No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUTC PKT 03-04-2002March 4, 2002 5:30 pm City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee City Hall Council Chambers 2. 3. 4. MEETING AGENDA CALL TO ORDER Approval of Minutes of the February 4, 2001, Meeting PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) BUSINESS ITEMS A. South 288th StFeet @ 5R99 Signal/InteFsec~ion ImpFovements Action 30% Design Status Report Action B. Low Impact Development Strategies C. Support of WRIA#9 ILA Efforts FUTURE NEE-TING AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURN Salloum/15 min Bucich/15 min Bucich/i5 rain Committee Members: Eric Fa/son, Chair Dean McCo/gan M/chae/ Park Ci~ Staff: Kathy McClung, Director, Community Development Services Sandy L y/e, Administrative Assistant 253. 661.4116 City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee February 4, 2002 City Hall 5:30 pm Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY In attendance: Committee members Eric Faison, Chair, Deputy Mayor Dean McColgan, and Mike Park; Mayor Jeanne Burbidge and Linda Kochmar; City Manager David Moseley; Director of Community Development Services Kathy McClung; Community Development Services Deputy Director Patrick Doherty; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Senior Planner Lori Michaelson; Associate Planner Rox Burhans; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Street Engineer At Emter; Assistant City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. CALL TO ORDER Chair Faison called the meeting to order at 5:34 pm. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The summary of the January 28, 2002, meeting was approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment on any item not included in the agenda. BUSINESS ITEMS Chair Faison requested that item E. be moved to just after item A, and that Deputy Mayor McColgan chair the Committee this evening. A. Christian Faith Center Development Agreement- City staff and Christian Faith Center (CFC) have been working together on the development agreement and having arrived at a tentative consensus, they are asking the LUTC for direction prior to requesting CFC prepare a development plan (this is not approval of the development agreement, which will come later in the process). Acting Chair McColgan opened the meeting to public testimony. Glen Sawyer- He is a resident of the area and presented the Committee with pictures of 20th Avenue South that show the road is not safe for pedestrians. Many vehicles travel the road in order to avoid Pacific Highway South. The City has said it would work with the neighborhood on traffic calming devices, but Mr. Sawyer does not feel they would help very much and is concerned the City will not have the funds to pay for them. He would like CFC be required to pay for road improvements to the north of the site. Gil Hulsmann - He represents CFC and offered to answer any questions. CFC agrees with what the staff has presented. He noted the site plan meets current code. CFC intends to have community meetings. They will prepare a TIA and perform any mitigation required. Shirley Gulbraa - She is a resident of the area and stated that currently, the amount of traffic on 20th Avenue South makes it difficult to get out of her driveway; Fridays are especially bad. She is concerned over the City using CFC for events because it will cause more traffic and more noise. The traffic impact is growing worse daily. The speed vehicles travel and the number of vehicles has increased since the June 6 traffic count. Elizabeth Karl- She is a neighbor and complained that they did not receive notice of this meeting until Saturday and there was no information on the topic of the meeting. She is offended that the City is meeting with CFC but not the neighbors. She stated that the comprehensive plan's goals and policies call for the protection of neighborhoods, but the City is not following them in this situation. CFC intends to have a TV show, wedding chapel, and bookstore, which will bring traffic every day. A speed bump will not help. CFC also holds conferences, are these factored in? She stated this would destroy our quality of life. Barry Tumbull - He is a resident and asked the Committee to consider what has happened in other neighborhoods that have mega-churches. They have caused a lot of problems. The Burien mega-church failed. This project would take 50 acres of prime property from the tax rolls. What about development of a road from Pacific Highway South to Weyerhaeuser? He is concerned that people from outside of the City have been heard, but not the neighborhood. Elizabeth Karl- She is concerned with using a religious institution for City functions. K \LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2002\Feb 4 2002 LUTC M~nutes doc JeffStock - He owns property in the area. He feels the developer has a responsibility to the City and public and should make the effort to communicate with both. He is concerned with traffic and where is the traffic information coming from. He supports using CFC for City events. In regards to the notification issue, the City is not required to send'notification of the LUTC. meeting to parties of record,. but are doing so due to the nature of this project. In the future, staff will endeavor to send notification earlier. In regards to meeting with CFC but not the neighborhood, the City is not treating CFC differently because for projects in the past, we have met with developers but not the public. The Committee is concerned with dictating the use of CFC for City events, neighbor issues, and traffic. Discussion was held on all of these items. The Committee is concerned with the timing of construction and requested staff research a time frame for construction. The Committee discussed limiting access to 20th Avenue South. Staff replied that it would limit access to residents as well. A better choice would be to make the road less attractive through the use of traffic calming devices. The Committee discussed the college and placing a limitation on the size and number of students. For the use of CFC for City events (numbers 11 and 12 in the staff report), the Committee would like staff to consider a year-to-year or five-year agreement instead of including this in the development agreement. It was m/sic to approve the direction staff is going with the development agreement and include the time frame for construction, limitation of size and number of students in the college, and year-to-year or five- year agreement for use of CFC for City events. E. City Center Code Amendment Status Report - City staff has been directed to develop a code amendment intended to exclude large discount retail establishments from locating within the City Center-Core (CC-C) zoning district. Staff believes that prohibiting these types of uses from locating with the CC-C could inhibit economic investment and has therefore, developed four alternate code amendment concepts that would permit these types of uses to locate within the CC-C. Alternative I would establish a maximum gross floor area (GFA) limit and additional development standards for discount retail establishments in the CC-C zoning district. Alternative II would impose the maximum GFA limit and additional development standards to all retail establishments in the CC-C zoning district. Alternative III would impose the maximum GFA limit and additional development standards to all retail establishments, including medium sized retail establishments that are clustered together into large shopping centers in the CC-C zoning district. Alternative IV would impose the maximum GFA limit and additional development standards to all retail establishments, including medium sized retail establishments that are clustered together into large shopping centers in the CC-C and City Center-Frame (CC-F) zoning districts. The staff also suggests amending the nonconforming code so that these changes would not cause a building to become nonconforming. After discussion, the Committee directed staff to proceed with Alternate IV. B. Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase I Improvement Project (South 312th to 324th Street, 100% Design Approval and Authorization to Bid - It was m/sic to: 1) approve the 100% design plans for the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase I (South 312th to South 324th Street) Improvement Project; and 2) authorize staff to bid the project contingent upon receiving necessary Grant funding agencies approval and return to the City Council for permission to award the project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. C. SR509 and 8th Avenue SW Traffic Signal, 100% Design Approval and Authorization to Bid - It was m/s/c to: 1) approve 100% Design and Authorization to bid on SR509 (Dash Point Road) and 8th Avenue SW Traffic Signal and Road Improvement Project (The costs are estimated and within the proposed available budget amount.); and 2) authorize transferring $355,481 of unappropriated street bond interest and $11,054 of unappropriated Traffic CIP funds into this project. D. Sea Tac Mall Detention Phase II Final Acceptance and Retainage Release - It was m/sic to: accept the SeaTac Mall Phase II Drainage Improvement Project construction contract as complete and authorize the City Attorney to interplead the final payment and retainage into the King County Superior Court per the January 15, 2002 letter; and 2) authorize staff to return $547,461.62 to the Public Works Trust Fund. F. Planning Commission 2002 Work Program - It was m/s/c to adopt the Planning Commission Work Program and timeline as presented by staff. FUTURE MEETINGS Due to a holiday on February 18, 2002, the LUTC will meet on February 25, 2002, only if necessary, otherwise the next meeting will be March 4, 2002. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. K:\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2002\Feb 4. 2002 LUT(' Minutes doc DATE: TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: March 4, 2002 Eric Faison, Chair tx Land Use / Transportation Committee Marwan Salloum, Street Systems Manag David H. Mos~~anager South 288th St. at SR99 Signal and Intersection Improvements- 30% design Status Report BACKGROUND: This project on 288th Street adds a second left-hand turn lane westbound and a left-hand turn lane eastbound; adds left-turn lanes at 18th Avenue S; interconnect signals on S 288th Street at SR-99 with Military Road at S 304th Street, S 288* Street, and Star Lake Road. The purpose of the project is to improve traffic flow and reduce accidents by eliminating conflicts. The following provides a brief synopsis of the progress on this project to date. Currently, the project design is approximately 30% complete, which includes the following completed tasks: The Topographical Surveys Right of Way plan NEPA and Biological Assessment submittals Project Design to 30% Ongoing Tasks Include: Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Phase I NEPA and Biological Assessment Determination and Project Permitting Right of Way Requirements (Property Appraisals, Negotiation, and Acquisition) Project Design to 85% OVERHEAD UTILITIES CONVERSION All overhead utilities along S 288t~ street between 16t~ Avenue S and 19th Ave S will be converted into an underground system except for the Puget Sound Energy (PSE) electrical transmission system (115,000 volts or larger). PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES: Planning and Design Right of Way Acquisition Year 2003 Construction (estimate) 30% Construction Contingency Construction Management Underground Conversion (estimate) TOTAL PROJECT COSTS AVAILABLE FUNDING: Total Grant Funding Transfer in Street CIP Fund Mitigation Interest Earning TOTAL AVAILABLE BUDGET $140,000 525,685 868,000 260,700 124,000 150,000 $2,068,385 $1,569,520 468,000 9,622 21,813 $2,068,955 TIA $1,201,270, HES $300,000, WSDOT $68,250 RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends placing the following item on the March 5, 2002 Council consent agenda: Authorize staff to proceed with design of the South 288th Street at SR-99 Signal and Intersection Improvements Project and return to the LUTC Committee at the 85% design completion stage for further reports and authorization. 