval process for specific developments, just one of the ten communities had a credit or trade-off that applied to the houses which were analyzed. Wilsonville, OR, offers a credit of $1.21 per square foot of living space in an effort to partially offset the costs of sprinklers. As complementary data to the cost analysis, a survey of available insurance premium discounts for homeowners with sprinkler systems was conducted. For each of the ten communities where sprinkler cost data was analyzed, the average insurance premium discount (as a percentage) was obtained from five insurers with significant market share Packet Page 110 of 187 v in the state. Discount savings percentages ranged from 0 to 10% among all companies and agencies surveyed, with an average premium discount of 7%. Related issues such as limits on the overall discount allowed for protective devices, sprinkler system requirements, and any potential insurance penalties for sprinklers were also explored. There were no instances discovered of insurance penalties or extra fees associated with the use of residential sprinkler systems due to concerns such as system leakage. Insurance quotes for a theoretical prototype house were also obtained for the nine United States communities and one Canadian community. Quotes were obtained with and without a sprinkler system in an effort to estimate the discount that may result from having a sprinkler system. Annual discount savings averaged $22, or 3.42% of the annual premium. The difference in this discount compared to the average percentage discount found in the survey is likely due to the disconnect between generally quoted ranges and the real discounts allowed on real policies. As sprinkler systems become more common in given areas and this discount becomes a more common topic in the consumer-insurance agent dialogue, it is anticipated that actual discounts would more closely track with general ranges. Packet Page 111 of 187 vi Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 II. Cost Analysis of Residential Sprinkler Systems......................................................... 2 A. Criteria for Community Selection........................................................................... 2 B. Community Overview............................................................................................. 3 C. Selection of House Plans and Obtaining Cost Data................................................ 4 D. Sprinkler System Costs.......................................................................................... 5 E. Sprinkler System Variables................................................................................... 9 F. Individual Community Analysis............................................................................. 13 G. Credits and Trade-Offs ........................................................................................ 26 III. Insurance Discounts for Residential Sprinkler Systems.......................................... 28 A. Methodology for Estimating Insurance Premium Reductions................................ 28 B. Insurance Premium Discounts for Residential Sprinkler Systems ........................ 29 C. Related Issues Affecting the Magnitude and Availability of Discounts ................. 34 D. Home Insurance Quotes for a Sample Home........................................................ 34 Appendix A – Sprinkler System Costs by Community................................................... 36 Packet Page 112 of 187 September 10, 2008 1 I. Introduction In 1975 the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) introduced Standard 13D: Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Mobile Homes.1 Since that time there have been approximately ten updates to the standard to reflect practical experience and to accommodate such things as nonmetallic piping and multipurpose systems. NFPA Standard 13D and related standard NFPA 13R2 have evolved and been balanced to optimize system costs and fire safety for specific types of residential occupancy buildings. Although residential sprinklers have been adopted by many communities, only 2% of all existing one- and two-family homes included a sprinkler system as of 2003.3 Although the life safety benefit of home fire sprinklers is well validated, installed cost remains a major barrier to their acceptance by homebuilders and local regulators. In 1986, the City of Scottsdale commissioned an independent study of the cost to install an NFPA 13D compliant system in an average single-family residence in that city. The study reviewed installation and related costs associated with sprinklers, as well as where sprinklers would result in cost savings. In September 2007, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released a cost benefit analysis that concluded the multipurpose residential sprinkler systems are economical across three housing types: townhouse, colonial style two-story, and a ranch design. Multipurpose systems (a system integrated with the home plumbing system) are allowed in some locations but were not used as the basis of the Scottsdale study, as it was completed prior to the updates in the 13D standard which permitted multipurpose systems. Since 1986, the number of communities in the United States with sprinkler ordinances has increased, resulting in increased efficiencies in design, manufacturing and installation, as well as greater regulatory, insurance and builder acceptance. Further, the more widespread installation of these 1 “Mobile Homes” was replaced with “Manufactured Homes” in the 1994 edition. 2 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies up to and Including Four Stories in Height, NFPA 13R. 3 www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/nrfsi-03report.pdf Packet Page 113 of 187 September 10, 2008 2 systems provides the opportunity to take a broader look at the costs and cost savings associated with home fire sprinklers in today’s housing industry. A broader range of cost data will be of value to local communities considering sprinkler ordinances, homebuilders and homeowners considering the installation of sprinklers, and other industry stakeholders. The purpose of this study is to provide a national perspective on the cost of home fire sprinklers by developing data on installation costs and cost savings for ten communities, distributed throughout the United States. II. Cost Analysis of Residential Sprinkler Systems A. Criteria for Community Selection To obtain information on the cost of installing residential sprinkler systems, ten case study communities were selected. The selection of the communities was based on the status of a local sprinkler ordinance, geography, availability of data, and other factors. In an effort to obtain a cross- section of jurisdictions with varied experiences, the communities selected include five that have had an ordinance in effect for more than five years, two that have had an ordinance in effect for five years or less, two that have never had an ordinance, and one that had an ordinance which has subsequently been repealed. The basis for these criteria was to capture potential cost differences that exist between regions with high rates of sprinkler regulation and those with lower rates of regulation (and presumably lower frequency of installations). The broad geographic spread of the case study communities, as seen in the following section, provides variation which reflects different local circumstances. Such differences may include the type of installer, materials used, and specific system requirements – which all contribute to the cost of the system. The geographic spread also allowed for a variety of housing types to be analyzed. For example, while basement foundations are typical in the Northeast, slab foundations are more typical in places like California. Packet Page 114 of 187 September 10, 2008 3 While the status of the local sprinkler ordinance and the geographic location of communities were the primary selection criteria, several other factors were evaluated with the intent of gaining a diverse set of data. For instance, communities which allow the use of multipurpose systems were sought to be included in the sample. And in fact, two communities that commonly install multipurpose systems were included in the cost analysis. Likewise, the selected communities cover a range of sprinkler piping materials, with CPVC (most common), copper, and PEX. An effort was also made to select communities which would provide a mix of housing types in terms of the number of stories and foundation system. These housing features can significantly impact the extent and cost of a sprinkler system. The selection process also took into consideration the typical sprinkler installer in a community (sprinkler contractor or plumber), in an effort to include communities with both models. As a result of the varied technical requirements between sprinkler systems installed in areas with and without a municipal water supply, building plans connected to non-municipal (on-site) water supplies were also captured in the selection. The study includes two communities where the building plans analyzed were on well water systems, allowing the characterization of the associated costs. B. Community Overview The ten communities selected for the cost analysis are shown below: Packet Page 115 of 187 September 10, 2008 4 The selection of communities satisfies the various criteria and overall provides a diverse mix of sprinkler systems in terms of type of system, house, piping material, installer, water supply, etc. A Canadian community with a well established ordinance was also included to add more diversity to the community mix. C. Selection of House Plans and Obtaining Cost Data Within each case study community, the selection of house plans for obtaining cost data was typically based on builder or sprinkler contractor recommendations from local fire departments or local homebuilder associations. Nearly all builder and contractor participants were generally quite willing to share house plans and cost data documentation on sprinkler systems, as well as responding to a wide range of related questions. All of the house plans and associated cost data obtained for this study were for homes that have been built since 2005, allowing for the analysis of recent cost figures. Three house plans were requested from each builder in an effort to obtain a broader sample. Actual house plans were obtained from the builder or sprinkler contractor with sprinkler system information, installation costs to the builder, and any additional costs to the builder not included in the installation cost. In cases where the builder could not provide additional cost information, local government offices were consulted on items such as permit fees or increased tap fee charges. Overall, the thirty house plans reflect a cross-section of housing types nationwide, including one- and two-story homes; basement, slab, and crawl space foundations; and custom, semi-custom, and production homes. House sizes, measured in terms of “sprinklered square feet”, averaged 4,118 sprinklered SF, ranging from 1,913 to 6,542 sprinklered SF. Throughout this report, the term “sprinklered SF” is frequently used, and reflects the total area of sprinklered spaces, including basements, garages, and attics when applicable. This term is used to better characterize the cost of sprinklers per unit of space, especially since many of the homes have sprinklers in spaces beyond the normal living space, such as a garage. For the sake of comparison, the thirty houses averaged 3,660 square feet living space, ranging from 1,723 to 6,360 sf. For the houses with basement Packet Page 116 of 187 September 10, 2008 5 foundations, the area of the basement (unfinished or finished) was included in calculating the house’s living space square footage. House Size for 30-Home Sample (Square feet) Sprinklered Area* Living Area** Mean 4,118 3,660 Median 4,124 3,441 Minimum 1,913 1,723 Maximum 6,542 6,360 * Sprinklered SF includes all spaces with sprinkler coverage **Living area SF includes all livings spaces including basements (unfinished or finished) D. Sprinkler System Costs The cost of sprinkler systems to the homebuilder, in dollars per sprinklered SF, ranged from $0.38 to $3.66. This range represents the thirty different house plans, with the average cost being $1.61 per sprinklered SF. This figure includes all costs associated with the sprinkler system including design, installation, and other costs such as permits, additional equipment, increased tap and water meter fees – to the extent they apply. When accounting for any additional costs and any available credits (Wilsonville, OR), the total sprinkler system costs to the builder averaged $1.49 per sprinklered SF. Sprinkler system costs to the homebuilder are shown in the graph and table below, with more detailed cost data included in Appendix A. Packet Page 117 of 187 September 10, 2008 6 Sprinkler System Costs to the Homebuilder Cost ($/sprinklered SF) Cost ($/living space SF) Cost With Available Credits ($/sprinklered SF) Cost with Available Credits ($/living space SF) Mean $1.61 $1.72 $1.49 $1.60 Median $1.42 $1.49 $1.23 $1.38 Minimum $0.38 $0.74 $0.38 $0.74 Maximum $3.66 $3.66 $3.66 $3.66 The data above reflects the sprinkler system bid price plus all associated costs for the system which were not included in the bid (e.g. permit fee, increase in water service line, increase in tap fee). In several of the case study communities, these additional costs were already included in the contractor’s bid price (like a permit fee) or these cost impacts did not apply (like an increased tap fee). One case study community, Wilsonville, OR, offers a $1.21 per square foot credit in an effort to partially offset the costs of sprinklers. When accounting for this credit across the entire 30-home sample, the total sprinkler system costs to the builder averaged $1.49 per sprinklered SF. Packet Page 118 of 187 September 10, 2008 7 In addition to the cost of sprinklers per unit of space, the total cost per house is also an important metric. The following graph relates the total cost of the sprinkler system to the builder for all thirty house plans, with price-influencing variables noted for each community. Packet Page 119 of 187 September 10, 2008 8 Packet Page 120 of 187 September 10, 2008 9 It should be noted that the variables identified in the graph above, such as the use of copper piping, were identified as significant factors in the overall price of the sprinkler system through discussions with the builder or contractor, and more detailed cost data in some cases. However, given the small size of the data set and other limitations, this research did not attempt to specifically quantify the pricing influence of variables like copper piping or well water systems for use on a broader basis. Several system variables, including those identified on the graph, are discussed and summarized below. Many of these factors are discussed further in the Individual Community Analysis section of this report. E. Sprinkler System Variables Sprinkler System Requirements and Extent of Coverage Sprinkler systems provisions which go beyond NFPA 13D minimum requirements are sometimes found in local ordinances. Such modifications may require additional types of spaces to be sprinklered, such as garages. In the ten communities analyzed, local modifications include requiring all bathrooms (regardless of size) to have fire sprinklers (Matteson, IL); requiring fire sprinklers in garages (Huntley, IL, North Andover, MA, Pleasant View, TN, and San Clemente, CA); and requiring fire sprinklers in attics (San Clemente, CA). Since adding sprinkler coverage to spaces like garages necessitates additional piping, sprinkler heads, and in some cases systems which can be used in areas reaching freezing temperatures, this factor is significant to note when assessing system costs. Type of Pipe Used Systems in the study used a mix of metallic (copper) and nonmetallic (CPVC or PEX) pipe. In communities using solely nonmetallic pipe, installation costs averaged $1.18 per sprinklered square foot. Several communities used CPVC piping in unexposed areas and copper in exposed areas like unfinished basements. In such cases, installation costs averaged $1.56 per sprinklered square foot. The houses analyzed in Fort Collins, CO, used exclusively copper piping, with an average installation cost of $3.19 per sprinklered square foot. This suggests that the type of piping used in systems can substantially impact the overall job cost. Packet Page 121 of 187 September 10, 2008 10 Sprinkler System Costs by Type of Pipe CPVC CPVC/ Copper Copper CPVC CPVC/ Copper Copper $/Sprinklered SF $/Living Space SF Mean $1.18 $1.56 $3.19 $1.30 $1.65 $3.19 Median $1.10 $1.56 $3.37 $1.24 $1.56 $3.37 Minimum $0.38 $0.95 $2.53 $0.74 $0.95 $2.53 Maximum $2.40 $2.21 $3.66 $2.40 $2.49 $3.66 Water Source While most of the houses assessed rely on municipal water sources, two of the communities (Carroll County, MD, and Fort Collins, CO) included homes reliant on well water. Sprinkler systems of this type require a booster pump, which according to estimates from sprinkler contractors, can add roughly $2,000 to $3,600 to the overall system cost. Installation costs in dollars per sprinklered square foot for these two communities ranged from $2.09 to $3.66. This results in an average of $2.73 per sprinklered square foot, compared to the $1.18 average for houses in those communities with a municipal water supply. Consequently, it is evident that a home’s water supply source can be a significant factor in increasing price. Sprinkler System Costs by Water Source Municipal Non- Municipal Municipal Non- Municipal $/Sprinklered SF $/Living Space SF Mean $1.18 $2.73 $1.31 $2.73 Median $1.10 $2.47 $1.24 $2.47 Minimum $0.38 $2.09 $0.74 $2.09 Maximum $2.21 $3.66 $2.49 $3.66 Permit and Inspection Fees Communities often have a combined permit and inspection fee for the installation of sprinkler systems. While two of the case study communities do not have any fee for sprinkler permit and Packet Page 122 of 187 September 10, 2008 11 inspection (Pleasant View, TN, and San Clemente, CA), the other eight communities do have such fees. In these communities, those permit and inspection fees which were identified ranged from $50 to just under $800, although in some of the case studies the permit fees were layered into the overall system bid and were not identifiable as single line item costs. While some of the ten communities have a flat fee, others calculate permit and inspection fees based on the size of the house or valuation of the construction. In determining which communities should be classified as having “high” permit and inspection fees, a threshold amount of $350 was set as a “high” based on the limited data available on the range of fees. System Design Type Multipurpose systems combine plumbing and sprinklers into one system and piping network, resulting in continuous flow of water circulating in the system. Conversely, a standalone sprinkler system uses dedicated sprinkler piping supply, with water flowing only when a sprinkler is activated. In analyzing the system type used, data was obtained for multipurpose systems (six homes) and standalone sprinkler systems (twenty-four homes). In communities where multipurpose systems are used, installation costs in dollars per sprinklered square foot averaged $1.04. In communities where standalone systems were used, installation costs averaged $1.61 per sprinklered SF. Sprinkler System Costs by Design Type Multipurpose (6 Homes) Standalone (24 Homes) Multipurpose (6 Homes) Standalone (24 Homes) $/Sprinklered SF $/Living Space SF Mean $1.04 $1.61 $1.04 $1.73 Median $1.02 $1.39 $1.02 $1.49 Minimum $0.81 $0.38 $0.81 $0.74 Maximum $1.32 $3.66 $1.32 $3.66 Type of Foundation House foundation types in the study varied depending on geographic location. While basement foundations were the prevalent foundation type in the eastern communities, slab or crawl space Packet Page 123 of 187 September 10, 2008 12 foundations were more common in the western communities of the study. The following table depicts house foundation types by region, based on U.S. Census Bureau data: 2007 Foundation Type Market Shares Nationwide (U.S.) Northeast Midwest South West Full/Partial Basement 27.7% 73.6% 73.7% 10.6% 18.6% Crawl Space 18.4% 10.5% 6.2% 19.2% 27.3% Slab 52.7% 14.0% 19.7% 68.7% 53.5% Other 0.6% 0.7% 0.1% 0.9% 0.4% Not Reported 0.5% 1.2% 0.3% 0.6% 0.2% For houses in the study with basement foundations, sprinkler system costs averaged $1.81 per sprinklered square foot. System costs for houses with slab foundations averaged $0.81 per sprinklered square foot, while houses with crawl spaces had an average cost of $0.92 per sprinklered square foot. Sprinkler System Costs by Foundation Type Basement (20 homes) Slab (6 homes) Crawl Space (4 homes) Basement (20 homes) Slab (6 homes) Crawl Space (4 homes) $/Sprinklered SF $/Living Space SF Mean $1.81 $0.81 $0.92 $1.90 $0.99 $1.00 Median $1.68 $0.78 $0.88 $1.68 $0.97 $0.88 Minimum $0.95 $0.38 $0.81 $0.95 $0.74 $0.81 Maximum $3.66 $1.12 $1.10 $3.66 $1.32 $1.44 It should be noted that these costs, when presented in terms of dollars per sprinklered square foot, reflect the cost impacts of the foundation system but simultaneously incorporate the impacts of installing sprinklers in garages and attics in some cases. In other words, the limited data set and number of variables involved with each particular data point do not allow a more thorough analysis of this issue within this research. Packet Page 124 of 187 September 10, 2008 13 F. Individual Community Analysis The following table summarizes the communities, research houses, and sprinkler systems analyzed within each of the ten communities, followed by more detailed summaries of each jurisdiction. Note that for information such as pipe type, system type, and several other categories, the data in the table refers specifically to the 30 homes analyzed in the study, not community requirements. Community Sprinkler Ordinance Information Year of Ordinance Adopted Local Modifications to 13D System Type Pipe Type Sprinkler Head Type Water Supply Foundation Type Fort Collins, CO 13D > 5 years 1986 None standalone Copper concealed; semi- recessed in exposed areas Well water Basement Pitt Meadows, BC 13D > 5 years 1998 None multipurpose CPVC semi- recessed Municipal Slab Pleasant View, TN 13D > 5 years 2002 Sprinklers or a 1-hour rated assembly required in garage standalone CPVC concealed Municipal 2 Basement 1 Crawl Space Prince George's County, MD 13D > 5 years 1992 None standalone CPVC; copper in basements concealed; semi- recessed in exposed areas Municipal Basement San Clemente, CA 13D > 5 years 1980 Sprinklers required in garages and attics standalone CPVC concealed Municipal Slab Carroll County, MD 13D < 5 years 2006 None standalone CPVC concealed; semi- recessed in exposed areas Well water Basement Matteson, IL 13D < 5 years 2004 All bathrooms must have sprinklers, regardless of size standalone CPVC; copper in basements concealed; semi- recessed in exposed areas Municipal Basement North Andover, MA no ordinance N/A Sprinklers in garages standalone CPVC concealed Municipal Basement Wilsonville, OR no ordinance N/A None multipurpose PEX semi- recessed Municipal Crawl Space Huntley, IL 13D repealed 2005 2 Sprinkler heads required in garages standalone CPVC; copper in basements concealed; semi- recessed in exposed areas Municipal Basement Packet Page 125 of 187 September 10, 2008 14 Fort Collins, Colorado Fort Collins, Colorado has mandated NFPA 13D since 1986. The community is served by the Poudre Fire Authority. Residential sprinkler systems are typically installed by sprinkler contractors, but the installation may also be done by a plumber. Both standalone and multipurpose systems have been installed in homes in Fort Collins, and pipe type is typically plastic (CPVC or PEX), but may also be metallic (copper). The housing styles in Fort Collins range from manufactured housing to custom homes larger than 5,000 square feet, typically with basement foundations. In the case study of Fort Collins, three house floor plans were obtained from a local sprinkler contractor. All three homes were built on a basement foundation, thus requiring sprinkler heads in the basement in addition to the main living areas per NFPA 13D. Including the basement area, the three homes had living space ranging from 2,797 to 6,360 square feet. In sprinklered square footage, the three homes ranged from 2,797 to 6,360 square feet (sprinklered area = living space area). The cost of the systems to the builder ranged from $10,250 to $16,061. The cost of the systems ranged from $2.53 to $3.66 per sprinklered SF. Fort Collins – Sprinkler System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $14,745 4,373 $3.37 4,373 $3.37 House 2 $16,061 6,360 $2.53 6,360 $2.53 House 3 $10,250 2,797 $3.66 2,797 $3.66 In each home, the sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using copper piping.4 Concealed sprinkler heads were used in the main living area, while semi-recessed sprinkler heads 4 The sprinkler contractor has traditionally used only copper for sprinkler systems, believing it to be superior to plastic both in performance and longevity. The contractor is considering switching to plastic on their larger projects to remain competitive in the local market. Packet Page 126 of 187 September 10, 2008 15 were used in areas where piping is exposed. Design fee, inspection fee, and permit fee were included in the sprinkler contractor’s installation price. It is important to note, however, that the permit fee varies depending on the valuation of the individual home. Thus, permit fees for the three case study homes ranged from $510.46 to $799.83. The contractor’s installation price also included an anti-freeze system, a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. Because all three homes rely on well water, a booster pump and tank was required for the sprinkler system, which was also included in the contractor’s installation price. A supplemental bid for the sprinkler system installations in Fort Collins may help to characterize the relatively high system costs which were obtained for the homes. A second residential sprinkler contractor in the Fort Collins area quoted the system installations on the same three homes with a range of $8,000 to $12,500. This difference from the actual contractor bid range ($10,250 to $16,061) may be heavily influenced by the type of pipe used for the systems. PEX was used in the supplemental system bid design, while copper was used in the actual plans. PEX pipe is flexible tubing that is significantly less expensive than copper. Pitt Meadows, British Columbia Pitt Meadows, British Columbia has mandated NFPA 13D since 1998. The community is served by the Pitt Meadows Fire Department. There are no specific requirements for residential sprinkler systems beyond those of NFPA 13D. Residential sprinkler systems are typically installed by sprinkler contractors. Both standalone and multipurpose systems have been installed in homes in Pitt Meadows, and pipe is typically CPVC. Typical housing type in Pitt Meadows is two-story, 2,500 square feet in living space, with a crawl space or slab foundation. In the case study of Pitt Meadows, three house floor plans were obtained from a semi-custom builder. All three homes were built on a slab foundation. The three homes had living space (and sprinkler square footage space) ranging from 2,109 to 2,342 square feet. The cost of the systems to the Packet Page 127 of 187 September 10, 2008 16 builder ranged from $2,560 to $3,090.5 When considered in terms of dollars per unit of space, the cost of the systems ranged from $1.15 to $1.32 per sprinklered SF (U.S. dollars). Pitt Meadows – System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $3,090 2,342 $1.32 2,342 $1.32 House 2 $2,690 2,336 $1.15 2,336 $1.15 House 3 $2,560 2,109 $1.21 2,109 $1.21 The sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using CPVC piping and standard white semi- recessed sprinkler heads were used. Design fee, inspection fee, and permit fee were included in the sprinkler contractor’s installation price. It is important to note, however, that the permit fee is calculated as 0.95% of the sprinkler system construction value. Thus, permit fees for the three case study homes ranged from $24.32 to $29.35. The contractor’s installation price also included a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. Pleasant View, Tennessee Pleasant View, Tennessee has mandated NFPA 13D since 2002. The community is served by the Pleasant View Volunteer Fire Department. In addition to the requirements of NFPA 13D, Pleasant View requires sprinkler coverage in the garage of homes. Standalone systems are the more common system used in Pleasant View, with CPVC pipe typically used. Typical housing type in Pleasant View ranges from 1,200 to 4,000 square feet of living space, both one- and two-story homes, with differing foundation types. 5 The original prices were in Canadian dollars (CAN). Amounts were converted to USD (U.S. dollars) based on currency exchange rates of $1.00 CAN to $1.0099 USD as of March 2008 (when the costs were incurred). Packet Page 128 of 187 September 10, 2008 17 In the case study of Pleasant View, three house floor plans were obtained from a semi-custom builder. Two of the homes were built with a basement foundation; the other home had a crawl space. The three homes had living space ranging from 1,723 to 3,326 square feet. In addition to sprinkler coverage in the living space, sprinklers were also installed in the garages. Thus, total sprinklered space in the three homes ranged from 2,612 to 3,826 sprinklered SF. The total cost of the sprinkler systems to the builder ranged from $2,489 to $4,208. When considered in terms of dollars per unit space, the cost of the system for each of the three homes was $1.10 per sprinklered SF. Pleasant View – System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $2,872 2,612 $1.10 2,112 $1.36 House 2 $2,489 2,273 $1.10 1,723 $1.44 House 3 $4,208 3,826 $1.10 3,326 $1.27 The sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using CPVC piping and concealed sprinkler heads. The design fee for the sprinkler system was included in the sprinkler contractor’s installation price. Pleasant View does not charge an inspection fee or permit fee for residential sprinkler systems. The contractor’s installation price also included a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. All three homes use a municipal water source. An increased water service line size is needed in Pleasant View to allow for the potential increase in water flow associated with the sprinkler system. This increase from ¾” to 1” does not result in an increase in price for the sprinkler system installation, as all building lots now come with this increased line size. Increases in water meter size or water tap fee were not required or incurred. Packet Page 129 of 187 September 10, 2008 18 Prince George’s County, Maryland Prince George’s County, Maryland phased in the requirement of NFPA 13D beginning in 1987, when county council approved the mandate of residential sprinklers. On January 1, 1992, the final stage of the law went into effect stating that from that point on all residential structures, including single-family homes, must be fully protected by a NFPA Approved 13-D residential sprinkler.6 The county is served by the Prince George’s County Fire Department. There are no specific requirements for residential sprinkler systems beyond those of NFPA 13D. Residential sprinkler systems are typically installed by sprinkler contractors. Standalone systems are the common system used in Prince George’s County, and pipe type is typically CPVC. Typical housing type in Prince George’s County is two-story, roughly 3,000 square feet in living space, with a basement foundation. In the case study of Prince George’s County, three house floor plans were obtained from a regional production builder. All three homes were built on basement foundations. Including the basement area, the three homes had living space ranging from 3,903 to 6,170 square feet. The amount of sprinklered square footage ranged from 3,903 to 6,170 square feet. The cost of the systems to the builder ranged from $4,100 to $5,886. When considered as dollars per square foot of sprinkler coverage, the cost of the system ranged from $0.95 to $1.05 per square foot. 6 Ronald Jon Siarnicki, “Residential Sprinklers: One Community’s Experience Twelve Years after Mandatory Implementation,” January 2001. Packet Page 130 of 187 September 10, 2008 19 Prince George’s County – System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $4,100 3,903 $1.05 3,903 $1.05 House 2 $4,332 4,345 $1.00 4,345 $1.00 House 3 $5,886 6,170 $0.95 6,170 $0.95 The sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using CPVC piping, using both concealed and standard white semi-recessed sprinkler heads. Design fee, inspection fee, and permit fee were included in the sprinkler contractor’s installation price. The contractor’s installation price also included a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. San Clemente, California San Clemente, California has mandated NFPA 13D since 1980. The community is served by the Orange County Fire Authority. In addition to the requirements for residential sprinkler systems stated by NFPA 13D, the community also requires sprinkler coverage in the garage and attic space of homes. Standalone systems are the common system used in San Clemente, with CPVC pipe typically used. Typical housing type in San Clemente ranges from 2,500 to 5,000 square feet with slab foundations. In the case study of San Clemente, three house floor plans were obtained from a production builder. All of the homes were built on slab foundations with living space ranging from 3,214 to 3,482 square feet. With garage and attic space considered, sprinklered space ranged from 6,329 to 6,542 square feet. The cost of the systems to the builder ranged from $2,386 to $2,655. When considered in terms of dollars per square foot of sprinkler coverage, the cost of the systems ranged from $0.38 to $0.41 per square foot. These low costs for the sprinkler system are likely the result of volume pricing Packet Page 131 of 187 September 10, 2008 20 (the builder indicated that the contractor does a large volume of work with them) and the competitive market as a result of the length of the ordinance’s existence. San Clemente – System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $2,565 6,542 $0.39 3,482 $0.74 House 2 $2,386 6,329 $0.38 3,214 $0.74 House 3 $2,655 6,448 $0.41 3,358 $0.79 The sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using CPVC piping and concealed sprinkler heads. The design fee and inspection fee for the sprinkler system was included in the sprinkler contractor’s installation price. San Clemente does not charge a permit fee for residential sprinkler systems—the city promotes the use of residential sprinkler systems by eliminating such a fee. The contractor’s installation price also included a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. All three homes use a municipal water source. There is no need for an increased water service line size, water meter size, or tap fee as a result of the sprinkler system installation. Carroll County, Maryland Carroll County, Maryland has mandated NFPA 13D since 2006. The county is served by local paid and volunteer fire departments. There are no specific requirements for residential sprinkler systems above and beyond those of NFPA 13D. Standalone systems are the common system used in Carroll County, although multipurpose systems may also be used. CPVC pipe is typically used in finished areas of homes, with copper used in unfinished areas. Typical housing in Carroll County is about 1,800 square feet for one-story ranches, and 3,500 square feet for two-story homes, with basement foundations. Packet Page 132 of 187 September 10, 2008 21 In the case study of Carroll County, three house floor plans were obtained from a semi-custom builder. All three homes were built with a basement foundation, with living space (including basement) ranging from 3,131 to 4,686 square feet. The cost of the systems to the builder ranged from $7,499 to $9,800. When considered in terms of dollars per square foot of sprinkler coverage, the cost of the systems ranged from $2.09 to $2.40 per sprinklered square foot. Carroll County – System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $7,499 3,131 $2.40 3,131 $2.40 House 2 $9,800 4,686 $2.09 4,686 $2.09 House 3 $8,750 3,772 $2.32 3,772 $2.32 Because all three homes rely on well water, a booster pump and tank was required for the sprinkler system, which was included in the contractor’s installation price. The sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using CPVC piping. Concealed sprinkler heads were used in unexposed areas and semi-recessed sprinkler heads were used in exposed areas. The design fee, inspection fee, and permit fee for the systems were included in the sprinkler contractor’s installation price. The contractor’s installation price also included a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. Matteson, Illinois Matteson, Illinois has mandated NFPA 13D since 2004. The community is served by the Matteson Fire Department. There are no specific requirements for residential sprinkler systems beyond those of NFPA 13D. Standalone systems are the more common system used in Matteson, with CPVC pipe typically used. Typical housing type in Matteson is about 3,000 square feet, both one- and two-story homes, usually with basement foundations. Packet Page 133 of 187 September 10, 2008 22 In the case study of Matteson, three house floor plans were obtained from a semi-custom builder. All three homes were built with a basement foundation, with living space (including the basement area) and sprinklered space ranging from 4,562 to 5,478 square feet. The cost of the systems to the builder ranged from $7,407 to $8,329, or $1.52 to $1.80 per sprinklered square foot. Matteson – System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $8,198 4,562 $1.80 4,562 $1.80 House 2 $7,407 4,740 $1.56 4,740 $1.56 House 3 $8,329 5,478 $1.52 5,478 $1.52 The sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using CPVC piping. Concealed sprinkler heads were used in unexposed areas and semi-recessed sprinkler heads were used in exposed areas. The design fee for the sprinkler system was $50, and the inspection fee and permit fee were a combined $150. The contractor’s installation price also included a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. All three homes use a municipal water source. An increase in water service line size is needed in Matteson to accommodate the potential increase in water flow associated with the sprinkler system. This increased service line cost the builder an additional $700. Increase costs for a larger water meter or water tap fee were not incurred. North Andover, Massachusetts North Andover, Massachusetts does not require residential sprinklers by law, but instead has implemented NFPA 13D through local zoning. Sprinklers are a part of the zoning approval process, as discussed in a later section of the report. The community is served by the North Andover Fire Department. In addition to the requirements for residential Packet Page 134 of 187 September 10, 2008 23 sprinkler systems stated by NFPA 13D, the North Andover Fire Department requires sprinkler coverage in the garage. Standalone systems are the common system used in North Andover, with CPVC pipe typically used. Typical housing type