HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUTC MINS 08-21-2006G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\08-21-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
August 21st, 2006 City Hall
5:30 pm City Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
In attendance: Committee Chair Jack Dovey; Council Member Linda Kochmar; Committee Member Dean McColgan;
Mayor Mike Park; Council Member Jeanne Burbidge, Community Development Director Kathy McClung; Public
Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich;
ESA/NPDES Coordinator Don Robinett; SWM Project Engineer Fei Tang; City Attorney Pat Richardson;
Administrative Assistant II Marianne Lee; Doug Osterman, King County. Arriving at 6:11pm were City Manager Neal
Beets & Interim Police Chief Brian Wilson
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:32 pm. Council Member Eric Faison was excused.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The August 7th 2006, minutes were approved.
Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
None
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. PAA Update: Stone Creek & Von Doenhoff
Kathy McClung provided the background information on this item. The City of Milton canceled the scheduled
meeting; it will be rescheduled.
This item will go to the LUTC meeting on September 11th, 2006.
B. 2007 Arterial Street Landscaping Maintenance Services – Authorization to Bid
Marwan Salloum was not required to provide the background information on this item.
Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously
Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the Sept 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda.
C. 2007 Street Sweeping Services – Authorization to Bid
Marwan Salloum was not required to provide the background information on this item.
Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously
Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the Sept 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda.
D. Pacific Highway South – Northbound Left Turn Lanes at S 316th Streets – Bid Award
Isaac Conlen provided the background information on this item.
Moved: Dovey Seconded: McColgan Passed: Unanimously
Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the Sept 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda.
Chair Dovey thanked staff for working on this project and said it will alleviate congestion mentioned at the last
Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 June 19th, 2006
G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\08-21-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc
meeting. He’s glad there is money in the budget from savings on other projects to pay for this.
E. East Branch Lakota Creek
Paul Bucich gave the background information on this item.
Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously
Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the Sept 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda.
F. Slope Mower Bid Award
Paul Bucich gave the background information on this item.
Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously
Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the Sept 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda.
Council Member McColgan asked if the testing process has changed; Mr. Bucich said the tests have been
changed to reflect all the conditions mowing occurs under (the original testing did not reveal the 40% slope
problem). The new mowers should last 10 years. Council Member McColgan asked how much the mower
bought in 2005 cost (it cannot mow slopes of 40%). Mr. Bucich replied that it cost $35,000. Council Member
McColgan asked if there was a market for it. Mr. Bucich said selling it would not be his recommendation
because using the mower purchased last year in conjunction with a mower that can mow 40% slopes will result
in a more efficient mowing schedule, freeing staff to work on other projects.
Chair Dovey said that when he looks at the bid list, the biggest thing he sees is the difference in the percentage
of the slope. Mr. Bucich said staff found that about half of the ponds have a slope over 34%. The City has 85
ponds so far and an additional 16 are coming online. As land gets more and more valuable the slopes get
steeper as the developers try to maximize the available land. Chair Dovey said that, then, if it was not for the
slope they would be equal? Mr. Bucich said if it wasn’t for the inability of the DewEze to cut at the slope
required staff would be recommending that one.
G. Lake Jeane – 50% Design Approval
Paul Bucich gave the background information on this item.
Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously
Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the Sept 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda.
H. WRIA 9 ILA
Paul Bucich gave the background information on this item.
Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously
Committee PASSED this item WITHOUT recommendation to the Sept 5th, 2006 City Council Business
Agenda.
Council Member McColgan asked who the governing body for WRIA 9 is.Mr. Bucich said that the governance
structure for the whole process starts off with a forum that consists of elected officials, then a management
committee on which he sits on behalf of Federal Way, and then a steering committee which is almost anyone in
the watershed that has an active business in salmon recovery; Boeing, Weyerhaeuser, other businesses,
environmental groups, Indian tribes, etc, are all in that aspect there. The ILA establishes how decisions are
made, if there are any disagreements, but principally the process is to govern through consensus, to get
consensus amongst individual jurisdictions through representation at the forum level. Right now, King County
staff are hired to act as the staffing effort for the forum and the ILA efforts.
Mr. Bucich said there is an extensive list of capital projects within the total planning area in Federal Way there
were proposed to be two but one dropped out. The only one that’s left is in Dash Point State Park. It is
reconnecting a small wetland area back to the Sound. Digging out, taking some armored rock out; a very small
project. She asked for an idea of what other capital projects are being proposed in other jurisdictions. Mr.
Bucich invited Doug Osterman to come up and speak because he has an extensive list in his head.
Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 June 19th, 2006
G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\08-21-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc
Doug Osterman, King County Watershed Coordinator for WRIA 9, also provided background information on
this topic. The range of projects in the plan now range from large river projects (levee setbacks on the main-
stem Green River / Duwamish River) to significant marine shoreline projects. This is a very diverse watershed.