51PROVAL OF, COMMIT FEE REPORT. . ~' i'"r' ,,,.:, , MS:dl cc: Project File Day File k:\lutc~2002~s288th street at st99, 30%.doc DATE: TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: March 4, 2002 Eric Faison, Chair Land Use and Transportation Committee Paul Bucich, Surface Water Manager~/~ David H. Mop,Manager Low Impact Development Strategies BACKGROUND Low Impact Development (LID) has emerged as a new "tool" to manage stormwater in developed areas. Our current stormwater detention and retention pond system is built to store water during high rainfall events but is not as effective in storing water during moderate to low rainfall periods, which is the usual pattem during wet weather periods. Under LID techniques, water is managed in small landscape features located on each lot rather than being conveyed and managed in large pond facilities located at the bottom of drainage areas. Receiving waters experience little change in the volume, frequency, or quality of runoff, which help retain the natural water pattern within the system. To design for LID, the site's natural runoffpattems are mapped with sensitive areas and natural drainages being set-aside during development. A portion of the site's trees and other native vegetation is also set aside. Specific design practices might include vegetated buffers, bio-swales and filter strips, strategic landscaping, and minimizing impervious surfaces. While many of these techniques are allowed under our current codes, this study will focus on identifying obstacles to implementation with LID oriented development applications. Further, this study will identify other LID techniques not currently allowed or promoted in city code. The results of the study will be brought forward to the council with recommendations (if any) for further work such as code amendments or standard detail changes for development. In Federal Way, approximately 15-30% of our land is covered with impervious surfaces, which speeds the natural flow of water through our stormwater system. Recent studies indicate that areas with greater than 4% impervious cover can start degradation of water quality and 20% imperviousness starts degradation of wetland quality. Providing incentives to the development community on reducing impervious surfaces, particularly in sensitive areas such as the Hylebos Creek Watershed, will help minimize these impacts in Federal Way. LID strategies may help us control stream flooding and erosion during moderate to low rainfall events and improve water quality. In addition, adopting such techniques may help us meet federal and state regulations such as the upcoming stormwater permit under the Clean Water Act, the upcoming Endangered Species Act recovery plans for salmon and trout, and the state's Growth Management Act, Shoreline Master Program, and Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Other jurisdictions currently studying LID include Redmond, Seattle, Olympia, and Pierce County. The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team strongly recommends jurisdictions evaluate LID in the 2000 Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION Surface Water Management seeks direction from the Land Use and Transportation Committee on whether to proceed with further investigation of LID strategies and possible application in Federal Way. The division recommends a review of current city codes and development manuals to see if LID techniques should be incorporated into our regulations. Surface Water Management will actively work with the Community Development Department during this evaluation. Surface Water Management will report back to the Land Use / Transportation Committee in 9 months with further findings and any recommendations. If the council decides at that time that it would like to further consider encouraging LID strategies, the division will then seek input from stakeholders such as developers, homeowner associations, neighborhood groups, and environmental organizations. At that time, Surface Water Management will present to the council the methodology to select and facilitate public participation in the study recommendations. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT: Eric Faison, Chair Michael Park, Member Dean McColgan, Me~nber PB:dl cc: Project File Day File k:\lutcX2002\low in,pact development strategies.doc City of Federal Way Percent Impervious Surface by Subbasin February 26, 2002 DATE: TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: March 4, 2002 Eric Faison, Chair Land Use / Transportation Committee Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Mana~~? David H. Mo~anager Support of WRIA 9 ILA Efforts BACKGROUND The City of Federal Way has been an active participant in long range planning efforts for Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRiA) No. 9 (Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound drainages) through two Inter Local Agreements (ILA). Currently, the City is participating under a Planning Agreement signed early in 2001 and amended in August of 2001. In 1999 and 2000 the City participated in an ILA known as the Ecosystem Restoration Study (ERS). The ERS agreement provided support for a Corps of Engineers project to identify current conditions in the watershed and potential restoration projects for future Corps funding. That ILA resulted in the creation of an extensive list of projects to be built in cooperation with participating jurisdictions within the watershed. Further, it created an opportunity for these jurisdictions to pursue significant federal funding, up to $113,000,000. Congressional appropriation of this funding is being negotiated at this time. Towards the end of the Ecosystem Restoration Study project, the City of Federal Way entered into the WRIA 9 ILA in order to participate in regional efforts for salmon habitat recovery. This ILA has a governing body of elected officials from all jurisdictions within the watershed; Council member Faison is the City of Federal Way's representative. The ILA provides language within sections 2.2 and 2.3 whereby the Forum and members can pursue and provide funding for projects within the watershed termed to be of benefit to the eventual recovery of the listed species and overall habitat improvements for the same. Attached please find copies of the ILA Planning Agreement signed early last year; the first amendment; The WRIA 9 Forum Resolution No. 2001-2; Forum minutes for July 18th and November 14, 2001; the current draft of the WRIA 9 Planning and Advanced Planning (PED) cost shares; and a one page graphic description of the WRIA 9 Ecosystem Restoration description of the work in the Green/Duwamish watershed and nearshore environment. These are provided so that you may better understand the foundation upon which Federal Way can provide financial support for the next phase (PED) of the ERS study. Examination of the attached cost share document reveals that Federal Way's contribution towards the PED phase of work amounts to $18,000 spread over the next four years. This is broken down into incremental distributions based on planned levels of effort for the engineering and design portions of the work. No funding is anticipated for construction of projects outside of the City's limits. Participation in these planning efforts is anticipated to hasten the eventual removal of Chinook Salmon from the Endangered Species Listing. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends placing the following item on the March 19th, 2002 Council consent agenda for approval: Authorize the Surface Water Utility to expend funding in support of the Advanced Planning phase (PED) of the Corps of Engineers study for habitat restoration efforts within the Green/Duwamish Watershed (WRIA no. 9). This funding will be taken from the unallocated fund balance within the Utility funding in accordance with the attached cost-sharing exhibit. If future funding allocations differ through shifting of projects by the Forum, this authorization will allow the Utility to cover such costs from unallocated funding provided the total expenditure of funds does not exceed the total of $18,000 shown on the attached. Expenditure of additional funding above this amount, $18,000, will require Council authorization. PB:dl cc: Project File Day File k:\IutcX2002XARIA 9 PED cost sharing.doc INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT For the Watershed Basins within Water Resource I.nventory'Area 9 PREAMBLE THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW by and among the eligible county and city govemm(~nts signing this agreement that are located in King County, lying wholly or partially within the management area of Watershed Resource Inventory Area ("WRIA") 9, which includes all or portions of the Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound forums, all political subdivisions of the State of Washington (collectively, for those signing this agreement, "parties"). The parties share interests in and responsibility for addressing long-term watershed planning and conservation for the watershed basins in WRIA 9 and wish to provide for planning, funding and implementation of various activities and projects therein. MUTUAL COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning provided for below: 1.1 ELIGIBLE JURISDICTIONS: The governments eligible for participation in this Agreement as parties are the County of King and the Cities and Towns of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent, Maple Valley, Normandy Park, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle, and Tukwila. 1.2 WRIA 9 FORUM: The WRIA 9 Forum created herein is the governing body responsible for implementing this Agreement and is comprised of designated representatives of eligible jurisdictions who have authorized the execution of and become parties to this Agreement. 1.3 WRIA 9 STEERING COMMITTEE: The WRIA 9 Steering Committee referred to herein is the cooperative representational b.ody comprised of a balance of stakeholder representatives and any other persons who are deemed by the parties to this Agreement to be appropriate to the creation of WRIA-based Watershed Plans. 1.4 WRIA-BASED WATERSHED PLANS: WRIA-based Watershed Plans as referred to herein are those documents to be developed for WRIA 9 including its sub-basins which recommend actions related to watershed protection, restoration and salmon recovery. 1.5 WRIA SUB-FORUMS: WRIA Sub-Forums as referred to herein are those cooperative representational bodies currently meeting and working on issues, preparing plans and implementing projects within watersheds. These groups are comprised of elected officials from the general purpose governments located within the watershed. I WP,.[A 9 II.A 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00 - 3:01 P~I 1.6 MANAGEMENT COMMITi'EE: Management Committee as referred to herein consists of five (5) elected officials.or their designees which elected officials are chosen by the WRIA 9 FOrum, aCCOrding to the voting procedures in Section 5, charged with certain oversight 'and administrative duties on the WRIA 9 Forum's behalf. 1.7 SERVICE PROVIDER: Service Provider, as used herein, means that agency, government, consultant or other entity which supplies staffing or other resources to and for the WRIA 9 Forum, in exchange for payment. The Service Provider may be a party to this Agreement. 1.8 FISCAL AGENT: The Fiscal Agent refers to that agency or government who. performs all accounting services for the WRIA 9 Forum, as it may require, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 39.34 RCW. 1.9 STAKEHOLDERS: Stakeholders refers to those public and private entities within the WRIA who reflect the diverse interests integral for planning for the recovery of the listed species under the Endangered Species Act, which may include but is not limited to environmental and business interests. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Agreement include the following: 2.1 To provide a mechanism and governance structure for the joint funding, development, review and approval of WRIA-Based Watershed Plans. Such plans shall include reconnaissance, assessment and analysis of conditions and recommendations for the WRIA Forum. It is understood that the maximum financial or resource obligation of any participating eligible jurisdiction under this Agreement shall be limited to its share of the cost of developing the WRIA-Based Watershed Plans. 2.2 To provide a mechanism for securing technical assistance and any available funding from state agencies or other sources. 2.3 To provide a mechanism for the implementation of other habitat, water quality and flood projects with regional, state, federal and non-profit funds as may be contributed to the WRIA 9 Forum. 2.4 To provide a framework for cooperation and coordination among the parties on issues relating to the WRIA or sub-WRIA planning or to meet the requirement of a commitment by any party to.participate in WRIA-based or watershed basin planning in response to any state or federal law which may require such participation as a condition of any funding, permitting or other program of state or federal agencies, at the discretion of such party to this Agreement. 2.5 To develop and articulate WRIA-based positions on salmon habitat, conservation and funding to state and federal legislators. 2 WRIA 9 II.A 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00 - 3:01 I~1 2.6 To provide for the ongoing participation of citizens and other stakeholders irl such efforts ahd to ensure continued public outreach efforts,' to educate and garner support for current and future ESA efforts. It is not the purpose or intent of this Agreement to create, supplant, preempt or supersede the authority or role of any individual jurisdiction or water quality policy bodies such as the Regional Water Quality Committee. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM. This Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by at least five (5) of the eligible jurisdictions within WRIA 9 representing at least seventy per cent (70%) of the affected population, as authorized by each jurisdiction's legislative body. Once effective, this Agreement shall remain in effect for an initial term of five (5) years; provi~led, however, that this Agreement may be extended for such additional terms as the parties may agree to in writing. ORGANIZATION AND NATURE OF WRIA 9 FORUM. The parties to this Agreement hereby establish a goveming body for WRIA 9 and the Green-Duwamish watershed basin and associated Puget Sound drainages (hereinafter the ~WRIA 9 Forum" the precise boundaries of which are established in Chapter 173-500 WAC, or as determined by the WRIA Forum) to serve as the formal governance structure for carrying out the purposes of this Agreement. Each party to this agreement shall appoint one (1) elected official to serve as its representative on the WRIA 9 Forum. The WRIA 9 Forum is a voluntary association of the county and city govemments located wholly or partially within the management area of WRIA 9 and the Green-Duwamish watershed basin and associated Puget Sound drainages who choose 4.1 to be parties to this Agreement. Upon the effective execution of this agreement and the appointment of representatives to the WRIA 9 Forum, the WRIA 9 Forum shall meet and choose from among its members, according to the provisions of Section 5, five (5) elected officials or their designees, to serve as a Management Committee to oversee and direct the funds and personnel conb'ibuted under this Agreement, in accordance with the adopted annual budget and such other directions as may be provided by the WRIA 9 Forum. Representatives of the Fiscal Agent and Service Provider may serve as non-voting ex officio members thereof. The Management Committee shall act as an executive subcommittee of the WRIA 9 Forum, responsible for oversight and evaluation of any Service Providers or consultants, administration of the budget, and for providing recommendations on administrative matters to the WRIA 9 Forum for action, consistent with other subsections of this section.. 4.1.1 It is contemplated that services to the WRIA 9 Forum and WRIA 9 Steering Committee for the year 2001 shall be provided by Service Provider, King County Department of Natural Resources. The Management Committee 3 WI::~.A 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00 - 3:01 plvl 4.2 shall prepare a Memorandum of Understanding to be executed with. the · Service Provider, to. be approved by the WRIA 9 Forum, which shall set out. the expectations for services so provided. Services should include, without limitation, identification of and job descriptions for dedicated staff in increments no smaller than .5 FTE, description of any supervisory role retained by the Service Provider over any staff performing services under this Agreement, and a method of regular consultation between the Service Provider and the Management Committee conceming the performance of services hereunder. 4.1.2 Upon the effective execution of this Agreement, and the selection of the Management Committee, the Management Committee shall review existing work products and plans and make recommendations to the entire WRIA g Forum for action, including initial decisions related to work program, staffing and service agreements, and budget and financial operations, for the year 2001. All duties of the Management Committee shall be established by the WRIA 9 Forum. The WRIA 9 Forum shall have the authority to establish and adopt the following: 4.2.1 The WRIA 9 Steering Committee shall develop and propose for consideration, amendment and adoption by the WRIA 9 Forum, a scope of work for development of WRIA-based Watershed Plans, including planning priorities for each year of this Agreement, and performance review of work under this Agreement. The scope of w°~k may provide for certain tasks or processes to be the responsibility of the WRIA Sub-Forums. The scope of work shall specifically identify the level of staff support to be provided to the WRIA Sub-Forums in furtherance of their agreed upon tasks or processes. 4.2.2. The WRIA 9 Forum shall by September 1 of each year, establish and approve an annual budget, establishing the level of funding and total resource obligations of the parties which are to be allocated on a proportional basis based on the average of the population, assessed valuation and area attributable to each party to the Agreement, in accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit A, which formula shall be updated annually by the WRIA 9 Forum, as more current data becomes available. 4:2.3 The WRIA 9 Forum shall review and evaluate annually the duties to be assigned to the Management Committee hereunder and the performance of the fiscal agent and Service Provider(s) to this Agreement, and shall provide for whatever actions are necessary it deems appropriate to ensure that quality services are efficiently, effectively and responsibly delivered in the 4 WPJ. A 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00 - 3:01 o performance of the purposes of this Agreement. In evaluating .the performance of any Service Provider, at least every two'years, the WRIA 9 Forum shall retain an outside consultant to perform a professional assessment of the work and services so provided. 4.2.4 The WRIA 9 Forum shall oversee and administer the expenditure of budgeted funds and shall all~)cate the utilization of resources contributed by each party or obtained from other sources in accordance with an annual prioritized list of planning activities within the WRIA during each year of this Agreement. 4.3 The WRIA 9 Forum may contract with similar watershed forum governing bodies or any other entities for any lawful purpose related hereto. The parties may choose to create a separate legal or administrative entity under applicable state law, including without limitation a nonprofit corporation or general partnership, to accept private gifts, grants or financial contributions, or for any other lawful purposes. 4.4 The WRIA 9 Forum shall adopt other rules and procedures that are consistent with its purposes as stated herein and are necessary for its operation. VOTING. The WRIA 9 Forum shall make decisions, approve scope of work, budget, priorities and any other actions necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement as follows: 5.1 Decisions shall be made using a consensus model as much as possible. Each party agrees to use its best efforts and exercise good faith in consensus decision-making. Consensus may be reached by unanimous agreement of the parties, or by a majodty recommendation with a minority report. Any party who does not accept a majodty decision may request weighted voting as set forth below. 5.2 In the event consensus cannot be achieved, as determined by rules and procedures adopted by the WRIA 9 Forum, the WRIA 9 Forum shall take action on a dual- majority basis, as follows: 5.2.1 Each party, through its appointed representative, may cast its weighted vote in connection with a proposed WRIA 9 Forum action. 5.2.2 The weighted vote of each party in relation to the weighted votes of each of the other parties shall be determined by the percentage of the annual contribution by each party set in accordance with Subsection 4.2.2 in the year in which the vote is taken. 5.2.3 For any action subject to weighted voting to be deemed approved, an affirmative vote must be cast by both a majority of the parties to this Agreement and by a majority of the weighted votes of the parties to this Agreement. No action shall be valid and binding on the parties to this Agreement until it shall receive majority votes of both the total number of 5 WP.LA 9 ~LA 9-29 VERSION- ZO/~'~/O0 - 3:0~ Ptq pa~ties to the Agreement and of the members representing a majority of the annual budget contribution for the year in which the vote is taken. A vote of abstention shall be ~-ecorded as a "no"'vote. .CREATION, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF WRIA-BASED WATERSHED PLANS WRIA-based Watershed Plans shall be developed, drafted and recommended by the WRIA 9 Steering Committee, approved by the WRIA 9 Forum and subject to ratification by the legislative bodies of the parties to this Agreement, consistent with the following: 6.1 The WRIA 9 Forum shall appoint a WRIA 9 Steering Committee. comprised of a balance of stakeholder representatives and any other persons who are deemed by the parties to this Agreement to be appropriate to the creation of WRIA-based Watershed Plans. it is intended that representatives of local general purpose governments will continue to participate on the WRIA 9 Steering Committee. The WRIA 9 Steering Committee shall be responsible for the development and recommendation of WRIA-based Watershed Plans consistent with the purposes of this Agreement and shall act as an advisory body to the WRI'A 9 Forum. Changes in the membership or composition of the WRIA 9 Steering Committee shall be made pursuant to the voting procedures in Section 5. The WRIA 9 Forum shall establish procedures for naming and replacing representatives on the WRIA 9 Steering Committee. 6.2 The WRIA 9 Forum shall act to approve or remand any final long-term WRIA-based Watershed Plan prepared and recommended by the WRIA 9 Steering Committee within ninety (90) days of receipt of the final plan, according to the voting procedures described in Section 5. 6.3 In the event that any plan is not so approved, it shall be returned to the WRIA 9 Steering Committee for further consideration and amendment and thereafter returned to the WRIA 9 Forum for decision. 6.4 After approval of the plan by the WRIA 9 Forum, the plan shall be referred to the parties to this Agreement for ratification prior to the plan's submission to any federal or state agency for further action. Ratification means an affirmative action, evidenced by · a resolution or ordinance of the jurisdiction's legislative bodY, by at least five jurisdictions within WRIA 9 representing at least seventy per cent (70%) of the total population of WRIA 9. Upon ratification, the WRIA 9 Forum shall transmit the WRIA- based Watershed Plan to any state or federal agency as may be required for further action. 6.5 In the event that either any state or federal agency to which such plans are submitted shall remand any such plan for further consideration, the plan shall be remanded to 6 WRIA 9 II.A 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00 - 3:01 P~I the WRIA 9 Forum for consideration, which may include furt. her referral to the WRIA 9 · Steering Committee for recommendation on amendments tl~ereto. 6.6 The parties agre.e that no WRIA-based Watershed P]an developed and funded pursuant to this Agreement shall be forwarded separately by any of them to any state or federal agency unless it has been approved and ratified 'as provided herein. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES; BUDGET; FISCAL AGENT; RULES. 7.1 Each party shall be responsible for meeting its financial obligations hereunder as established in the annual budget adopted by the WRIA 9 Forum under this Agreement, including all such obligations related to WRIA 9 Forum and WRIA 9 Steering Committee funding, technical support, and participation in related planning projects and activities as set forth herein. It is anticipated that separate actions by the legislative bodies of the parties will be necessary from time to time in order to carry out these obligations. 7.2 The maximum funding responsibilities imposed upon the parties during the first year of this Agreement shall not exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit A, which shall be updated annually as described in Section 4.2.2. 7.3 No later than September I of each year of this Agreement, the WRIA 9 Forum shall adopt a budget, including its overhead and administrative costs, for the following calendar year. The budget shall propose the level of funding and other (e.g. staffing) responsibilities of the individual parties for the following calendar year and shall propose the levels of funding and resources to be allocated to specific prioritized planning aCtivities within the WRIA. The parties shall thereafter take whatever separate legislative or other actions that may be necessary to timely address such individual responsibilities under the proposed budget, and shall have done so no later than December 1st of each such year. 7.4 Funds collected from the parties or other sources on behalf of the WRIA 9 Forum shall be maintained in a special fund by King County as fiscal agent and as ex officio treasurer on behalf of the WRIA 9 Forum pursuant to rules and procedures established and agreed to by the WRIA 9 Forum. Such rules and procedures shall set out billing practices and collection procedures and any other procedures as may be necessary to provide for its efficient administration and operation. Any party to this Agreement may inspect and review all records maintained in connection with such fund at any reasonable time. LATECOMERS. A county or city government in King County lying wholly or partially within the management area of WRIA 9 and the Green-Duwamish watershed basin and adjacent Puget Sound drainages which has not become a party to this Agreement within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this Agreement may become a party only with the written 7 WRIA 9 [LA 9-29 WRS[ON- 10/14/00 - 3:01 ['N o 10. 