in North Andover is about 2,000 to 3,500 square feet, both one- and two-story homes, usually with basement foundations. In the case study of North Andover, three house floor plans were obtained from a local developer in the community. All three homes were built with a basement foundation, with living space (including the basement area) ranging from 3,084 to 5,422 square feet. With garage square footage considered, the three homes ranged from 3,568 to 5,906 sprinklered square feet. The cost of the sprinkler systems to the builder ranged from $4,500 to $6,500, or $1.10 to $1.26 per sprinklered square foot. North Andover – System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $4,500 3,568 $1.26 3,084 $1.46 House 2 $5,800 4,632 $1.25 4,148 $1.40 House 3 $6,500 5,906 $1.10 5,422 $1.20 The sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using CPVC piping. Concealed sprinkler heads were used in unexposed areas and semi-recessed sprinkler heads were used in exposed areas of the home. The design fee and inspection fee were included in the cost to the builder, while the permit fee was a separate cost at $50 per home. The contractor’s installation price also included a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. All three homes use a municipal water source. An increase in water service line size was needed to accommodate the potential increased water flow associated with the sprinkler system. This increase cost the builder an additional $450. An increase in tap fee at a cost of $500 was also incurred. There was no additional cost incurred related to the water meter size. Packet Page 135 of 187 September 10, 2008 24 Wilsonville, Oregon Wilsonville, Oregon does not require residential sprinklers by law, but has required NFPA 13D in the planned community of Villebois. The community is served by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. There are no specific requirements for residential sprinkler systems beyond those of NFPA 13D. System installations are typically done by a plumber; thus a multipurpose system is the most common system used in the area. Typical housing type in Wilsonville is between 2,000 to 3,000 square feet, often with a crawl space foundation. In the case study of Wilsonville, three house floor plans were obtained from a developer in the region. All three homes were on a crawl space, with living space (and sprinklered square footage) ranging from 1,913 to 2,917 square feet. The total cost of the systems to the builder (before any credit is applied) ranged from $4,014 to $5,892, or $2.02 to $2.10 per sprinklered square foot The City of Wilsonville offers a $1.21 per square foot of living space credit to the builder to offset the costs associated with sprinklers. This is a one-time credit, offered at the time of system installation. The credit cannot be any greater than the water meter system development charge for a 3/4” meter, which is currently $4,436 – regardless of the size of the home. In rare situations, a large home requiring a 1” water meter may receive a greater credit, but only if proof is shown that this increased water meter size is directly a result of water flow requirements for the sprinkler system. When accounting for the impact of this credit, the sprinkler system costs for the three Wilsonville homes range from $0.81 to $0.89 per sprinklered square foot, as shown in the table below. Packet Page 136 of 187 September 10, 2008 25 Wilsonville – System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size Credit ($/SF) $/SF Size Credit ($/SF) $/SF House 1 $4,178 2,005 $1.21 $0.87 2,005 $1.21 $0.87 House 2 $4,014 1,913 $1.21 $0.89 1,913 $1.21 $0.89 House 3 $5,892 2,917 $1.21 $0.81 2,917 $1.21 $0.81 The plumber installed a multipurpose system using PEX piping and standard white semi-recessed sprinkler heads. The design fee was included in the cost to the builder, while the inspection and permit fee was a separate cost to the builder, at $360 per home. The system did not feature a flow switch and alarm, but a required backflow preventer was included in the installation cost. All three homes use a municipal water source. An increase in water service meter size from 5/8” to 3/4” was needed to accommodate the increased water flow associated with the sprinkler system. Huntley, Illinois Huntley, Illinois mandated NFPA 13D in 2005, and the mandate was repealed by the Village of Huntley in 2007. Residential sprinkler systems are currently a “mandatory option” in the Village of Huntley—builders must offer homeowners the option to install a residential sprinkler system. While 13D is not required in the village itself, sprinkler systems are still required in the county portion of the fire district. When NFPA 13D was required, sprinkler coverage was also required in the garages of homes. System installations are typically done by a sprinkler contractor, using CPVC pipe. Typical housing in Huntley ranges from 2,000 to 4,500 square feet, usually with basement foundations. Packet Page 137 of 187 September 10, 2008 26 In the case study of Huntley, three house floor plans were obtained from a local sprinkler contractor. All three homes were built with a basement foundation, with living space (including the basement area) ranging from 3,400 to 4,560 square feet. With garage areas considered, the three homes ranged from 3,835 to 5,045 sprinklered square feet. The cost of the sprinkler systems to the builder ranged from $8,476 to $10,406, or $1.93 to $2.21 per sprinklered square foot. Huntley – System Costs Sprinklered Space Living Space System Cost Size $/SF Size $/SF House 1 $8,476 3,835 $2.21 3,400 $2.49 House 2 $8,851 4,575 $1.93 4,030 $2.20 House 3 $10,406 5,045 $2.06 4,560 $2.28 The sprinkler contractor installed a standalone system using CPVC pipe in all areas except the basement, where copper was used. Concealed sprinkler heads were used in unexposed areas and semi-recessed sprinkler heads were used in exposed areas. The design fee for the system was included in the sprinkler contractor’s installation price, while the inspection fee and permit fee were a combined $300, an additional cost outside of the sprinkler contractor’s installation price. The contractor’s installation price also included a system flow switch and alarm, and a backflow preventer. All three homes use a municipal water source. An increase in water service line size from 1” to 1 ½” was required to accommodate the increased water flow associated with the sprinkler system. This increase in water line size cost the builder an additional $821. G. Credits and Trade‐Offs Trade-offs is a general term for allowances that can be made in the building construction or the development planning when sprinkler systems will be used in the houses. At the house level, a trade- Packet Page 138 of 187 September 10, 2008 27 off could be a waiver of using fire-rated drywall in attached garages when the garage will be sprinklered. At the development level, trade-offs can include greater spacing of fire hydrants, narrower road widths, reduced water main sizes, relaxed requirements for the number of neighborhood exits, and others. Potential trade-offs at the development level and the house level were investigated for all ten communities. Possible trade-offs were particularly scrutinized in North Andover, Massachusetts and Wilsonville, Oregon. Neither community has a mandated residential sprinkler ordinance, so incentives of some type could be reasonable tools to encourage the use of sprinklers. North Andover has experienced tremendous growth in the past thirty-five years and has implemented cluster zoning as a way to preserve open space in the community. In subdivisions such as Hickory Hills, several additional building lots have been made available through cluster zoning, while still allowing for a large amount of open space in the development. Cluster zoning involves smaller lots and tighter setbacks, with larger parcels of dedicated open space nearby. The former North Andover Fire Chief viewed cluster zoning as a potentially greater fire risk (as homes are built closer together), resulting in a requirement for residential sprinklers for such developments as an additional safety measure. Additionally, because North Andover lacks the manpower for a new fire station, residential sprinkler systems can buy the fire department time in the event of an emergency. As a result, the town planning board created cluster-zoned subdivisions in North Andover as specially permitted lots, where developers and builders are required to install residential sprinkler systems in homes. Although the planning board does sometimes offer a decrease in the width of streets, increased spacing between fire hydrants, and the elimination of a turnaround for cluster developments, none of these trade-offs were offered in Hickory Hills. Wilsonville, OR provides a per-house credit intended to help cover the cost to install a residential sprinkler system. The credit is limited to the current water meter system development charge. Thus, the one-time credit changes as the system development charge changes. Beyond this credit offered Packet Page 139 of 187 September 10, 2008 28 by the City of Wilsonville, there were no documented development-level or house-level trade-offs in the ten communities. For communities where garages are sprinklered, there were no trade-offs identified related to drywall specifications. For each of the four communities in the study with sprinklered garages, the additional coverage is treated as an added safety measure, to be implemented in addition to the traditional fire- rated drywall required by building codes. In many cases, local jurisdictions will require sprinkler coverage in the garage when there are bedrooms and/or other living areas above the garage. Although evidence of trade-offs was not found in the case study communities, there is a general knowledge in the industry that trade-offs may be implemented on more of a case-by-case basis integrated with the zoning approval process for developments, rather than as a standard community policy. Negotiations are often made between a developer and the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). Such agreements may be made in order for a developer to avoid penalty for not installing sprinklers. III. Insurance Discounts for Residential Sprinkler Systems A. Methodology for Estimating Insurance Premium Reductions A 2007 study conducted by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) economics department showed that insurers do offer meaningful discounts for residential sprinkler systems, but that the discounts varied from state to state. For this study, an insurance survey was created to examine insurance companies and local agencies in the nine states where case study communities were located. This survey was both quantitative and qualitative, gathering not only average insurance premium discounts, but also information on insurance company categorization and/or requirements for discounts, and the familiarity of consumers with such discounts. This information is intended to help round out the case studies and provide meaningful data on actual insurance incentives and policies. Packet Page 140 of 187 September 10, 2008 29 For each community, the average insurance premium discount (as a percentage) was obtained from five insurance companies. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) 2007 Market Share Reports for Property/Casualty Insurance Groups and Companies were used to identify the top five insurance companies in each state. In cases where insurance discounts could not be obtained from a top-five company, discounts were obtained from subsequent companies from the NAIC report list. In cases where information could not be obtained directly from an insurance company, local insurance agencies were contacted. B. Insurance Premium Discounts for Residential Sprinkler Systems Discount savings percentages are derived from the whole annual homeowner’s insurance premium (rather than just a portion of the premium). Discount savings percentages ranged from 0 to 10% among all companies and agencies surveyed, with an average discount savings percentage premium of 7%. In California, annual homeowner’s insurance premium discount percentages were obtained from Allstate, State Farm, Farmers, Auto Club Enterprises, and Nationwide. Discounts ranged from 0 to 10%. In Colorado, annual homeowner’s insurance premium discount percentages were obtained from State Farm, Farmers, American Family, Allstate, and Travelers. Discounts ranged from 3 to 10%. In Illinois, annual homeowner’s insurance premium discount percentages were obtained from Allstate, State Farm, Country Financial, Farmers, and American Family. Discounts ranged from 5 to 10%. In Maryland, annual homeowner’s insurance premium discount percentages were obtained from Allstate, State Farm, Travelers, Nationwide, and Erie. Discounts ranged from 4 to 10%. In Massachusetts, annual homeowner’s insurance premium discount percentages were obtained from Commerce, Andover, Chubb & Son, Travelers, and Liberty Mutual. Discounts ranged from 5 to 10%. Packet Page 141 of 187 September 10, 2008 30 In Oregon, annual homeowner’s insurance premium discount percentages were obtained from State Farm, Farmers, Allstate, Country Financial, and American Family. Discounts ranged from 5 to 10%. In Tennessee, annual homeowner’s insurance premium discount percentages were obtained from State Farm, Tennessee Farmers, Allstate, Travelers, and Nationwide. Discounts ranged from 0 to 10%. In British Columbia, annual homeowner’s insurance premium discount percentages were obtained from Aviva, Canadian Northern Shield, Economical Insurance, Dominion of Canada, and Gore Mutual. Discounts ranged from 0 to 12%. These findings are summarized in the table below. Packet Page 142 of 187 September 10, 2008 31 Packet Page 143 of 187 September 10, 2008 32 Categorization of Sprinkler Systems Many insurance companies classify the discount offered for residential sprinkler systems by the extent of sprinkler coverage in the home. While these exact categories and their specific requirements differ between companies, most insurers typically classify system types into “partial” or “full” systems. A partial system generally means sprinkler coverage in the main living area only. In a few instances, partial may be defined as sprinkler coverage in the utility room only. A full system often means sprinkler coverage in all areas of the home, including the basement or crawl space, all bathrooms, closets, and hallways. In some instances, a full system classification may also require sprinkler coverage in garages. Furthermore, several companies required the sprinkler system to be monitored with an alarm. For the purposes of this insurance survey, the discount percentage offered by an insurer that most closely aligned with the fire sprinkler ordinance requirements for the particular case study community being assessed was used. Most insurance companies consider a residential sprinkler system to be a protective device. Other protective devices warranting homeowner’s insurance discounts include a monitored fire alarm connected to the sprinkler system (which may range from a 3 to 5% discount based on limited feedback from insurance agents), smoke detector, fire extinguisher, security system, deadbolt locks, and home location in a gated community. The majority of insurance companies place a cap on the maximum discount percentage offered for all protective devices. This cap ranged from 10 to 20% in the survey, with an average protective device discount cap of 14%. Penalties/Fees as a result of System Leakage The presence of a residential sprinkler system can raise concern about the risk of accidental water leakage from the system. According to the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) standard “Homeowners 3—Special Form” policy provides for coverage due to damages from residential fire sprinkler system leakage provided that reasonable care has been taken to maintain heat in the building to prevent freezing of the residential fire sprinkler system. Essentially residential fire sprinkler piping is treated the same as regular household plumbing as far as coverage and pricing for ISO's Packet Page 144 of 187 September 10, 2008 33 standard Homeowners program. Thus, there is no extra charge for the coverage of the peril of fire sprinkler leakage.7 This issue was probed in the insurance survey to see if the homeowner’s insurance policy typically covers sprinkler system leakage. Insurers interviewed in the study echoed the preceding ISO recommendations. Insurance companies routinely treat sprinkler system piping the same as a plumbing system. Sprinkler system leakage is reported as a loss. Accidental sprinkler system leakage is most likely covered under the homeowner’s insurance policy, whereas sprinkler system leakage as a result of a maintenance issue may not be covered by the policy. Claims adjusters determine whether or not sprinkler system leakage is covered under the homeowner’s policy, often on a case by case basis. Document Requirements for Discounts For those insurance companies offering premium discounts for residential sprinkler systems, many require proof of the system’s installation or existence. Methods of providing proof to insurance company underwriters vary among companies. However, the most common include an interior inspection of the home, a copy of the installation certificate and/or receipt, submitting pictures of the actual system, and providing the name of the sprinkler contractor. In some instances, one or more of these may be required by an insurer. In other cases, an insurer may not require any proof at all—the homeowner would simply be required to notify the insurer of the system installation upon application. It is important to note that misrepresentation in the application could put the homeowner in breach and possibly void parts or all of the policy. Homeowner Awareness of Discounts Homeowners are often informed of possible insurance savings for sprinklers by their insurance agent. An insurance agent typically gathers fact-finding information about the homeowner and the property in an initial or renewal appointment with the homeowner purchasing insurance. It is common for an insurance agent to ask the homeowner at this time if the property being insured has certain protective devices, including a residential sprinkler system. 7 Fire Sprinkler System Leakage in ISO Homeowners Policy, Insurance Services Office, 2008. Packet Page 145 of 187 September 10, 2008 34 C. Related Issues Affecting the Magnitude and Availability of Discounts The level of insurance discount knowledge varied greatly, which was particularly evident in comparing a region where residential sprinkler systems are very common to a region where residential sprinkler systems are not common. This often resulted in varying levels of an agent’s familiarity with residential sprinkler systems and the insurance premium discount offered by their insurance company. Insurance agents with modest familiarity with residential sprinkler systems typically referred to the insurance company manual to obtain insurance premium discount information. In obtaining information on possible penalties as a result of sprinkler system leakage, many agents were unsure of or unfamiliar with such penalties. Agents explained that insurance company underwriters deal with the claims process that would result if a sprinkler system were to accidentally leak. D. Home Insurance Quotes for a Sample Home As a separate part of the insurance study to complement the information obtained from the insurance survey, insurance policy quotes were obtained for the nine United States communities and one Canadian community using a theoretical prototype house. For the United States communities, the prototype house was a two-story 2,500 square foot colonial with an unfinished basement and one-car attached garage. Quotes were obtained with and without a sprinkler system in an effort to estimate the discount that may result from having a sprinkler system. Discount savings in dollars ranged from $5 in Huntley, IL to $53 in North Andover, MA, with an average savings of $22. As a percentage from the quoted price without a sprinkler system, savings ranged from 1.14% to 6.68%, with an average of 3.42%. For the Canadian community, the prototype house was a two-story 2,300 square foot home with crawl space, located in Pitt Meadows, British Columbia. Similar to the United States communities, quotes were obtained with and without a sprinkler system. Discount savings in dollars was $55, and the percentage discount from the quoted price without a sprinkler system was 4.83%. Packet Page 146 of 187 September 10, 2008 35 Community Actual Residence Value Quoted Residence Value Premium without Sprinklers Premium with Sprinklers (all areas) Discount Savings($) Discount Savings (%) PG County (Bowie), MD $244,836 $245,000 $970 $919 $51 5.26% Pleasant View, TN $223,612 $224,000 $600 $588 $12 2.00% Matteson, IL $294,414 $294,000 $455 $443 $12 2.64% Huntley, IL $282,051 $282,000 $438 $433 $5 1.14% San Clemente, CA $316,172 $316,000 $674 $661 $13 1.93% Fort Collins, CO $228,639 $229,000 $411 $404 $7 1.70% Carroll County (Finksburg), MD $243,361 $243,000 $519 $485 $34 6.55% Wilsonville, OR $274,138 $274,000 $342 $332 $10 2.92% North Andover, MA $285,162 $285,000 $794 $741 $53 6.68% Pitt Meadows, BC -- $305,000 $1,139 $1,084 $55 4.83% As noted in the above table, the average discount in all the communities when using a prototype home to get actual bids was less than the percentage range found in the insurance survey. This shows that there is variance in the discount percentage offered which can be best attributed to competitive market pricing. Packet Page 147 of 187 September 10, 2008 36 Appendix A – Sprinkler System Costs by Community Community and House Plan Area of Sprinklered Spaces (SF) Living Space (SF) TOTAL COST Local Sprinkler Credit Net Cost (contractor + additional + credits) in $/SF of Sprinklered SF Net Cost (contractor + additional + credit) in $/SF of Living Space Fort Collins, CO - House 1 4,373 4,373 $14,745 0 $3.37 $3.37 Fort Collins, CO - House 2 6,360 6,360 $16,060 0 $2.53 $2.53 Fort Collins, CO - House 3 2,797 2,797 $10,250 0 $3.66 $3.66 Pitt Meadows, BC - House 1 2,342 2,342 $3,090 0 $1.32 $1.32 Pitt Meadows, BC - House 2 2,336 2,336 $2,690 0 $1.15 $1.15 Pitt Meadows, BC - House 3 2,109 2,109 $2,5600 0 $1.21 $1.21 Pleasant View, TN - House 1 2,612 2,112 $2,872 0 $1.10 $1.36 Pleasant View, TN - House 2 2,273 1,723 $2,489 0 $1.10 $1.44 Pleasant View, TN - House 3 3,826 3,326 $4,208 0 $1.10 $1.27 Prince George's County, MD - House 1 3,903 3,903 $4,100 0 $1.05 $1.05 Prince George's County, MD - House 2 4,345 4,345 $4,332 0 $1.00 $1.00 Prince George's County, MD - House 3 6,170 6,170 $5,886 0 $0.95 $0.95 San Clemente, CA - House 1 6,542 3,482 $2,565 0 $0.39 $0.74 San Clemente, CA - House 2 6,329 3,214 $2,386 0 $0.38 $0.74 San Clemente, CA - House 3 6448 3,358 $2,655 0 $0.41 $0.79 Carroll County, MD - House 1 3,131 3,131 $7,499 0 $2.40 $2.40 Carroll County, MD - House 2 4,686 4,686 $9,800 0 $2.09 $2.09 Carroll County, MD - House 3 3,772 3,772 $8,750 0 $2.32 $2.32 Matteson, IL - House 1 4,562 4,562 $8,198 0 $1.80 $1.80 Matteson, IL - House 2 4,740 4,740 $7,407 0 $1.56 $1.56 Matteson, IL - House 3 5,478 5,478 $8,329 0 $1.52 $1.52 North Andover, MA - House 1 3,568 3,084 $4,500 0 $1.26 $1.46 North Andover, MA - House 2 4,632 4,148 $5,800 0 $1.25 $1.40 North Andover, MA - House 3 5,906 5,422 $6,500 0 $1.10 $1.20 Wilsonville, OR - House 1 2,005 2,005 $4,178 ($1.21) $0.87 $0.87 Wilsonville, OR - House 2 1,913 1,913 $4,014 ($1.21) $0.89 $0.89 Wilsonville, OR - House 3 2,917 2,917 $5,892 ($1.21) $0.81 $0.81 Huntley, IL - House 1 3,835 3,400 $8,476 0 $2.21 $2.49 Huntley, IL - House 2 4,575 4,030 $8,851 0 $1.93 $2.20 Huntley, IL - House 3 5,045 4,560 $10,406 0 $2.06 $2.28 Packet Page 148 of 187 AM-2972 8.C. Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force, 2010-2011 Interlocal Argeement Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:04/13/2010 Submitted By:Gerry Gannon Submitted For:Al Compaan Time:10 Minutes Department:Police Department Type:Action Committee:Public Safety Information Subject Title Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force, 2010-2011 Interlocal Argeement. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Recommendation from staff is that Public Safety Committee approve the ILA and place on the consent agenda authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement. Previous Council Action None Narrative Since January 1988, the City of Edmonds and other Snohomish County cities have been participants in the Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force (SRDTF) with offices in Everett. Edmonds was one of the original participants, contributing a detective and equipment to the unit. In more recent years, Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace established the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force (SSCNTF). Since the creation of the SSCNTF, Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace have chosen to continue their support of the SRDTF through financial contribution alone. Edmonds presently has a detective assigned to the SSCNTF. The SRDTF receives the majority of its funding through a U.S. Department of Justice grant. The grant amount is based on the number and population of municipalities that participate in the SRDTF. The required matching funds for the federal grant come from Snohomish County and the participating municipalities. For fiscal year 2010-2011, twenty municipalities, DSHS Child Protective Services, six Tribal Agencies, WSP, and Snohomish County, are pledging matching funds to the SRDTF. Edmonds’ share for July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 is $9,801, an increase of $214 over last year’s share. Funding for this item is included in the 2009-2010 Edmonds Police budget. The interlocal agreement and the funding received from participating entities, sets forth the operational framework for the SRDTF, and has done so since 1988. The SRDTF and SSCNTF work very closely and assist each other with staffing and equipment, as needed. For example, should we encounter a drug lab locally the SRDTF can be called out to Packet Page 149 of 187 dismantle the lab. This assistance can save us literally thousands of dollars in overtime, training, and equipment expense. A more frequent area of cooperation and assistance occurs with investigations where the two task forces may assist each other with investigations involving mutual suspects. We request that the Council approve this matter authorizing the Mayor to sign the FY 2010-2011 interlocal agreement with SRDTF. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2010-2011 Revenue: Expenditure: $9,801 Fiscal Impact: The contributions from Edmonds provides for part of a 1/3 match for a grant from the Department of Justice. Attachments Link: SRDTF ILA Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/08/2010 09:33 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/08/2010 10:05 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 04/08/2010 10:20 AM APRV Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 04/08/2010 08:53 AM Final Approval Date: 04/08/2010 Packet Page 150 of 187 Packet Page 151 of 187 Packet Page 152 of 187 Packet Page 153 of 187 Packet Page 154 of 187 Packet Page 155 of 187 Packet Page 156 of 187 Packet Page 157 of 187 Packet Page 158 of 187 Packet Page 159 of 187 Packet Page 160 of 187 Packet Page 161 of 187 Packet Page 162 of 187 Packet Page 163 of 187 Packet Page 164 of 187 Packet Page 165 of 187 Packet Page 166 of 187 Packet Page 167 of 187 Packet Page 168 of 187 Packet Page 169 of 187 Packet Page 170 of 187 Packet Page 171 of 187 AM-2971 8.D. South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force Interlocal Agreement Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:04/13/2010 Submitted By:Gerry Gannon Submitted For:Al Compaan Time:10 Minutes Department:Police Department Type:Action Committee:Public Safety Information Subject Title South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force Interlocal Agreement. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Recommendation from staff is that Public Safety Committee approve the ILA and place on the consent agenda authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement. Previous Council Action None Narrative This Agreement replaces the agreement signed in 1992 by the representative agency heads from the cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. South Snohomish County and the surrounding region continue to experience increased levels of drug use, trafficking, and manufacture which have led to an increase in other related criminal activity. In order to most effectively and efficiently meet this public safety threat, the Participating Jurisdictions formed the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force (SSCNTF). The mission of the Task Force is to target mid and upper level drug traffickers in the communities of Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and Lynnwood. Edmonds currently has one detective assigned to the Task Force and as in the previous agreement Edmonds contributes 1/3 of the salary of the Task Force Sergeant. Major changes from the previous ILA includes clarification of issues such as equipment purchases and ownership, seized assets and the percentage each jurisdiction will receive, use of vehicles used by the Task Force, damage to equipment, and liability for indemnification and defense from third-party claims. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: SSCNTF ILA Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/08/2010 08:38 AM APRV Packet Page 172 of 187 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/08/2010 08:38 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/08/2010 08:45 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/08/2010 08:53 AM APRV Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 04/08/2010 07:47 AM Final Approval Date: 04/08/2010 Packet Page 173 of 187 South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force PO Box 5008 Lynnwood, WA 98046-5008 SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY NARCOTICS TASK FORCE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Participating Jurisdictions: City of Edmonds City of Lynnwood City of Mountlake Terrace This Agreement is entered into by the above-listed Jurisdictions (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Participating Jurisdictions” or “Parties” and individually as “Jurisdiction” or “Party”) pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW and Chapter 10.93 RCW. It describes the duration, purpose, organization, financing, and process for termination of the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force (SSCNTF). I. DURATION This Agreement replaces the agreement signed in 1992 by the representative agency heads from the cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. This Agreement shall be in effect until revised or replaced by a unanimous vote of the Participating Jurisdictions, or otherwise terminated in accordance with Article VII herein. II. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES A. Purpose South Snohomish County and the surrounding region continue to experience increased levels of drug use, trafficking, and manufacture which have led to an increase in other related criminal activity. In order to most effectively and efficiently meet this public safety threat, the Participating Jurisdictions formed the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force (SSCNTF), hereinafter referred to as the “Task Force.” B. Objectives. The objectives of the Task Force are as follows:  Improve the quality of life for the citizens of South Snohomish County by aggressively, efficiently, and professionally targeting drug traffickers that impact those communities. 1 Packet Page 174 of 187  Identify mid- and upper-level drug trafficking organizations, utilizing state and federal laws to dismantle them through effective professional investigations.  Efficiently investigate the criminal activities of drug traffickers who recognize no jurisdictional boundaries by working collaboratively with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.  Provide high quality services to the Participating Jurisdictions to assist with drug investigations whether large or small. C. Mission Statement. The mission of the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force is to target drug violators in the communities of Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace, and to reduce drug availability through professional investigation, apprehension, and conviction of drug traffickers, thereby improving the quality of life in South Snohomish County. III. ORGANIZATION The Participating Jurisdictions each agree to support the Task Force as set forth herein, both financially and through the assignment of personnel. The Task Force is organized as follows: A. Oversight Committee. The Oversight Committee for the Task Force is made up of the Police Chief, or his/her designee, from each of the Participating Jurisdictions. Based upon recommendations from the Task Force Commander, the Oversight Committee reviews and approves changes and updates to the SSCNTF Policy Manual and also provides approval and gives direction on operational matters as presented and requested by the Task Force Commander. Each member of the Committee shall have an equal vote and voice on all Committee decisions. With the exceptions of policy manual revisions or changes, all decisions shall be made by majority vote of the Oversight Committee members. The Committee will meet at least once a quarter during the South Snohomish County Police Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings. Any changes or revisions to the SSCNTF Policy Manual must be unanimously approved by the Oversight Committee. B. Chain of Command. The chain of command is listed below. Assignment for each position, as well as the specific duties and responsibilities for each position, is outlined in the SSCNTF Policy Manual, which is incorporated herein by this reference. Task Force Oversight Committee | Task Force Commander | Task Force Sergeants | Task Force Detectives 2 Packet Page 175 of 187 C. Staffing Task Force Commander: Appointed by the Jurisdiction with administrative responsibility for the Task Force. Sergeant Lynnwood PD Sergeant Position may be an assigned Sergeant of Police from any of the Participating Jurisdictions. Detective Edmonds PD Detective Lynnwood PD Detective Lynnwood PD Detective Lynnwood PD Detective Lynnwood PD Detective Mountlake Terrace PD D. Contributing Agency Employees. Personnel assigned to the Task Force shall be considered employees of their respective Participating Jurisdictions. Each Participating Jurisdiction shall be solely and exclusively responsible for the compensation, benefits, and training expenses for those employees. All rights, duties, and obligations of the employer and the employees shall remain with that Participating Jurisdiction. Each Participating Jurisdiction shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable laws with regard to employees and with provisions of any applicable collective bargaining agreements and civil service rules and regulations and agency disciplinary policies and procedures. Any duly sworn peace officer, while assigned or having supervisory responsibilities within the Task Force, shall have the same powers, duties, privileges, and immunities as are conferred upon him/her as a peace officer in his/her own Jurisdiction. IV. TASK FORCE BUDGET A. Administrative Costs. The Lynnwood Police Department currently has administrative responsibility for the Task Force and will generally provide for the housing, administration, records, evidence storage, and normal office-related expenses for the Task Force. B. Personnel Costs. Each Participating Jurisdiction will be responsible for all wages, benefits, and standard-issue equipment for its assigned employees. The only exception to this responsibility is for a shared sergeant position within the Task Force. Each Participating Jurisdiction will equally contribute to the salary and benefits expense for this position, consistent with their respective budgeted amounts. The parent Jurisdiction of the individual serving in the shared sergeant position will be responsible for paying this sergeant and will bill the other Participating Jurisdictions for reimbursement. Each Participating Jurisdiction shall be responsible for informing the other parties as to its budgeted amount for the 3 Packet Page 176 of 187 shared sergeant position and for monitoring the utilization of budgeted funds based on periodic reporting to be provided by the Participating Jurisdiction with administrative responsibility for the Task Force. In the event costs associated with the shared sergeant are anticipated to exceed the budgeted amounts, any Participating Jurisdiction may elect to appropriate additional funds or exercise its termination rights under this Agreement. C. Buy Fund Account. Each Participating Jurisdiction will contribute an amount determined by the Oversight Committee per year to replenish the investigative Buy Fund for the Task Force, up to the maximum amount as budgeted by each Participating Jurisdiction, which shall be no less than $20,000. The Task Force supervisors will request these monies in increments approved by the Oversight Committee in a rotating sequence from each Participating Jurisdiction. The Jurisdiction with administrative responsibility for the Task Force will be responsible for record keeping and auditing of the Buy Fund. Any Buy Fund monies not requested will not roll over to the following calendar year. Any Buy Fund monies obtained but not spent will roll over into the next calendar year. D. Major Buy Fund Account. A revolving account in the amount of $100,000 has been established by the City of Lynnwood for narcotics purchases in connection with enforcement. This fund will be utilized for narcotics transactions wherein the funds normally used for relatively minor narcotics purchases are insufficient. The narcotics enforcement revolving account (Major Buy Fund) is to be held separately from the standard buy fund and will have a separate record keeping system. This Fund will be utilized only in support of the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force. The Chief of Police of the Lynnwood Police Department, or his/her designee, is responsible for the administration of the Major Buy Fund. In the event that monies are spent from or otherwise not recovered for this Fund, those monies expended will be replenished in the following manner: the Major Buy Fund will be replenished first from seizure money; if the seizure money is not sufficient, the Participating Jurisdictions will jointly replenish the Major Buy Fund up to $100,000, on an equal share basis. E. Equipment. Each Participating Jurisdiction will provide an amount of money determined by the Oversight Committee for necessary equipment purchases per calendar year for approved equipment expenditures, up to the maximum amount budgeted by each Participating Jurisdiction, which shall be no less than $5,000. The Task Force Commander will submit a proposed budget request for approval each year for each Participating Jurisdiction, itemizing anticipated purchase requests for the following budget cycle. Purchases will be approved by both the Task Force Commander and the paying Jurisdiction prior to being ordered. Equipment purchases will be tracked in a Task Force equipment inventory database. That database shall include a record