The Dash Point project will reconnect the marine waters with the fresh waters. Juvenile Chinook salmon are
hugging the shoreline of WRIA 9, including Federal Way, and the more we can have areas where those
juvenile fish can come into the mouths of the small streams, which Federal Way has many of, the more we are
going to increase their survivability. There is one major project in the list of 56 high priority projects in the
habitat plan in the City of Federal Way and that’s the Dash Point project. One of the reasons for that is that
while staff were identifying projects they also had a number of other studies underway that were not complete
by that time. There are now two additional characterization reports that could be used by Federal Way.
One of the reasons why the forum is recommending a 9-year interlocal agreement is that it is in tandem with
the 10-year time frame of the habitat plan itself. They want to show a commitment for that. Council Member
Burbidge said it sounds as if, over the upcoming nine years, there would be opportunities to have additional
projects included. Mr. Osterman agreed; he said there is actually a lot of flexibility in the ILA. It is nine years
but the budget, and the level of cost share is determined on an annual basis. There is an escape clause on an
annual basis as well; procedures that would have to be followed if a jurisdiction wanted to escape. There is
some timing involved but annually the cost share is negotiated so it may or may not stay the same as you see
now. The group that Mr. Bucish sits on, the Management Committee, essentially acts as an executive
committee to the forum. They look at the details: the budget, the work program, the staffing issues, and those
types of things, and make recommendations to the forum.
Council Member McColgan thanked Mr. Osterman for coming down. He commented on the 56 high-priority
projects in the plan that the administrative staff would like to see implemented over the 10-year period of time
for about $200 million dollars. Mr. Osterman said the key challenge facing them, is the funding of those
projects. The current funding construct recommended by the salmon habitat plan is to continue obtaining the
approximate amount of money we’ve been obtaining each year from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board,
which is about 1.5 million dollars, retaining the amount of King Conservation District money that is put into
the forum pot to use, and that’s about 1.3 million dollars. Those two sources of funding are the two largest pots
and the ones staff is hoping will be their base, heading into the next ten years. So if we can inch along, that’s
probably the level that we currently could even maintain and implementation is anywhere from 3-5million
dollars per year worth of projects. The other major source of funding that staff is always working on in this
watershed is the Green River Ecosystem Restoration project, which is a Federal, Army Corp of Engineers,
relationship with King County. That project implementation is brought into the Salmon Recovery
implementation realm because it fits really well, because it is ecosystem restoration. If we are successful
getting our Congressional delegation to secure Federal funding each year in the Federal Budget that could be
an additional 3-4 million dollars. One of the benefits of everyone working together as multiple jurisdictions
with in a watershed is that it is one of the essential ingredients in convincing Congress (Patty Murray, Maria
Cantwell, Representative Adams, etc,) to go back and lobby for and get the funding for this area. If they can go
back and say that the locals are putting forward this amount of money as an amalgam to help get this other
money it is a really important piece of obtaining that State and Federal funding. It is working together.
Chair Dovey asked if the total monies listed are for administrative costs, to run the operation to make it work.
Mr. Osterman said that yes, those were for administrative expenses: staffing, operational. Chair Dovey said
that when he ran through the numbers Mr. Osterman had said $200 million, so this is about $173 million short?
Mr. Osterman said yes, it is a kind of daunting task. He said that is just for one watershed. If you add it up for
Puget Sound they are at a billion dollars. Chair Dovey said this is the watershed that fronts the City’s front
door along the Puget Sound; it goes all the way from Dash Point up through Des Moines. Mr. Bucich said that
is part of it; Federal Way also has a small portion of the NE corner of the City that drains into the Green-
Duwamish watershed. Mr. Bucich said he wanted to clarify one thing: the $17,000 the City will be paying:
none of that will be used for any capital projects. As the committee identified this is strictly for administrative
overhead costs. Chair Dovey asked Mr. Bucich if the City’s SWM department had that cost budgeted. Mr.
Bucich replied that it was not budgeted, not until after the current discussion occurred. He said it has not yet
been included into the budget proposal that will come before the Council.
Council Member McColgan said he is trying to find a reason why Federal Way should continue to participate
Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4 June 19th, 2006
G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\08-21-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc
without a direct benefit to the citizens of the city who the Council Members represent. He is on a lot of
regional committees and he understands that there is a huge benefit to being a good regional partner but those
are the type of decisions the Council has to make. Mr. Bucich said that Federal Way could continue to
participate, but at a different level they could still attend the Steering Committee meetings and see what’s
going on and keep track of the issues in that regard.
Council Member Kochmar said, looking in the ILA, it says that any city may terminate with 60 day’s notice to
the other parties. Nine years is a long-term agreement. If one backed out the other cities would have to pick up
the burden and share the cost of the party that terminated. Mr. Osterman agreed but said they could also
change the budget; as he understands it they could make some reductions as well.