11. consent of all the parties. The pro~)isions of Section 5 otherwise governing decisions (~f the WRIA 9 Forum shall not apply to Section 8. The parties and the county or city seeking to become a pady shall jointly determine the terms and conditions under whibh the county or city may become a party. These terms and conditions shall include payment by such county or city to the parties of the amount determined jointly by the parties and the county or city to represent such county or city's fair and proportionate share of all costs associated with activities undertaken by the WRIA 9 Forum and the parties on its behalf as of the date the county or city becomes a party. Any county or city that becomes a party pursuant to this section shall thereby assume the general rights and responsibilities of all other parties to this Agreement. TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated by any party, as to that party only, upon sixty (60) days' written notice to the other parties. The terminating party shall remain fully responsible for meeting all of its funding and other obligations through the end of the calendar year in which such notice is given, together with any other costs that may have been incurred on behalf of such terminating party up to the effective date of such termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by the written agreement of all parties. It is expected that the makeup of the parties t° this Agreement may change from time to time. Regardless of any such changes, the parties choosing not to exercise the right of termination shall each remain obligated to meet its respective share of the obligations of the WRIA 9 Forum as reflected in the annual budget. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent permitted by state law, and for the limited purposes set forth in this agreement, each party shall protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other parties, their officers, elected officials, agents and employees, while acting within the scope of their employment as such, from and against any and all claims (including demands, suits, penalties, liabilities, damages, costs, expenses, or losses of any kind or nature whatsoever) arising out of or in any way resulting from such party's own negligent acts or omissions related to such party's participation and obligations under this agreement. Each party agrees that its obligations under this subsection extend to any claim, demand and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of its employees or agents. For this purpose, each party, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with respect to the other parties only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the industrial insurance act provisions of Title 51 RCW. The provisions of this subsection shall survive and continue to be applicable to parties exercising the right of termination pursuant to Section 9. NO ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY. In no event do the parties to this Agreement intend to assume any responsibility, risk or liability of any other party to this Agreement or otherwise with regard to any party's duties, responsibilities or liabilities under the Endangered Species 8 WR.[.A 9 [LA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00 - 3:01 Pt,,1 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Act, o[' any other act, statute or regulation of any. local municipality or government, the State of Washington or the United States. ' VOILUNTARY AGREEMENT. This is a voluntary agreement and it is acknowledged and agreed that, in entering into this Agreement, no party is committing to adopt or implement any actions or recommendations that may be contained in a WRIA-based Watershed Plan developed pursuant to this Agreement. NO PRECLUSION OF ACTIVITIES OR PROJECTS. Nothing herein shall preclude any one or more of the parties to this Agreement from choosing or agreeing to fund or implement any work, activities or projects associated with any of the purposes hereunder by separate agreement or actipn, provided that any such decision or agreement shall not impose any funding, participation or other obligation of any kind on any party to this Agreement which is not a party to such decision or agreement. NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall it be construed to, create any rights in any third party, including without limitation the WRIA 9 Steering Committee, NMFS, USFWS, any agency or department of the United States, or the State of Washington, or to form the basis for any liability on the part of the WRIA 9 Forum or any of the parties, or their officers, elected officials, agents and employees, to any third party. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be amended, altered or clarified only by the unanimous consent of the parties to this Agreement, represented by affirmative action by their legislative bodies. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. APPROVAL BY PARTIES' GOVERNING BODIES. This Agreement has been approved for execution by appropriate action of each party's governing body. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated below: Approved as to form: KING COUNTY Date: 9 WP~A 9 ILA 9-29 VEP,5ION- 10/14/00 - 3:01 Regional Watershed Funding WRIA Based Cost-share: WRIA 9 Only Note: Does not include watershed assessment technical work TOTAL: $433,000 Average of Pop I AV / · WRIA 09 . . Population (Pop) .. Assessed Value (AV) Area Area 'WRIt'09 -1 Algone 0.1% $367 0.1% $415 0.1% $3g0 0.1% $391 1 Algone 2 Auburn 4.4% $19,074 6.0% $25,82g 4.0% $17,243 4.8% $20,715 2 Auburn 3 Black Dlamond 0.7% $3,063 0.7% $3,167 1.9% $8,333 1.1% $4,854 3 Black Dtamond 4 Burten 5.5% $23,839 4.8% $20,912 2.3% $10,110 4.2% $18,287 4 Buften' 5 Covlngton 2.4% $10,418 1.9% $8,275 1.8% $7,589 2.0% $8,761 5 Covington 6 Des Motnes 5.0% $21,749 3.6% $15,440 2.0% . $8,835 3.5% $15,341 6 Des Molnes 7 Enumclaw 1.2% $5,362 0.8% $3,478 0.8% $3,264 0.9% $4,035 7 Enumc~aw 8 Federal Way. 3.0% $13,152 2.7% $11,574 1.4% $6,273 2.4% $10,333 8 Federal Way 9 Kent 13.3% $57,487 15.4% $66,691 8.9% $38,452 12.5% $54,210 9 Kent 10 King County 22.5% $97,551 20.0% $86,726 59.0% $255,652 33.9% $146,643 10 King Co'unty 11 Maple Valley 1.8% $7,671 1.7% $7,513 1.4% $5,910 1.6% $7,031 11 Maple Valley 12 Normandy Park 1.3% $5,633 1.6% $6,972 0.8% $3,467 1.2% $5,357 12 Normandy Park 13 Renton 3.4% $14,663 4.0% $17,331 2.0% $8,662 3.1% $13,552 13 Rehton 14 Sea-Tac 4.4% $18,874 6.5% $28,051 3.2% $13,993 4.7% $20,306 14 Sea-Tac 15 Seattle 28.2% $122,243 23.6% $102,259 7.5% $32,527 19.8% $85,676 15 Seattle 16 Tukwila 2.7% $11,856 6.6% $28,366 2.8% $12,301 4.0% $17,507 16 Tukwila Sub-Total $433,000 King Co. Sub-Tote! t00.0% $433,000 TOTAL NOTE: King County land area excludes the Upper Green River basin. FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE:INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT For the Watershed Basins within Water Resource Inventory Area 9 This First Amendment to the Intedocal Agreem. ent for the Watershed Basins withi~ Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9, which was entered into by the County of King and the Cities and Towns of Algona, Auburn, Buden, Covington, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent, Maple Valley, NOrmandy Park, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle, and Tukwila ('Agreement"), amends the terms of the Agreement to provide for changes as desired by the parties to the Agreement, that include: 1) to allow for-the addition of the City of Tacoma, which has a major interest in WRIA 9, as a party to the Agreement; 2) to change the number of members of the WRIA 9 Forum Management Committee from five to seven members; 3) to allow for each party to name, as an alternate to its named elected official, a senior staff member or other elected official as its representative to the WRIA 9 Forum; 4) to provide for an additional financial contribution to be made by King County to account for the .addition of Vashon/Maury Islands to the WRIA 9 Forum activities and planning effods. This Rrst Amendment is effective upon execution by all of the parties to the Agreement and may be executed in counterparts. The Agreement is hereby amended by substituting the text provided below for each of the identified sections (underlining of text indicates a textual change, and is not to be considered as part of the amended text): 1. The Preamble to the Agreement is amended to read as follows: This agreement ('Agreement") is entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW by and among the eligible county and city governments signing this agreement that are located in King County or Pierce County and lie wholly or partially within or have a maior interest in the management area of Watershed Resource Inventory Area (."WRIA") 9, which includes all or portions of the Green- Duwamish and Central Puget Sound forums, all political subdivisions of the State of Washington (collectively, for those signing this agreement, 'parties'). The parties share interests in and responsibility for addressing long-term watershed planning and conservation for the watershed basins in WRIA 9 and wish to provide for planning, funding and implementation of vadous activities and projects therein. 2. Section 1.1 is amended to read as follows: ELIGIBLE COUNTY AND CITY GOVERNMENTS: The govemments eligible for participation in this Agreement as parties are the County of King, and the Cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent, Maple Valley, Normandy Park, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle, Tacoma and Tukwila. 3. Section 1.6 is amended to read as follows: MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE: Management Committee as referred to herein consists of seven (7) elected officials or their designees which elected officials are chosen by the WRIA 9 Forum, according to the voting procedures in Section 5, charged with certain oversight and administrative duties on the WPJA 9 Forum's behalf. 7/2/01 4:17 PM I 4, Section 4 is amended to read as follows: " ORGANIZATION AND NATURE OF WRIA 9 FORUM. 'The parties to this Agreement hereby establish a goveming body for WRIA 9 and the Green-Duwamish watershed basin and associated Puget Sound drainages (hereinafter the 'WRIA 9 Forum," the precise boundaries of which are established in Chapter 173-500 WAC, or as determined by the WRIA Forum) to serve as the formal govemance structure for carrying out the purposes of this Agreement. Each party to the agreement shall appoint one (1) elected official to serve as its representative on the WRIA 9 Forum..The parties shall also appoint an altemate representative who may be a different elected official or senior staff person. The WRIA 9 Forum is a voluntary association of the county and city govemments located wholly or partially within the management area of or havinq a major interest in WRIA 9 and the Green-Duwamish watershed basin and associated Puget Sound drainages who Choose to be parties to this Agreement. 5. Section 4.1 is amended to read as follows: Upon the effective execution of this agreement and the appointment of representatives to the WRIA 9 Forum, the WRIA 9 Forum shall meet and choose from among its members, according to the provisions of Section 5, seven {7) elected offidals or [heir designees, to serve as a Management Committee to oversee and direct the funds and personnel contributed under this Agreement, in accordance with the adopted annual budget and such other directions as may be provided by the WRIA 9 Forum. Representatives of the Fiscal Agent and Service Provider may serve as non-voting ex officio members thereof. The Management Committee shall act as an executive subcommittee of the WRIA 9 Forum, responsible for oversight and evaluation of any Service Providers or consultants, administration of the budget, and for providing recommendations on administrative matters to the WRIA 9 Forum for action, consistent with other subsections of this section. 6. Section 4.2.2 is amended to read as follows: The WRIA 9 Forum shall by September 1 of each year establish and approve an annual budget establishing the level of funding and total resource obligations of the padies which are to be allocated on a proportional basis based on the average of the population, assessed valuation and area attributable to each party to the Agreement, in accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit A-l, which formula shall be updated annually by the WP, IA 9 Forum as more current data becomes available. Tacoma's cost share will be determined on an annual basis by the parties and will be documented on the annual updates to Exhibit A-I. The weiqht accorded Tacoma's vote for wei_clhted votinq pursuant to Aqreement section 5 shall correspond to Tacoma's cost share for each year relative to the cost shares contributed by the other parties. 7. Section 6.4 is amended to read as follows: After approval of the plan by the WRIA 9 Forum, the plan shall be referred to the parties to this Agreement for ratification prior to the plan's submission to any federal or state agency for further action. Ratification means an affirmative action, evidenced by a resolution or ordinance of the judsdiction's legislative body, by at least five jurisdictions representing at least seventy percent (70%) of the total population within the geoR. raphic area of WRIA 9 as defined in Chapter 173-500 WAC. Upon ratification, the WRIA 9 Forum shall transmit the WRIA-based Watershed Plan to any state or federal agency as may bo required for further action. 