indicating which Participating Jurisdiction has ownership of each piece of equipment. Equipment purchased jointly by more than one Participating Jurisdiction, including purchases made with Seizure Funds, will be noted as such. Notwithstanding Article III herein, the purchase of any single equipment item for which the final total cost is $30,000 or more shall require unanimous consent of the Oversight 4 Packet Page 177 of 187 Committee when such equipment is purchased with Seizure Funds as provided for in Article V herein. F. Training. An anticipated training budget shall be prepared by the unit supervisors and presented to the Oversight Committee on a yearly basis or upon request from a particular Jurisdiction. Funding for training will be the responsibility of the parent Jurisdiction for each member of the Task Force. The unit supervisors will submit training requests to the Task Force Commander for approval. Once approved, the unit supervisor responsible for the individual detective(s) will coordinate with their respective police department’s training section to seek approval for the training. Nothing in this section prohibits each Participating Jurisdiction from scheduling training for their assigned personnel as necessary to meet departmental or state standards. In those cases, each department’s individual training section should notify the unit supervisors for scheduling. V. SEIZED ASSETS AND REVENUE A. Seized Assets. Items seized as the result of a Task Force investigation will be processed by the Jurisdiction with administrative responsibility for the Task Force and in accordance with state and federal laws. Monetary assets awarded to the Task Force will be deposited in a Task Force account. Non-monetary assets will be disposed of in accordance with state and federal law by the evidence section of the Jurisdiction with administrative responsibility for the Task Force. The proceeds from those items will be deposited in a Task Force account. The monetary assets and the proceeds from non-monetary assets seized as a result of a Task Force investigation shall be collectively referred to as “Seizure Funds.” When appropriate, Seizure Funds may be utilized to purchase equipment or to pay for training. These expenditures will be approved by the Task Force Oversight Committee. Monies utilized in this manner will be deducted from the total annual Seizure Fund amount before such funds are disbursed to the Participating Jurisdictions pursuant to Paragraph B below. B. Seizure Revenue Distribution. At the end of each calendar year, the Seizure Fund account will be closed. After approved expenditures and required payments have been made to the State, remaining Seizure Funds will be divided as follows amongst the Participating Jurisdictions: Edmonds Police Department: 25% Lynnwood Police Department: 50% Mountlake Terrace Police Department: 25% Payment to each Party will be made by the end of the 1st quarter of the following year. 5 Packet Page 178 of 187 C. Reporting/Tracking Expenditures of Task Force–Seized Revenue. Each Participating Jurisdiction is responsible for adhering to state and federal laws for the use of drug-related seizure monies distributed to them. All federal funds that are distributed to the Participating Jurisdictions must be tracked and reported per federal asset-sharing regulations. By accepting seizure funds, each Participating Jurisdiction acknowledges its compliance with state and federal laws regarding the receipt and expenditure of drug-related seizure revenue. VI. PROPERTY DAMAGE RESPONSIBILITIES – EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE XIV, SHARED LIABILITY A. Vehicles. Vehicles for the Task Force will be purchased with Seizure Funds by the Jurisdiction with administrative responsibility for the Task Force. Each Participating Jurisdiction is responsible for vehicle maintenance and insurance expenses on a minimum of one (1) undercover vehicle per assigned person from that Jurisdiction. The Oversight Committee will agree on the provision of additional vehicles as best meets the operational needs of the Task Force. The Task Force Commander will maintain a list of vehicles indicating which Participating Jurisdiction is responsible for insurance and maintenance, and shall provide the updated list to the Participating Jurisdictions on an annual basis. The Commander will make recommendations to the Oversight Committee in regards to the appropriate replacement or additions of vehicles to the Task Force. Due to the cooperative nature of this Task Force, personnel assigned to or assisting the Task Force may drive any Task Force vehicle. The insuring Jurisdiction for each vehicle shall be responsible for all damages caused to that vehicle. The responsibility for payment of any applicable deductibles and/or self-insurance amounts attributable to that vehicle shall be incurred by the insuring Jurisdiction. Procedures for reporting damage to vehicles will be determined by the Jurisdiction that is responsible for investigating and/or repairing such vehicle. B. Damage to Other Equipment or Task Force Property. Each Participating Jurisdiction shall be responsible for insuring its individually owned equipment or property at its sole discretion. The replacement or repair of damaged Task Force equipment or property will be the responsibility of the Jurisdiction which owns the property. Each Participating Jurisdiction will be responsible for investigating and reviewing damage to property caused by their employees in accordance with their policies, procedures, and labor contracts. Loss or damage to jointly owned Task Force equipment or property not covered by subparagraph A above may be replaced, if deemed necessary by the Parties, in accord with the provisions of Article IV, subparagraph E. If any Party has insurance coverage that would pay for or contribute to the replacement cost, it shall submit a claim and contribute any insurance proceeds to the Task Force to help cover the replacement cost of the lost or damaged equipment or property. 6 Packet Page 179 of 187 As with vehicles, when appropriate, the Task Force Commander will also ensure dual tracking of investigations or damage claims, depending on the respective policies and procedures of each Participating Jurisdiction. The provisions of this Article are an exception to the Shared Liability set forth in Article XIV herein. VII. DISSOLUTION, TERMINATION OR TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF MEMBERSHIP OR PARTICIPATION IN THE TASK FORCE A. Dissolution. The Task Force may be dissolved by a unanimous vote of the Participating Jurisdictions’ mayor(s) and/or city manager(s). The Chief of Police of each Participating Jurisdiction will make a recommendation to the aforementioned mayor(s) or city manager(s). Any vote for dissolution shall occur only when the mayor(s)/city manager(s), or their designees, are present at an official South Snohomish County TAC meeting at which such vote is taken, or for absent members, when such vote is cast in the form of a written proxy, which is recorded with the meeting minutes. B. Individual City Termination. A Participating Jurisdiction may permanently withdraw its participation in the Task Force by providing written notice of its withdrawal and serving such notice upon each remaining Jurisdiction. A notice of withdrawal shall become effective thirty (30) days after service of the notice. The withdrawal of a Participating Jurisdiction shall not automatically result in dissolution of the Task Force. C. Temporary Suspension. A Participating Jurisdiction may temporarily suspend its participation in the Task Force by providing written notice of its intent to temporarily withdraw to the Chief of Police of each Participating Jurisdiction and serving such notice upon each remaining Party. The temporary suspension shall become effective thirty (30) days after service of the notice on each Party. Suspension of participation by one Party shall not automatically result in dissolution of the Task Force. A Participating Jurisdiction that has temporarily suspended participation must report quarterly to the Oversight Committee regarding the anticipated return to full participation. The termination, temporary suspension, or withdrawal from membership by any Party does not relieve said Party from the obligations spelled forth in Article XIV herein for claims or lawsuits arising from allegations occurring before the effective date of the termination or temporary suspension of that Party. VIII. DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS UPON TERMINATION A. Dissolution. Upon dissolution of the Task Force, all funds remaining in the Task Force Account will be disbursed using the formula described in Article V, Paragraph B, Seizure Revenue Distribution. Any funds that arrive after the official date of the dissolution of the Task Force will be disbursed using the formula described in Article V, Paragraph B herein. 7 Packet Page 180 of 187 Equipment in the Task Force inventory will be returned to the Party that purchased that equipment as indicated on the Task Force equipment inventory. Any jointly purchased equipment will be divided equitably as determined by the Oversight Committee. In the event that there is either a disagreement over ownership or over the equitable distribution of a jointly owned asset, the first mechanism for resolving the issue will be an official meeting of the Oversight Committee members. If successful resolution is not reached, the issue will be taken to mediation as outlined in Article IX below. Any non-liquidated assets (i.e., vehicles, real property, etc.) shall be referred to the Oversight Committee to determine handling of final disposition and distribution of these assets among the Participating Jurisdictions. Any property not claimed shall be declared surplus by the Oversight Committee and disposed of pursuant to state laws regarding the disposition of surplus property. The proceeds from the sale or disposition of any Task Force property, after payment of any and all costs of sale or outstanding obligations, shall be equally distributed to those Jurisdictions participating in the Task Force at the time of dissolution. B. Individual City Termination. In the event that one or more Participating Jurisdictions terminate their participation in the Task Force, but the Task Force continues to exist, the Party terminating participation shall be deemed to have waived any right or title to any property jointly owned by the Participating Jurisdictions of the Task Force. In consideration for the forfeiture of its right or title in jointly owned property, the terminating Party will be entitled to Seizure Fund disbursement for three (3) successive quarters after the last date of staffing participation. Provided, however, the Seizure Funds shall first be used to replenish, if necessary, the Major Buy Fund as provided in Section IV(D) herein. The Party terminating its participation will have a right to all property it individually owns. C. Temporary Suspension. A temporarily suspended Party is still responsible for Buy Fund, necessary equipment contributions, vehicle insurance, and maintenance. The temporarily suspended Party will maintain the same level of asset sharing as a full participant. IX. MEDIATION In the event that any dispute arises between the Parties from or relating to this Agreement, and the dispute is not resolved by negotiation, the Parties agree to submit the dispute to mediation. The Parties further agree that their participation in mediation is a prerequisite to any Party pursuing any other available remedy in relation to the dispute. However, any Party may seek equitable relief prior to the mediation to preserve the status quo pending the completion of the mediation process. Any Party to the dispute may give written notice to the other Party or Parties of its desire to commence mediation, and a mediation session must take place within thirty (30) days after the date that such notice is given. The Parties must jointly appoint a mutually acceptable mediator. If 8 Packet Page 181 of 187 the Parties are unable to agree upon the appointment of a mediator within seven (7) days after a Party has given notice of a desire to mediate the dispute, any Party may apply to the Chief Civil Judge of the Snohomish County Superior Court for appointment of a mediator. The Parties further agree to share equally the costs of the mediation, which costs will not include costs incurred by a Party for representation by counsel at the mediation. X. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW The Task Force and all its members shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws affecting the Task Force. The Participating Jurisdictions acknowledge that: A. The proceeds of forfeited property must be used only for law enforcement activities related to controlled substances. RCW 69.50.505(9) and (10) require that 10% of the net proceeds of forfeited property be remitted to the state treasurer for deposit in the general fund. The remaining portion may be used only for “controlled substances related law enforcement activities,” which have been interpreted to include only those activities with a close, demonstrable, and significant relationship to the enforcement of controlled substance laws. 1995 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 11. B. Furthermore, proceeds derived from local government participation in federal seizures and forfeitures of property must be used only for law enforcement purposes as defined in the Guide to Equitable Sharing of Federally Forfeited Property for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (“Guide”) published by the United States Department of Justice. The Guide expressly enumerates both permissible and impermissible uses of funds. Accounting procedures and internal controls established in the Guide must also be followed, including the prohibition of commingling equitably shared Department of Justice Funds with funds from any other source, subject to audit by the United States General Accounting Office. C. Pursuant to the statute and guidelines, proceeds from both state and federal forfeitures may not be used to supplant preexisting funding sources. The provisions of this Agreement shall be interpreted and administered in order to ensure compliance with these legal requirements. XI. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be modified, amended, or altered by agreement of all Participating Jurisdictions, and such modification, amendment, or alteration shall be effective when reduced to writing and approved by the Participating Jurisdictions. 9 Packet Page 182 of 187 XII. SEVERABILITY If any part, paragraph, section, or provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Washington, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of any remaining part, paragraph, section, or provision of this Agreement. XIII. AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS This Agreement shall be executed on behalf of each Participating Jurisdiction by its duly authorized representative and pursuant to an appropriate resolution, ordinance, or authorizing practice of each Participating Jurisdiction. XIV. LIABILITY FOR INDEMNIFICATION AND DEFENSE FROM THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS A. Equal Sharing of Liability. The Parties agree that liability for the negligent or tortious actions of the Task Force or any police officer or employee working for or on behalf of the Task Force be shared equally on an equal shares basis between the Participating Jurisdictions. It is further agreed that no Jurisdiction should be required to pay more than one-third of the cost of payment of any judgment or settlement for a liability claim which arises out of and is proximately caused by the actions of any officer, employee, or Party who is acting on behalf of or in support of the Task Force and acting within the scope of any person’s employment or duties to said Task Force. This general agreement on liability sharing is subject to the terms and conditions set forth below. B. Hold Harmless. Each Party agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the other Parties and from any loss, claim, or liability arising from or out of the negligent or tortious actions or inactions of its employees or each other as related to any Task Force activity. Such liability shall be apportioned among the Parties equally on equal shares basis subject to any limitation set forth below. C. Defense of Lawsuits. Each Party shall be responsible for selecting and retaining legal counsel for itself and for any of its employees who are named in a lawsuit alleging liability arising out of Task Force operations. Each Party that retains counsel for itself and/or its employees shall be responsible for paying the attorneys fees incurred by that counsel. The Parties shall not share costs of defense among each other unless specifically agreed to in writing for any particular legal action. D. Notice of Claims, Lawsuits, and Settlements. In the event that a lawsuit is brought or a claim is filed against a Participating Jurisdiction or its employees for actions arising out of conduct in support of Task Force operations, it shall be the duty of each said Party to notify the other Parties that such claim or lawsuit has been initiated. No settlement of any such claim or lawsuit by any single Party shall require equal shares contribution by any Party unless it was done with the knowledge and specific consent of the other Parties. Any settlement made by any 10 Packet Page 183 of 187 individual Party which does not have the consent of the other Parties will not require any sharing of payment of said settlement on behalf of the non-consenting Parties. E. Settlement Procedure. Any Party who believes that it would be liable for a settlement or judgment which should be equally shared by the other Participating Jurisdictions to this Agreement shall have the burden of notifying each other Participating Jurisdiction of all settlement demands made to that Party and any claims and/or lawsuits naming that Party and/or its employees for what may be a joint liability. Furthermore, if the other Participating Jurisdictions are not named as parties to the actions, it shall be the burden of the Party named in the lawsuit to keep the other Participating Jurisdictions fully apprised of all developments in the case and all settlements demands, mediations or any other efforts made towards settlement. Settlements require the specific consent of all Participating Jurisdictions to this Agreement before any equal share obligations for payment by all participating members becomes effective. No Party shall enter into a settlement with a claimant or plaintiff unless said settlement ends the liability of all Participating Jurisdictions to this Agreement and on behalf of their respective employees and officers. It is the intent of this Agreement that the Parties act in good faith on behalf of each other in conducting settlement negotiations on liability claims or lawsuits so that, whenever possible, all parties to this Agreement agree with the settlement costs or, in the alternative, that all parties to this Agreement reject settlement demands and agree to go to trial and share equally in any judgment incurred as a result of the decision to go to trial. However, in the event that a settlement demand is presented to all the Participating Jurisdictions to this Agreement and there is not unanimous consent to pay the settlement, then and only then the following results shall occur: The Parties shall be free to seek a separate settlement with the claimant and/or plaintiff, which would eliminate the liability of that Party and/or its employees, and, if such separate settlement is reached, that Party would have no responsibility to pay any proportionate amount of any judgment rendered against the Parties and/or their employees which did not settle. A Party making a separate settlement would have no right to seek any reimbursement or contribution for any portion of a settlement which said Party had reached separately with the claimant and/or plaintiff. F. Cooperation in Defense of Lawsuits. The Parties and their respective defense counsel shall, to the extent reasonably legally possible and consistent with the best interests of their respective clients, cooperate in the defense of any lawsuit arising out of the operations of the Task Force and shall agree, wherever possible, to share non–attorney fee related costs such as record gathering, preparation of trial exhibits, and the retention and payment of expert witnesses. G. Payment of Judgments. Unless there is an exception as provided in Paragraph E of this Article, it is the intention of the Parties to jointly pay any judgment on a pro-rata one-third basis for any judgment against any Party or its employees for negligence or tortious action arising out of conduct in the course of duties performed as Task Force members or in support of Task Force operations, regardless of what percentage of liability may be attributed to that Party or its employee(s) by way of verdict or judgment, including the costs of any awarded plaintiff’s attorneys fees and costs. It is the intent of the Parties to add up the total combined judgment 11 Packet Page 184 of 187 against any Party or individual for compensatory damages and/or plaintiff’s attorneys fees and costs, and to divide said total combined judgment into one-third shares, and each Party would then pay one third of the total combined judgment to satisfy the judgment. Any Party which refused to pay its proportionate one-third share would then be liable to the Parties who paid that Party’s share in order to satisfy a judgment, plus any attorney’s fees incurred in the collection of said monies from the non-paying Party. H. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL REQUIRE OR BE INTERPRETED TO: (1) Waive any defense arising out of Title 51 RCW. (2) Limit or restrict the ability of any Party or employee to exercise any right, defense, or remedy which a party to a lawsuit may have with respect to claims of third parties, including, but not limited to, any good faith attempts to seek dismissal of legal claims against a Party by any proper means allowed under the civil rules in either state or federal court. (3) Cover a portion or require proportionate payment of any judgment against any individual or Participating Jurisdiction for intentionally wrongful conduct outside the scope of employment of any individual or for any judgment for punitive damages, fines, or sanctions against any individual or Participating Jurisdiction. Payment of punitive damage awards shall be the sole responsibility of the individual against whom said judgment is rendered and/or his or her municipal employer, should that employer elect to make said payment voluntarily. This Agreement does not require equal sharing of any punitive damage awards, fines, or sanctions. I. Pre-Existing Claims or Lawsuits. For purposes of claims or lawsuits which predate this Agreement, or if the occurrence which gave rise to said claim or lawsuit predates this Agreement, it is the intention of the Parties that such claims and lawsuits be handled, processed, and paid as though the terms of this Agreement were in full force and effect at the time of the occurrence which gave rise to the claim or lawsuit. J. Insurance Coverage. The Parties shall, to the best of their ability and to the extent possible, coordinate their liability insurance coverages and/or self-insured coverages to fully implement and follow the Agreement set forth herein. However, the consent of any liability insurance carrier or self-insured pooling organization is not required to make this Agreement effective as between the Participating Jurisdictions signing this Agreement, and the failure of any insurance carrier or self-insured pooling organization to agree or follow the terms of this provision on liability shall not relieve any individual Party from its obligations under this Agreement. XV. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Survivability. The obligations of the Participating Jurisdictions under all provisions of this Agreement which may reasonably be interpreted or construed as surviving the suspension, completion, termination or expiration of this Agreement shall survive the suspension, completion, termination or expiration of this Agreement. 12 Packet Page 185 of 187 B. No Third-Party Beneficiary. It is the specific intent of the Participating Jurisdictions, and the Participating Jurisdictions agree, that this Agreement shall not confer third-party beneficiary status on any non-party, including but not limited to the citizens of any of the Participating Jurisdictions. C. Recordation or Posting. Pursuant to RCW 39.34.040, the Jurisdiction with administrative responsibility for the Task Force shall record this Agreement with the Snohomish County Auditor after execution of the Participating Jurisdictions, or alternatively, shall list the Agreement by subject on its website. BY THEIR SIGNATURES BELOW, the signors certify that they have the authority to sign this Agreement on behalf of their respective Participating Jurisdictions, and the Participating Jurisdictions agree to the terms of this Agreement. CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, a municipal corporation: BY: ATTEST: ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Gary Haakenson, Mayor Date Sandy Chase, City Clerk Date Approved as to form: ____________________________________ Scott Snyder, City Attorney Date Acknowledged by: ____________________________________ Al Compaan, Chief of Police Date 13 Packet Page 186 of 187 14 CITY OF LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON, a municipal corporation: BY: ATTEST: ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Don Gough, Mayor Date Vicki Heilman, Acting Finance Dir. Date Approved as to form: ____________________________________ Eric Frimodt, City Attorney Date Acknowledged by: ____________________________________ Steve Jensen, Chief of Police Date CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WASHINGTON, a municipal corporation: BY: ATTEST: ____________________________________ ____________________________________ John J. Caulfield, City Manager Date Virginia Olsen, City Clerk Date Approved as to form: ____________________________________ Gregory G. Schrag, City Attorney Date Acknowledged by: ____________________________________ Greg D. Wilson, Chief of Police Date Packet Page 187 of 187