Regarding benefits of participation, he suggested that Camp Kilworth is an area that could have been in the
Habitat plan. Had it been included in the Habitat Plan it really would have taken a big jump for a lot of grant
sources to get the funds put together. Staff kind of did a quick, end-around that on the applications and assisted
City of Federal Way staff on applying for and using the right words to get the Conservation Futures funding,
which is about $400,000 secured and now are seeking the other million from the Aquatic Lands Enhancement
Account (ALEA) or one of the State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) grants. That’s an
example of the type of things partnerships can do. It’s not just capital reconstruction projects but as your staff,
as you pay into this, your $17,000 (and a lot of jurisdictions do this from time to time) if you need extra help
on something staff are there to figure that out and help you do that. It’s very important from his experience, in
applying for these grants, to be able to show that it is part of a salmon habitat... It is a salmon habitat
restoration world so to the extent that we can show and explain what this will do for salmon habitat, you really
increase your chances to get funding for those acquisition projects.
The State Department of Fish & Wildlife, with NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency that’s responsible for
salmon recovery because it’s a marine species, is seeking a Section F protection for the watersheds that have
prepared these salmon habitat recovery plans. If you can show that the implementing partners are staying with
it there is a good chance we can get a blanket federal coverage for when you go to do a project, whether it has
anything to do with salmon recovery or not, you could be required to show how that is going to affect salmon
habitat through a biological assessment which can cost a lot of money. If we are successful in getting this
Section F, and success will depend on all the locals heading in the same direction and showing a true
commitment to that through an interlocal like that is the strongest means then there could very well be
streamlined permitting and public works type project environmental review by virtue of getting this overall
coverage.
Council Member McColgan said Federal Way is being asked for an additional $7,000 and asked Mr. Bucich if
SWM already has the other $10,000 in the budget. Mr. Bucich confirmed that the SWM division still has the
original$10,000 in the budget; it will have to be removed if the City chooses not to move forward with this.
The amount determined to be charged is based on a mathematical equation (model) that includes assessed
value, area, and population. When he worked with his geographic information system people that generated
this model, is that it’s not only the area that was added to include Federal Way’s marine shoreline all the way
to Pierce County but the assessed value of Federal Way in general has really skyrocketed from six, almost
seven years ago, when the numbers were first calculated.
Mayor Park asked, regarding the financial contributions, about the City of Tacoma’s contribution. Mr. Bucich
said that the City of Tacoma is an unusual contributing member to this group. They actually own the Howard
Hansen Dam and their total population up there is one or two people but the land mass is large. [The City of
Tacoma is not in WRIA 9. It is 10, 12, and 15] The do not really factor into the equation. When Tacoma first
came to the WRIA 9 Forum and said they thought they should be active participants in it because they own the
dam, they have Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) responsibilities for re-licensing, they have
responsibilities for restoration of the river, the financial equation did not work. The Forum wanted the City of
Tacoma to participate and so asked the question, how much can you afford? That’s what it came down to.
Chair Dovey noted that a previous comment was that there were some issues with Seattle. Mr. Osterman said it
seems like there is a Seattle City Council Member discussion going on about what the right split is; he thinks
they will end up agreeing with the cost shares listed in the table for both WRIAs 8 and 9. He reiterated that it
Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 5 June 19th, 2006
G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\08-21-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc
seems to be at Council level and not at the Mayor’s level; he is supporting this ILA.
Council Member Kochmar asked if it was possible to hold off signing until they know that the majority of the
parties agree. If Federal Way agrees to sign and Seattle and King County do not, Federal Way will have the
lion’s share of the cost. Mr. Bucich said there is no driver saying it must be signed today; it must be signed (or
not) by November so that the costs for 2007 can be allocated and figured out. From what he remembers,
Federal Way was one of the last signatories in 2000 on the original ILA.
Mr. Bucich said that every year in the budget process there will be an opportunity to bring forward to you,
even outside of the budget process if a major jurisdiction decides to pull out and they are looking to Federal
Way to pick up additional costs in the following year that will be a discussion before you, to see whether it
continues to be a benefit to Federal Way.
Council Member Kochmar said she thinks that is a good alternative; she thanked Mayor Park. She thinks the
Council should move forward to the City Manager to sign it “not to exceed” the amount here specified and
then not to sign it until the other 18 signatories have agreed to it and then, if in fact that changes, to come back
to the Council for further discussion and then each year come back to the Council if there are any changes. Mr.
Bucich said staff can do that.
Chair Dovey asked Council Member McColgan if he moved this forward to Council would Council Member
McColgan second that? Council Member McColgan said he would second it… Chair Dovey said there would
be some discussion at Council. Council Member McColgan said he will vote against it here so it will probably
move forward without a recommendation. Chair Dovey said that since Council Member McColgan is going to
vote against it and it would go forward as a 1-to-1 it will move forward without a recommendation. Chair
Dovey moved adoption, Council Member McColgan seconded, all in favor aye (Dovey) all opposed nay
(McColgan).
5. FUTURE MEETINGS
The next scheduled meeting will be September 11th 2006.
6. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.