7/2/01 4:17 PM 2 8...~on 7.2 is amended to mad as follows: The maximum funding responsibilities imposed upon the parties during the first year of this Agreement shall not exceed the amounts set forth i.n Exhibi.t A-I, which'shall be updated annually as described in Section 4.2.2. 9. SectiOn 8 is amended to read as follows: A county or city govemment in King County lying wholly or partially within the management area of or with a maior interest in WRIA 9 and the Green-Duwamish watershed basin and adjacent Puget Sound drainage which has not become a party to this Agreement within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this Agreement may become a party only with the wdtten consent of all the parties. The provisions of Section 5 otherwise goveming decisions of the WRIA 9 Forum shall not apply to Section 8. The-parties and the county or dty seeking to become a party shall jointly determine the terms and conditions under which the county or city may become a party. These terms and conditions shall include payment by such county or dty to the parties of the amount determined jointly by the parties and the county or dry to represent such county or city's fair and propodionate share of all costs associated with activities undertaken by the WP, IA 9 Forum and the parties on its behalf as of the date the county or dty becomes a party. Any county or dry that becomes a party pursuant to this section shall thereby assume the general rights and responsibilities of ali other parties to this Agreement. 10. Exh~it A-1 ,'attached to this'First Amendment, is hereby substituted for Exhibit A to the Agreement, and is incorporated therein and made a part thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment is executed by the entities so signing on the dates indicated below: Appr(~ved as to form: By:(:~'~,~. ~. Title: ~,,.x...x~ ~ TOWN OF ALGONA Title: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF AUBURN By; By:. Title: Title: Date: Date: 7/2/01 4:17 PM 3 8. Section 7.2 is'amended to read as follows: The maximum funding responsibilities imposed upon the parties dudng the first year 6f this Agreement shall not exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit A-l, which shall be updated annually. as described in Section 4.2.2. 9. Section 8 is amended to read as follows: A county or city govemment in King County lying wholly or padially within the management area of or with a maior interest in WRIA 9 and the Green-Duwamish watershed basin and adjacent Puget Sound drainage which has not become a pady to this. Agreement within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this Agreement may become a pady only with the written consent of all the padies. The provisions of Section 5 otherwise goveming decisions of the WRIA 9 Forum shall not apply to Section 8. The parties and the county or city seeking to become a party shall jointly determine the terms and conditions under which the county or city may become a pady. These terms and conditions shall include payment by such county or city to the parties of the amount determined jointly by the padies and the county or city to represent such county or city's fair and propodionate share of all costs associated with activities undedaken by the WRIA 9 Forum and the parties on its behalf as of the date the county or city becomes a party. Any county or city that becomes a party pursuant to this section shall thereby assume the general dghts and responsibilities of all other padies to this Agreement. 10. Exhibit A-l, attached to this First Amendment, is hereby substituted for Exhibit A to the Agreement, and is incorporated therein and made a part thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment is executed by the entities so signing on the dates indicated below: Approved as to form: TOWN OF ALGONA By:. By: Title: Title: Date: Date: By: J~ - Title: Mayor Date: August 6, 2001 712/01 4:!7 PM 3 Approved as to form: 'By:, Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: CITY OF BLACK DIAMOND By: Title:. Date: Date: ~ " I0- O I CITY OF COVINGTON By:. Title: Date: CITY OF DES MOINES By:, Title: Date: ' CITY OF ENUMCLAW By:, Title: Date: 7/7./01 4:17 PM 4 Approved as to form: By:. Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: Appmv~~: By: Title: .¢~~ ~ Date: Approved as to form: By: Tide: Date: Approved as to form: By:, Title: Date: CITY OF BLACK DIAMOND By: Title: Date: CITY OF BURIEN By: Title: Date: CITY OF DES MOINES By: Title: Date: CITY OF ENUMCLAW By:. Title: Date: 7/'2/01 4:17 PM 4 Approved as to form:' By: Title: Date: · CITY OF BLACK DIAMOND By:. Title: Date: Approved as to form: By:. Title: Date: CITY OF BURIEN By:. Title: Date: Approved as to form: By:, Title: Date: CITY OF COVINGTON By:. Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: CITY OF DES MOINES By:~ ~-C.,~,,_~..~_,_~. Date: ~ - ~ - c5 \ Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: CITY OF ENUMCLAW By: Title: Date: 7/2/01 4:17 PM 4 Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: CITY OF BLACK DIAMOND By: .'. : Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: CITY OF BURIEN By: Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: CITY OF COVINGTON By: Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: TiMe: Date: CITY OF DES MOINES By: TiMe: Date: Date: CITY. OF ENUMC~b~ Title: Date:-' 7/2/01 4:17 PM 4 Approved as t9 form: Title: Date: Approved as to form: By:, Title: Date: Approved as to form: By:. Date: Approved as to form: By:. Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: Date: ~',~ ,/' CITY OF KENT By:. Title: Date: KING COUNTY By:. Title: Date: - CITY OF MAPLE VALLEY By:, Title: Date: CITY OF NORMANDY PARK By: Title: Date: 7/2./01 4:17 PM 5 Approved as t.o form: 'By: Title: · Date: CITY OF FEDER~.L WAY By: Title: Date: Approved as to form: Title: D~A.~'/' c.rr,/ Date: //Z,. 'w,q '~ E'"' Title: ~/ MAYOR Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: KING COUNTY By: Title: Date: Approved as to form: By:. Title: Date: CITY OF MAPLE VALLEY By:, ~ Title: Date: Approved as to form: By:. Title: Date: CITY OF NORMANDY PARK By: Title: Date: 7/2/01 4:17 PM 5 ..Approved as to form: By:. Title: Date: Approved as to form: By:. Title: Date: Approved as to form: Title: ~,~/~'~z~_ '/~-/-~ Date: //,/~ / Approved as to form: By:. Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ,By:. " TAle:-- Date: CITY OF KENT By:. Title: Date: KING COUNTY Title: Date: /~//'3-',~'//~ / CITY OF MAPLE VALLEY Title: Date: CITY OF NORMANDY PARK By:, Date: 7/2/01 4:17 PM 6 App~:oved as t.o form: By: Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: Approved .as to form: By: Title: Date: Approved as to form: By:. Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: CITY OF FEDEPJ~L. ' WAY By: ' Title: Date: CITY OF KENT By: Title: Date: KING COUNTY By: Title: Date: CITY OF MAPLE V~LLEy. Title:(/ ~--------4~ Date: CITY OF NORMANDY PARK By:. Title: Date: 7/2/01 4:17 PM 5 Approved as t.o form: By:. Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: Approved as to form: By:. Ti~e: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: :Title: Date: · CITY OF FEDER~. WAY · ,. - ~. "k. ~:~%, ' '"~-- .... ~."*:': . ~., By:' Title: Date: CITY OF KENT By: Title: Date: KING COUNTY By: Title: Date: CITY OF MAPLE VALLEY By: Title: Date: 7/2/01 4:17 PM 5 Title: City Attorney DaW: August 17~ 2001 Approved as to form: By:. Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: ~sse Tanner Title: Mayo r Date: August 20, 2001 CITY OF SEATAC By:. Title: Date: CITY OF SEATTLE By: Title: Date: CITY OF TACOMA By: Title: Date: CITY OF TUKWILA By: Title: Date: 7/2/01 4:17 PM 6 Approved as to form: · By:. Title: Date: Approved as to form: By:, Title:' Date: Approved as to form: By:. Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: CITY OF RENTON · By:, Title: Date: CITY OF SEATAC Title: CITY OF SEA'r'rLE By:, Title: Date: CITY OF TACOMA By:, Title: Date: CITY OF TUKWILA By: Title: Date: 7/2/01 4:17 PM 6 Approved as to form: 'By:. Title: Date: CITY OF RENTON By:. Title: Date: Approved as,to form: By: Title: Date: CITY OF SEATAC By: Title: Date: Approved as to form: By:. Title: Date! CITY OF SEATTLE Title: Date: Approved as to form: By:. Title: Date: CITY OF TACOMA By: Title: Date: Approved as to form: By:. Title: Date: CITY OF TUKWlLA By: Title:. Date: 712/01 4:17 PM 6 Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: Title: Date: Approved as to form: By: .~_-"'~7~ Date: ~'/~/. // 7f2/01 4:17 PM CITY OF RENTON · By:- Title: Date: CITY OF SEATAC By: Title: Date: CITY OF SEATTLE By:. Title: Date: CITY OF TACOMA By:. Title: Date: CITY OF TUKWILA Title: Date: Exhibit A-', age one Regional Watershed Funding 2001 WRIA 9 Cost Shares (see Exhibit A-I, page two for weighted voting percentages) Note: Does not include watershed assessment technical work Average of Pop / AV / WRIA 09 Population {pop) ~,ssessed Value {AV) Area Area WRIA 09 1 Algona 0.1% $367 0.1% $415 0.1% $390 0.1% '$391 1' Algona 2 Auburn 4.4% $19,074 6.0% $25,829 4.0% $17,243 4.8% $20,715 2 Aubuh3 3 Black Diamond 0.7% $3,063' 0.7% $3,167 1.9% $8,333 1.1% $4,854 3 Black Diamond 4 Buden 5.5% $23,83§ 4.8% $20,912 2.3% $10,110 4.2% $18,287 4 Buflen 5 Covington 2.4% $10,418 1.9% $8,275 1.8% $7,589 2.0% $8,761 5 Covington 6 Des Molnes 5.0% $21,749 3.6% $15,440 2.0% $8,835 3.5% $15,341 6 Des Molnes 7 Enumclaw 1.2% $5,362 0.8% $3,478 0.8% $3,264 0.9% $4,035 7 Enumclaw 8 Federal Way 3.0% $13,152 2.7% $11,574 1.4% $6,273 2.4% $10,333 · 8 Federal Way 9 Kent 13.3% $57,487 15.4% $66,691 8.9% $38,452 12.5% $54,210' 9 Kent 10 King County 22.5% $97,551 20.0% $86,726 59.0% $255,652 33.9% $146,643 10 King County 11 Maple Valley 1.8% $7,671 1.7% $7,513 1.4% $5,910 1.6% $7,031 11 Maple Valley 12 Normandy Park 1.3% $5,633 1.6% $6,972 0.8% $3,467 1.2% $5,357 12 Normandy Park 13 Renton 3.4% $14,663 4.0% $17,331 2.0% $8,662 3.1% $13,552 13 Renton 14 Sea-Tac 4.4% $18,874 6.5% $28,051 3.2% $13,993 4.7% $20,306 14 Sea-Tac ' 15 Seattle 28.2% $122,243 23.6% $102,259 7.5% $32,527 19.8% $85,676 15 Seattle 18 Tukwila 2.7% $11,856 6.6% $28,366 2.8% $12,301 4.0% $17,507 16 Tukwtla $433,000 Sub-Total .. 100.0% $433,000 SUBTOTAL Additional '¢ear 2001 contributions (for WRIA 9 Contingency Fund): King County (increased King County cost share with the addition of Vashon/Maury Islands $12,551 Tacoma $24,500 $.37.,051 (contingency fund) $470,051 TOTAL NOTE: King County land area excludes the Upper Green River basin. Exhibit A:,f. oa_ee two Regional Watershed Funding WRIA 9 Weighted Voting with Contingency Fund 2001 Weighted Proportional Change ' Voting with Weighted in Vote WRIA 09 Vashon I Tacoma* Voting for 2001'* Weight WRIA 09 ., 1 Algona 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% I Algona 2 Auburn 4,8% 4.4% -0.4% 2 Auburn 3 Black Diamond 1.1% 1.0% -0.1% 3 Black Diamond 4 Burten 4.2% 3.9% -0.3% 4 Burien 5 Covington 2.0% 1.9% -0.2% 5 Covington 6 Des Molnes 3.5% 3.3% -0.3% 6 Des Moines 7 Enumclaw 0.9% 0.9% -0.1% 7 Enumclaw 8 Federal Way 2.4% 2.2% -0.2% 8 Federal Way 9 Kent 12.5% 11.5% -1.0% 9 Kent 10 Klng County 33.9% 31.2% -2.7% 10 King County lOa King County Vashon/Maury Islands 2.9% 2. 7% -0.2% lOa King County Vashon/Maury Islands 11 Maple Valley 1.6% 1.5% -0.1% 11 Maple Valley 12 Normandy Park 1.2% 1.1% -0.1% 12 Normandy Park 13 Renton 3.1% 2.9% ', -0.3% 13 Renton 14 Sea-Tac 4.7% 4.3% -0.4% 14 Sea-Tac 15 Seattle 19.8% 18.2% -1.6% 15 Seattle 16 Tacoma 5.8% 5.3% -0.5% 16 Tacoma 17 Tukwila 4.0% 3.7% -0.3% 17 Tukwila '108.7% 100.0% -8.7% TOTAL *Average of population, assessed value and area column (cost-share percentages) from Exhibit A-1 page one, with additional proportional cost share percentages for Tacoma and King County Vashon/Maury Islands **Cost share percentages scaled to 100%. WRIA 9 FO.RUM SUMMARY 3:30-5:30 pm July 18, 2001 Tukwila Community Center ATTENDEES Name Affiliation Charles Booth Howard Botts Joe Brennan Rebecca Clark Tim Clark Richard Conlin Eric Faison Stephen Lamphear Steve Mullet George Rossman Jesse Tanner Paul Bucich Jay Covington Dennis Dowdy Noel Gilbrough Nancy Hansen-Ahern Laure Iddings Ryan Larson Judith Noble Lorin Reinelt Loren Reinhold Megan Smith Ron Straka John Wiltse Bill Wolinski Laura Blackmore Linda Hanson Doug Osterman City of Auburn City of Black Diamond City of SeaTac City of Covington City of Kent City of Seattle City of Federal Way City of Burien City of Tukwila City of Enumelaw City of Renton City of Federal Way City of Renton City of Auburn US Army Corps of Engineers King County DNR City of Maple Valley City of Tukwila City of Seattle King County DNR City of Des Moines ILA Service Provider City of Renton City of Normandy Park City of Kent WRIA 9 Nearshore Sub-Forum Coordinator WRIA 9 Projects Coordinator WRIA 9 Coordinator July 18, 2001 WRIA 9 Forum Meeting Drafl Sutnmary Page 1 Welcome and Introductions Mayor Mullet called thc meeting to order, welcomed everyone, and asked people to introduce themselves. Public Comment There was no public comment. Election of Forum Vice-Chair Mayor Mullet stated that the Management Committee recommended that Rebecca Clark, Councilmember of the City of Covington, be elected Forum Vice-Chair. .4ction Item: The motion elect Rebecca Clark Forum Vice-Chair to was approved by consensus. Meeting Summary IAction Itetn: The motion to approve the May 16 meeting summary as written was approved by- consensus. WRIA 9 ILA Amendment Update Doug Osterman provided an update on the status of the ILA Amendment. The Management Committee had asked member jurisdictions to approve the Amendment by August 1. The City of Seattle has already approved it. The Cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila are scheduled to approve it by August 1, the City of Normandy Park on August 6, and the City of Burien on August 12. Rebecca Clark added that Covington had approved the amendments the previous evening. Doug urged Forum representatives to contact him with any questions or concerns, and asked members to indicate when they would consider the Amendment for approval. Stephen Lamphear stated that the Amendments had met with some resistance in BUrien. Paul Bucich noted that the letters that accompany the Amendment reflect the change in King County's weighted vote due to the inclusion of Vashon and Maury Islands, but the amendment language does not. Doug said that this issue is made explicit in the table in Exhibit lA, which would be a legal part of the amended ILA. Laure Iddings asked why Vashon is changing WRIAs. Doug responded that it is because King County has a strong interest in ensuring that salmonid habitat on Vashon is protected, and Green River chinook likely use nearshore habitat on Vashon. Because Kitsap County does not have chinook salmon, it is unlikely that WRIA 15 would take the same measures to protect salmonid habitat on Vashon that WRIA 9 would. Paul Bucich asked whether there were any remaining issues that may prevent Vashon from joining WRIA 9. Doug said that the two counties need to work out an ILA, and then bring it before WDFW, which manages the Lead Entity grants. However, King County is committed to contributing the cost-share for Vashon no matter what. July 18, 2001 WRIA 9 Forum Meeting Draft Summary Page 2 Laure Iddings asked whether a seat would be. added to. the Steering Committ6e for. Vashon. Doug said perhaps, if an interest or eiti.zen group'w.o.u, ld. like one and the ForUm approved it. The King · Co.unty representative on the Steering.Committee already represents Vashori's municipal interests. Paul Bucich noted that the letters accompanying the amendments state that Tacoma's cost-share' percentag{~ would be renegotiated every year, but the 2002 budget is based upon $24,500. Rebecca Clark said that the Management Committee plans to work with Tacoma on the cost- share by December, but hadn't decided if any funding over $24,500 would go into the contingency fund or decrease the other jurisdictions' cost-shares. Jesse Tanner stated that Tacoma should not be given any more voting power per dollar than any other city. 2002 Budget Mayor Mullet opened the discussion by describing the proposed 2002 WRIA 9 budget. He stated that the Management Committee recommended that the cost-shares remain the same for the cities, and to put the extra funding from the additions of Vashon and Tacoma in the contingency fund. Also, there is $85,000 in KCD funds that need to be reallocated. At the Management Committee meeting, there were concerns about a lack of coordination of the planning with the technical assessment work. Me,an Smith, representing the ILA Service Provider, said that the original 2001 budget didn't differentiate between staffing and operating costs. She noted that King County made a presentation to the WRIA 9 Management Committee clarifying the 2001 operating costs, and that this information also was sent to Forum members by email. The materials describing the 2002 budget proposal present it in the context of the Lead Entity grant and KCD. The $433,328 budget for staff is the worst case scenario, and includes a cost-of-living increase, merit increases, and a one-time classification adjustment. If not all of that money is needed, the third quarter bills in 2002 will be lower. The $27,500 in operating costs includes motor pool charges, printing, graphics, supplies, and training costs. The $46,000 in contingency fund is carry-over fi:om 2001 and unalloeated funds from 2002. Megan next described the Lead Entity grant. It includes $35,000 for staffing for the SRFB grant process and limited technical review; $32,500 for developing a database of projects in the WRIA, and $2,500 in operating costs. Megan said that the relationship between the Lead Entity grant and the ILA Early Action Coordinator is that the Lead Entity grant pays for staff to do the administrative work on the SRFB process, while the ILA pays for an Early Action Coordinator to perform coordination and oversight tasks. The $85,000 in KCD funds needs to be reallocated because it was originally for the project coordinator staffposition that is now covered by the ILA. Laure Iddings asked if salaries had been overestimated in 2001. Megan responded that each of the salaries had been calculated at the top of the salary range for the position, but that not all of the ILA employees actually are paid at that level. Also, the salaries listed for 2001 include operating costs. Richard Conlin stated that he appreciated Doug Osterman's commitment to looking at ways to provide technical support. Doug presented an option for providing this support for the immediate future: · From August 1 to November 1, use a portion of Laura Blackmore's time for technical support. Laura is a logical choice because she already is involved in working with the WRIA 9 Technical Committee and has a scientific background. July 18, 2001 WRIA 9 Forum Meeting Draft Summary Page 3 · 'However, Laura is the Nearshore Coordinator. During this time she would not be able tO spend quite .as mueli time on nearshore issues. Also, her work on the Near- Term Action Agenda would be curtailed. · Linda Hanson would pick up the work on the Near-Term Action Agenda and reduce her support of the Salmon Recovery Funding Board process. Richard Conlin noted that there are not as many meetings in August, so that should free up some time. Doug said yes, and that Laura would still be the key staff person working with the nearshore cities on the Near-Term Action Agenda and other issues. For next year, Doug said that he would work with staff to identify technical support tasks for 2002. The Forum could consider using some KCD funds to pay for that. Joe Brennan stated that he thought it was wise to allow Doug to make adjustments to staff assignments as needed, staying within the budget. Mayor Booth said that he didn't want to do anything to damage the nearshore process, and asked whether it was necessary to reallocate the $85,000 in KCD dollars that day. Doug said that it wasn't necessary, and that he planned to work with staff on KCD o. ptions in July and August and come back to the Forum with specifics in September. Judith Noble asked whether Mayor Mullet was asking for approval on the amount of the budget, or also the work program. Mayor Mullet responded that it was the former. Megan Smith added that although the focus now is on total budget rather than on the details of the work program, King County as the Service Provider still needs some certainty in terms of which staffwill be assigned to provide cost-shared services. King County is trying to be responsive to requests for a "firewall" between King County staffand ILA staff. Therefore, it needs to be able to tell staff whether they will be part of the "ILA Team" or not. Mayor Mullet noted that he's assuming that there is flexibility to shift assignments among the staff shown in the budget, but that he doesn't anticipate moving the staff in or out of the ILA Team. Mayor Mullet noted that the Management Committee felt that the cost-shares could be handled by the cities this year, and that any extra money should go into the contingency fund rather than decrease jurisdictions' cost-shares. The Forum would make any decisions on how to spend the contingency fund. Mayor Tanner stated that he would cause a ruckus next year if the Service Provider asks the Forum to pay for 10% raises for the ILA staff again. Mayor Mullet responded that if the County can't provide staff at the rates that the Forum expects, the Forum will find someone else to be the Service Provider. Action Item: A motion to approve the 2002 budget was approved by consensus. Ecosystem Restoration Project Mayor Mullet opened this discussion by noting that the ILA has melded the nearshore and freshwater jurisdictions into one WRIA. Now the WRIA needs to determine how to fund projects. He asked for a philosophical discussion of this topic, and said that the Management Committee felt that all jurisdictions should contribute to project funding regardless of where the projects are. The Forum could choose to use KCD funding to ease the burden this might place on smaller cities. Mayor Mullet promoted a philosophy of"all for one and one for all," saying that the purpose of the WRIA process is to protect salmonids. Jul.}, 18, 2001 WRIA 9 Forum Meeting Draft Sutnmary Page 4 · Linda Hanson described the Ecosystem Restoration Project, which began four years ago as th~ Ecosystem Restoration Study. The ERS specified limiting factors for the Green River and identified projects to address them.. The federal government authorized $75 million for. approximately 45 restoration projects throughout the watershed to be done over the next 10 years. The next phase of the overall program is called the Ecosystem Restoration Project, or ERP. The first step in the ERP is the Pre-Construction Engineering and Design phase, or PED, in which the projects chosen for construction will be designed and permitted. Some construction may begin as soon as 2002 The cost of the PED Phase is $3 million dollars with a local cost-share of 25%, or $750,000 over four years. Linda presented three proposals to the Forum: · King County should act as the umbrella local sponsor for the PED phase. The County has acted in this capacity during previous phases of the project, but has not yet agreed to do this for the PED phase. · The Forum should use some of its KCD funding to reduce the local share. · All cities of the Forum should participate in cost-sharing the local match. Most of the projects are in the Green-Duwamish, but several are system-wide, including some studies. As the Nearshore GI moves forward, the Green-Duwamish cities could participate in the cost- share for that. Linda asked the citie~ to give their staffa pat on the back for moving this very complex project forward. She also noted two changes in the materials since the last time jurisdictions saw them: the Lower/Upper Springbrook project expanded to include Garrison Creel and the cost of the studies decreased slightly. Jay Covington reiterated that the Management Committee felt that this should be a WRIA-wide project, and that they are looking forward to funding nearshore projects when they are proposed. Mayor Mullet and Richard Conlin stated that Seattle was committed to participating but would need to do some shuffling in their internal budget to do so. The Forum discussed the costs of the construction phase. Much of the local match should come from real estate, but Laure Iddings noted that individual jurisdictions' CIPs might be compromised if they contribute to the ERP over so many years. Jesse Tanner recommended using SRFB funds where possible for the local match. Linda Hanson said that the SRFB already had provided funds to purchase Site 1, Kanasket, Big Spring Creek, Metzler Park, and other WRIA 9 projects. Jay Covington asked if the Corps imposed a timeline on construction. Noel said that they were planning on three phases over ten years, and that we are embarking on Phase I. Ron Straka asked if the federal government had approved money for construction yet. Noel said that they hadn't. Howard Botts asked if the WRIA were fairly sure that the work would make a demonstrable impact. Doug said that the various technical documents, including the Environmental Impact Statement and Biological Assessment, had indicated that it would. Linda noted that new agreements with the Corps would be necessary before any construction begins. Noel said that there are a tremendous number of back-out clauses built into the program. Ron Straka stated that the PED phase, which is what is before us now, will give us a better idea of the program costs before anyone agrees to fund construction. July 18, 2001 WRIA 9 Forum Meeting Draft Summary Page 5 John Wiltse asked if participating in the ERP would provide coverage under the 4(d) rule. Mayor Mullet responded that if a city is doin'g good things, then it could use tha.t as proof of its goodwill. It gives the city the moral and legal high ground, but nothing can stop anyone from suing a city. Doug noted that the 4(d) rule might include WRIA planning, as a plank. Bill Wolinski said that representatives from NMFS and USFWS have participated in the ERP to date. Stephen Lamphear said that the materials explaining the proposal Were too unwieldy for him to take to his Council, and that he wasn't sure that his Council would support the proposal. They would see it as a charge for the ILA, plus a new charge. Burien is facing a $500,000 shortfall in their budget next year, so it is unlikely they could find the funds for the ERP. Stephen said he could not see a nearshore component to the ERP at all. His concern is that it is a river program, and it needs to be more than that. Linda Hanson promised to provide a more concise package of materials for jurisdictions. Mayor Mullet said that he thought that all of the jurisdictions should stick together, and that the river cities are willing to use funding to help the nearshore develop programs such as the ERP. In the meantime, he hoped that the nearshore cities would help the river cities construct their projects. Paul Bucich said that the benefits of the ERP are that it would'move us closer to the eventual de- listing of the salmon, and that Federal Way expects help from the river cities when nearshore projects come forward. Federal Way is looking at the long-term benefits. Joe Brennan noted that SeaTac has no salmon, no river, and no marine shoreline, so there is no physical benefit to the city from most of WRIA planning. But ESA affects all of us, and it behooves all of us to act. However, we do need to be able to sell the benefits to the region. Stephen Lamphear said that he agreed, and that he wasn't advocating not working together. However, Burien's council may have another view. Rebecca Clark said that the streams and river need the nearshore, and vice versa. Selling the ERP will be a tough creek to row in Covington, but she believes that someday there will be projects in Covington and she wants to help the region. Mayor Booth reminded the group that during the development of the ILA, there was some discussion of capping the contributions of smaller cities that could not afford it. Mayor Mullet suggested using KCD dollars toward city shares. Jesse Tanner said that the ILA specifies a ratio and provides an out for cities that can't pay. He said that the Forum couldn't modify payments without an amendment. Doug Osterman said that the Forum could allocate KCD dollars to pick up the tab for small cities. Jay Covington observed that if the Forum used KCD dollars to reduce the local match in future years, city contributions would be much smaller. Mayor Iddings asked why the Forum was going through this process if the money was not yet certain for construction. Noel said that the region needs to show Congress support for the project in order for them to allocate construction funding. Action Itetn: A motion to approve King County as the umbrella local sponsor, to approve the project list for Phase I, and to sham the cost of the PED Phase of the ERP among all cities in the WRIA was approved by majority vote, Maple Valley dissenting. July 18, 2001 WRIst 9 Forum Meeting Draft Sutnmary Page 6 'Mayor Mullet noted that the Forum would 10ok for ways to help cities with their cost-shares and ~would improve the package of materials for presentations to councils. WRIA 9 King.Conservation District Funding In the few minutes remaining, John Wiltse suggested acting on the KCD briefing materials prepared by the ILA staff. Action Iton: A motion to approve the Management Committee's recommendation for splitting the KCD funding among types of projects was approved by consensus as working guidance. The types of projects, percentages, and approximate funding amounts were as follows: Category Percentage Approximate Funding Amount General Grant Match 40% $240,000 Ecosystem Restoration Project Match 17% $102,000 High Priority Research 30-35% $180,000 to $210,000 Education and Stewardship 8-12% $48,000 to $72,000 Forum staff will develop specific proposals for the Forum's consideration in September. Next Meeting The next meeting of the WRIA 9 Forum is tentatively scheduled for September 19. The location of the meeting is to be determined. The meeting was adjourned at 5:39 PM. July 18, 2001 WRIA 9 Forum Meeting Draft Summary Page 7 · W.RIA 9 FORUM DRAFT SUMMARY 3:30-5:30 pm November 14, 2001 Tukwila Community Center ATTENDEES Name Affiliation Charles Booth Rebecca Clark Dennis Dowdy Tim Clark Laure Iddings Stephen Lamphear Steve Mullet Judith Noble Joanna Richey Chris Searcy Ron Straka Maureen Welch Noel Gilbrough Fred Goetz Tim Smith Laura Blackmore Linda Hanson Doug Osterman City of Auburn City of Covington City of Auburn City of Kent City of Maple Valley City of Burien City of Tukwila City of Seattle ILA Service Provider City of Enumclaw City of Renton King County US Army Corps of Engineers US Army Corps of Engineers Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife WRIA 9 Nearshore Sub-Forum Coordinator WRIA 9 Projects Coordinator WRIA 9 Watershed Coordinator Welcome and Introductions Mayor Mullet called the meeting to order, welcomed everyone, and asked people to introduce themselves. Public Comment The WRiA 9 Forum presented Mayor Chuck Booth with a cake and gifts to thank him for his untiring service to the watershed and to wish him well upon his retirement. Mayor Mullet read letters from Mayors Booth and Tanner of Auburn and Renton, respectively, indicating that Dennis Dowdy is the alternate representative for the City of Auburn, and Ron Stmka is the alternate representative for Renton, for this meeting only. November 14, 2001 WR[A 9 Forum Meeting Draft Summary ' Page 1 Meetin~ Summary I Action Item: The motion to approve the September 19 meeting summary as writte, n was approyed I consensus. WRIA 9 ILA Amendment Update Doug Osterman announced that the amendment to the ILA is now official. As a result, the City of Tacoma is indicating that it will work to become a member of the WRIA 9 Forum in early 2002, and King County will make an additional financial contribution for WRIA planning for Vashon/Maury Island inclusion in WRIA 9. Doug noted that the Watershed Coordination Services Staff will work with the City of Black Diamond to facilitate adoption of the amended ILA, and to obtain funding for their percentage of the cost-sharing agreement. WRIA 9 Forum Resolution ~At its September 2001 meeting, the Forum approved a resolution, with changes, that established the Forum's support for participating in the advanced planning phase, or pre-construction engineering and design, of the Ecosystem Restoration Project, including cost-sharing of the local funding match. The Forum referred the resolution back to the Management Committee for additional review to ensure that concerns expressed about the annual role of King Conservation District and other funding contributions were addressed adequately. The Management Committee recommends additional changes to the resolution that clarify the following: · Cost shares are to be determined in a manner consistent with the cost-share formula of the WRIA 9 Inteflocal Agreement, minus any King Conservation District or other funds the Forum designates from grant funding. (Revised Section III) · The Forum will determine the funding collection procedure annually, including consideration of using regional King Conservation District funds, city or county funds, or other contributed funds. (New Section IV) Laure Iddings asked whether the resolution amended the [LA. Mayor Mullet said no. She asked whether it committed ILA partners to project construction. Doug said it did not. He said the resolution is a mechanism for using the [LA to support the ERP advanced planning phase, known as Pre-Construction Engineering and Design. Doug further explained that the resolution provides for individual city council approval, and Forum support of ERP funding. The resolution does not commit anyone to construction of the projects. Stephen Lamphear asked if an attorney had reviewed the resolution. Linda Hanson said that the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office had reviewed it. Action Item: The motion to approve the WRIA 9 Forum Resolution as recommended by the Management Committee was approved by consensus. Tacoma Cost-Share Doug noted that the Tacoma cost-share for the [LA needs to be negotiated annually because the ILA cost-share formula does not work for Tacoma. The 2002 WRIA 9 [LA budget assumes that Tacoma's cost-share will be $24,500, which gives Tacoma a weighted vote of about five percent. Tacoma is comfortable with this amount, and the Management Committee recommends that the Forum approve a $24,500 cost-share for 2002. November 14, 2001 WRIA 9 Forum Meeting Draft Summary Page 2 Chris Seamy asked whether Tacoma's cost share decreases other jurisdictions' cost-shares. Doug said that it does not effect other cost shales because the Tacoma cost share is ntt factored into the formulh for d~tennining each cost share. The budget that is' co~t-shared, as determined by the ILA cost-share formula, is $445,551. Tacoma's contribution is on top of that for a total 2002 ILA planning budget of $470,051. Action Item: A motion to approve the $24,500 cost-share for Tacoma was approved by consensus. WRIA 9 King Conservation District Funding Doug Osterman highlighted provisions of the proposed 2002 KCD Budget and Work Program as recommended by the Management Committee. The Management Committee recommends that the Forum approve the 2002 KCD Budget and Work Program, and the following two Policies: · Establish a minimum local match of 10% for the grant match category. · Create a uniform and streamlined process for evaluating and screening projects in each category. In the grant match, education and stewardship, and small cities technical assistance categories, that process could take the form of letters of request to the Forum Chair and Watershed Coordinator. The Forum Chair and Watershed Coordinator would use their discretion to screen these requests, and bring promising projects to the full Forum for the final decision. Following the presentation, Dennis Dowdy asked where non-profits could fred match money. Mayor Mullet responded that finding match funding was the responsibility of the project sponsor, and that having a match requirement would encourage well thought-out projects. Stephen Lamphear said that he would like to receive information on all funding requests, not only the ones that are recommended for funding. He agreed that the Chair and Coordinator should still screen and recommend the projects, but he felt they should bring all the projects to the Forum, not just the recommended ones. Mayor Mullet stated that screening criteria need to be developed. Rebecca Clark suggested having the Management Committee draft criteria to be ratified by the Forum. She agreed that all projects should come to the Forum along with the Chair and Coordinator's recommendation. Maurecn Welch supported that idea as well, and suggested keeping the criteria simple, perhaps as few as 3 or 4 "screening" criteria. Laure Iddings noted that small requests make up 50 percent of the KCD budget, and suggested changing the percentages allocated to types of funding requests (such as research) to reflect the watershed's priorities, especially the Ecosystem Restoration Project. Judith Noble stated that it might be preferable not to focus on the percentages. The relatively small percentage of KCD funding allocated to the Ecosystem Restoration Project leverages a tremendous amount of federal funding. Since the Forum was able to provide all of the local match using only 26 percent of the available funds, it does not make sense to allocate more to the project. The Forum should revisit the percentage next year, because a different percentage may be necessary to provide 100 percent of the local match. Laure said that in that case, we should drop the percentages and concentrate on content. November 14, 2001 WRIA 9 Forum Meeting Draft Summary Page 3 Stephen Lamphear s~id that he would rather see policy statements. If the..Forum% intent is to fund the local match for the Ecosystem Restoration Project fully, then that should.be stated: The 'Forum shguld create language reflecting the other categories as well. Such policy statements could be changed in future years if they no longer serve the Forum well: Laure Iddings stated that if the Ecosystem Restoration Project is the Forum's priority, then the Forum should commit to funding the local match at 100 percent. Maple Valley will not have the funding to provide local match in the future. Maureen Welch said that the Forum should look at KCD funding together with ILA funding so that the Forum can see the total picture. The County would like to see a discussion of the use of KCD funds for local match dollars that jurisdictions previously committed to providing. Judith Noble suggested developing draft KCD policies as part of the 2003 budgeting process. Mayor Mullet agreed to this suggestion. Stephen Lamphear said that policies would help guide grant decisions and budget priorities. Action Item: A motion to approve the 2002 KCD Budget, Work Program, and policies as recommended by the Management Committee was approved by consensus. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration project Presentation Tim Smith of the Washington Depax~inent ofFish and Wildlife and Fred Goetz of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave the Forum a presentation about the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP). The Forum allocated $50,000 in KCD funds (as part of the 2002 KCD Budget) to support this project, which will develop lists of habitat restoration projects for the nearshore. For copies of this presentation please contact Tim Smith at smithtrs~dfw.wa.gov. At the conclusion of the presentation, Ron Straka asked how the WRIA would provide input to the project. Tim said that WDFW would enter into an Inter-Agency agreement with the Forum so that the Forum would know exactly how the KCD funds would be spent. WDFW, as local sponsor, will strive to have frequent communication with stakeholders such as WRIA 9, and the Forum would have the opportunity to send a liaison to the projects' Steering Committee. Noel Gilbrough noted that the budget for PSNERP (about $12 million over six years) is ten times that of the Ecosystem Restoration Project, and is a very big effort. Fred Goetz commented that local jurisdictions are doing so much in the nearshore that could be counted as in-kind match that the federal share may end up increasing. Linda Hanson said that the focus of the Ecosystem Restoration Project was fish and wildlife, and asked what the focus of the PSNERP would be. Fred answered that PSNERP had to focus so that the project would not fail, and that the focus would be on salmon and forage fish. However, these species have many linkages to the rest of the ecosystem. The project will address only the nearshore, and only habitat issues. Judith Noble asked if the PSNERP Steering Committee and Technical Committee meetings were open to the public. Tim Smith said they were, and invited Forum members to email him to get put on the appropriate email lists. Tim and Fred thanked the Forum for their support of this project, and offered to report back to the Forum at any time. November 14, 2001 WRIA 9 Forum Meeting Draft Summary Page 4 Next Meeting" The next me~ting of the WRIA 9 Forum is ~entatively icheduled for January 23, 2002. The · location of the meeting is to be determined, but will likely be at the Tukwila Community Center. The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 PM. November 14, 2001 WRIA 9 Forum Meeting Draft Summary Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-2 A RESOLUTION memorializing the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Forum's participation in and cost sharing for local sponsorship for advanced plannlnE as stipulated by the Design Agreement for the Grcen/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Pwject, to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and King County ("Design Agreement"). WHERF.&$ thc cities of WRIA 9 and King County havc organized themselves into a representative organization called thc WRIA 9 Forum; and WHEREAS the cities of WRIA 9 and King County have entered into an Interlocal Agreement, executed on January 9, 2001, for watershed-based plannlnl~ a~ion as a key component of the local and regional Endangered Spoci~ Act (ESA) response and compliance strategy;, and WHEREAS the Intcrlocal Agreement executed January 9, 2001, has been amended as of October 25, 2001; and WHEREAS the Interlocal Agreement provides a mechanism for the implementation of habitat, water quality, and flood projects with regional, state, federal and nonprofit funds as they become available; and WHEREAS advanced pla*~nlnE as descn'bed in the Design Agreement provides for pre-construction engineering, design and studies to be completed by 2005 for a total cost estimated at $3 million with a ' local cost share of 25% of the total amount; and WHEREAS it is understood that future construction of projects as determined through advanced plannln$ will begin as early as 2002, depending upon the availability of federal funds; and WHEREAS representatives of thc cities of WRIA 9 and King County have agreed through thc WRIA 9 Forum to andorse and to financially support the advanced p!,m~i,~g work provided for in the Design Agreement; and WHEREA~ representatives of cities participa~g in the WRIA 9 Forum and King County will ~asmit to their respective councils for approval financial support of the advanced planning work provided for in the Design Agreement according to cost share formula as designated through the Interlocal Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RF_~OLVED; That the WRIA 9 Forum approves a~.d supports the ac~vi~ies provided for in the Design Agreement for advanced planning work for the Oreen/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project, to be executed by the U.~. Army Corps of Engineers and King County, as meeting one of the objectives for which the WRIA 9 Interlocal Agreement, executed on January 9, 2001, was entered ~nto. II. That the WRIA 9 Forum supports and approves the designation of King County to act as the fiscal agent for and local sponsor under the Design Agreement. HI. That the WRIA 9 Forum recommends that each council consider the approval of the collection of funds from the jurisdictions represented in the WRIA 9 Forum for the purposes of meeting the financial obligations of the local cost share for advanced planning under the Design Agreement, and dism'butiun of funds to King County, in accordance with the cost shares provided for in the Inter. local Agreement, less KCD or other such funds the Forum designates from grant funding. IV. The WRIA 9 Forum will annually determine the funding collection based on the attachment Al of the ILA planning cost share formula, and will consider using regional King Conservation District funds, individual city or county funds, or other con~n'unted funds. Any financial obligations ~.~ochted with advanced ph,~i,~g will be included in the WRIA 9 Forum budget, and will be at~mlni~tered followizlg ge~tion ? orthe lnterlocal Agreement for the Watershed Basins within Water Resource Inventory Area 9. Vo That Stevcn M. Mullet, WRIA 9 Forum Chairman, is hereby duly authorized to act on behalf of the WRIA 9 Forum indicating its support of the actions d~cribed above. This resolution has been approved by those WRIA 9 Forum members present on the 14~ day November, 2001. Steven M. Mullet, . WRIA 9 Forum Chairman Attest: · WRIA 9 Planning (+3%) and Advanced Planning (PED): Cost Sharing 2002-2005 For WRIA 9 Management Committee Review & Discussion Only. Do Not Distribute. WRIA 9 Plannln.c DRA!-.'.T Average of Pop/AVl WRIA 09 Area 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total I Ngona 0.1% $387 $398 $410 $423 2 NJbum 4.6~ $20.680 S21,198 $21,834 $22,489 3 Black Diamond 1.0~ $4,410 $4,543 $4,679 $4.819 $18.451 4 Buden 4.0~ $17,860 $18.396 $18.948 $19.516 $74.720 5 Covlngto~ 1.9% $8.347 $8.597 $8,855 $9.121 $34.920 6 Des Mothes 3.0~ $13,245 $13.643 $14,052 $14.474 $55.414 7 Enumclaw 0.9~ $4,034 $4,155 $4.280 $4.408 $16.876 8 Federal Way 2.3% $10,106 $10,40~ $10,721 $11,043 $42.280 g Kent 11.9% $53,237 $54,834 $56,479 $58.173 $222.723 10 KJng County (1) 37.7% $168,055 $173,097 $178.289 $183.638 $703.079 11 Maple Va-lay 1.6~ $6,945 $7,163 $7,368 $7,589 $29.055 12 Normandy Park 1.1% $4,884: $5,030 $5.181 $5.337 $20.432 13 Rento~ 8.0~ $13,165: $13.560 $13,967 $14.386 $55.079 14 SeaTac 4.4% $19.65S $26,177 $20,782 $21.405 $81.953 15 ~ Seaffie 18.8% $63.553 $86.059 $88.641 $91.300 $34g.554 16 Tukwila 3.8% $17,154 $17,668 $18.198 $18.744 $71.764 ........... 100.0% $445~551 $445~651 $445~551 $445~551 $1.864,019 (1) King County includes Vashon and Maur f Islands and excludes the Upper Green River Basin Tacoma ;~4.500 $24.500 $24.500 $24.500 $98~000 Annual Total $470,05t $470,051 $470,051 $470,051 $1,880,204 WRIA 9 ILA Advanced Planning (PED)' Federal Dollars Lavaraged: $3.000.00~ Local Match: $750.00~ (A) (B)=(A)*$204,000 [C)=(A)*$240.000 (D)=(A)*188.000 (E)=(A)*$Te.000 (F)=(A}'$750.000 Average of Total Pop/AV / Portion of WRIA 09 Area 2002 2003 2004 2005 Local Share I Algona ' 0.1% $204 $280 . $188 $7~ $750 2 Auburn 4.8% $9,812 $13,46~ $9.043 $3,752 $36.075 3 Black Diamond 1.1% $2.244 $3.080 $2,068 $858 $8.250 4 Burisn 4;2% $8.568 $11,76C $7.896 $3.276 $31.500 5 Covington 2.0% $4,080 $5,60~ $3.760 $1,560 $15.000 6 Des Moines 3.5% $7,140 $9.80~ $6.580 $2,730 $2~ ~c,0 7 Enumclaw 0.9% $1,836 $2,52(] $1,692 $702 8 Federal Way .2.4% $4.898 $6,72(] $4,512 $1,872 $. J 9 Kent 12.5% $25,551 $35,07(] $23,547 $9.770 $93.938 10 Kthg County 34.0% $69.291 $95,105 $63,856 $26,493 $254.745 11 Maple Valley 1.6%, $3.264 $4,48~ $3,008 $1.248 $12,000 12 Normandy Park 1.2% $2,448 $3.360 $2,268 $936 $9.000 13 Renton 3.1~ $6,324 $8,68~ $5,828 $2,418 $23.250 14 SesTac 4.7~ $9.608 $13,188 $8,855 $3.674 $35.325 15 Seaffie 1g.8~ $40,474 $55,652 $37,299 $15,475 $148.800 16 Tukwlla 4.0~ $8,160 $11,200 $7,520 $3,120 $30.000 100.0~ $294~000 $280~000 $188r000 $78r000 $750,000 WIJA 9 ILA Combined Planning and Advanced Planning PED) WRIA 0g 2982 2003 2004 200~ Grand Total tiNgona $691 $678 $598 $601i ' $2,368 2; Auburn $30,393 $34,668 $30,876 $26,240! $122,175 .3 Black Diamond $6,654 $7,623 $6,747 $65.677! $26,701 4 Buden $2'6.4~ $:30,166 $26,844 $22.792 $168.220 5 Cov~ $12,427 $14.197: $12.615 $10,681' $49.920 6 Des Moln~ $26,38~ $23.443 $20,632 $17~)4 $61,664 7 Enumctaw $6,87~ $6,675; $5,972 $6.110i $23,626 8 Federal Way $15,002 $17,12~ $15A33 $12,915 $68,280 9 Kent S78.78~ ~$~'q08~1 i $80.026 $67.943 S316.680 10 King County $237.34, $242,1, $210.13, ,g57.624 1113MapieVallay $10.209 $11.633! $10.376 $6,837 $41.055 12 Normandy Park $7,332 $8,39~ $7,437 $6.273 $29,432 Renton $1 g.48g $22,24C $19,795 $16.804 $78.329 14 SeaTac $29,197 $33.36~ $29,637 $25.07i; $117,278 1~ Seattle $124,026 $141,611 $t25,940 $106.776 $498,354 1~ Tukwlla $25,314 $2.8,86~ $25,718 $21,864 $101,764 $649r45t $738~78~] $660~593 $684~627 $2r613~652 WRIA 9 Combined Cost Shmes3~b 1117/2002 DRAFT. WRIA 9 Ecosystem Restoration Project Locations Location Map (1) (em Nearshore General Investigation Study Area (Puget Sound-wide) Proposed Ecosystem Restoration Project Site Phase I Construction Site Salmon Recovery Planning Area Major Road River Open Water Incorporated Area Programatic or basinwide projects not shown on map · In-Stream Woody Debris Placement · Gravel Replacement · Mainstem Maintenance 0 · Volunteer Revegetation A~.,~ 2001 KING COUNTY Illustration produced by:, GIS and Visual Communic&tlon$ Unit Water & Land Resources Division 0108WRIAgSalesSheet 8ackal MO, WGC, MD,$K .... ". RIA 9 cosyste estoration Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 is an extremely productive place for fish and wildlife habitat. Tens of thousands of _ salmon and trout convene in Elliott Bay and migrate up the river every year to spawn and rear, using miles of habitat on the mainstem, tributaries and the saltwater shoreline at different times during their various lifestages. In 1995, the US Congress authorized a study to ensure that the Green/Duwamish ecosystem would be protected and restored. In 1999, Congress authorized similar work for the WRIA 9 Nearshore Area. In January 2001, local governments adopted a Watershed Planning InterloCal Agreement that joins the interests of the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds. Under this ' governance structure, the Ecosystem Restoration effort includes two elements: (1) The Pre-Construction Engineering and Design phase for the construction of rtverine projects is being initiated; and (2) a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project, for which a General Investigation Study for nearshore projects is currently moving into a feasibility phase. How We Got Here... Green/0uwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project A. Reconnaissance Study-1995 to 1997 Cost: $450,000 (100% Federal) Outcome: Recommended Feasibility Study of over 50 sites basin wide · Cooperative agreements between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and local jurisdictions · Development of Local ILA to cover cost of Feasibility Study B. Feasibility Study-1997 to 2000 Cost: $1,500,000 (50% federal and 50% local) Outcome: Feasibility Study and conceptual deslgns for future construction of 45 recommended sites over 10 years · Cost $113 million:65% federal share, 35% local share, (335 million real estate, $5 million cash) · Authorized by the Water Resource Development Act of 2000 · Approved Programmatic ElS and Biological Assessment Nearsh0re General Investigation Study Reconnaissance Study- 2000 Cost: $100,000 (100% federal) Outcome: Recommended Feasibility Study of Puget Sound Current Activities A. Nearshore Feasibility Study, Phase I - 2001 to 2003 Cost: 1.$ million (50% federal share, 25% Salmon Recovery Funding Board ((SRFB)) share, 25% state and local share, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will act as local sponsor) Outcomes: · Umiting factors analysis · Early actlon project proposals B. Green/DuWamish Design Agreement-2002 to 2005 Cost: $3 million (75% federal share, 25% local share) Outcome: · Completion of design and englneedng for 20 sites ready to build ( $1,800,000) · Studies necessary for construction of 20 sites ($1,200,000) Future... A. Green/Duwamish Phase I Construction-2OO2 to 2005 Cost: $39,000,000( 65% federal share, 35% local share, $12,000,000 real estate, $2,000,000 cash) 2002: $1,000,000 requested for new construction start on 3 sites 2002 to 2005:$38,000,000 In construction on 17 sites B. Green/Duwamish phase 2 and 3 -2005 to 2012 Remainder of 25 sites constructed. C. Nearshore Design and Construction Cost and Schedule: To be determined in Nearshore Feasibility Study. Available for Other Projects in WRIA 9 Section 1135 or 206 programs and the Puget Sound Restoration Initiative through U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ~ US Army Corps ..........',', : .* , of Engineerse