The URL can be used to link to this page

LUTC PKT 08-21-2006 ------------ ---------- ---------------------- City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee August 21 St, 2006 City Hall 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 7th, 2006 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. P AA Update - Stone Creek and Von Doenhoff Information 5 min / McClung B. 2007 Arterial Street Landscaping Maintenance Services - Action 5 min / Salloum Authorization to Bid C. 2007 Street Sweeping Services - Authorization to bid Action 5 min / Salloum D. Pacific Highway South - Northbound Left Turn Lanes at S Action 5 mini Salloum 316th Streets - Bid A ward E. East Branch Lakota Creek Action 5 min / Bucich F. Mower Bid Award Action 10 min / Bucich G. Lake Jeane - 50% Design Approval Action 5 min / Bucich H. WRIA 9 ILA Action 15 min / Bucich 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS 6. ADJOURN Committee Members City Staff Jack Dovey, Chair Cary M Roe, P.E., Public Works Director Eric Faison Marianne Lee, Administrative Assistant Dean McColgan 253-835-2701 G_- 'ILCT{('\].Cff(: Agendas and Summaries 2006\08-2/-06 LCfT<: Agenda. doc " City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee August 7th, 2006 City Hall 5:30 pm City Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee Chair Jack Dovey; Council Member Linda Kochmar; Committee Member Dean McColgan; Mayor Mike Park; Council Member Jeanne Burbidge, Community Development Director Kathy McClung; Associate Planner Isaac Conlen; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Streets Project Engineer Al Emter; City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Deputy City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Administrative Assistant II Marianne Lee; City Manager Neal Beets 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:33 pm. Council Member Eric Faison was excused. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The July 17th 2006, minutes were approved. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Art Felzenberg; 31318 36th Ave SW - Re: 31lh Thru Way. He spoke against opening the gate and allowing traffic through their area. Chair Dovey asked which gate he was referring to. Mr. Felzenberg said he meant the crash gate at 36th Avenue, right by Bayview Estates and Twin Lakes. Morel Guyot; 31228 36th Ave SW - Re: 31lh Thru Way. He purchased his property in 1989. At the time he was advised that the gate was there as a crash gate for emergency vehicles to come through; it was never to be opened otherwise. He understands that any development is supposed to have two entry or exits. Why can't they just put a U-shaped road in their development to take care of this problem? Teri Jones; 31503 36th Ave SW - Re: 31lh Thru Way. She opposes opening the crash gate, if that's the intent. She would like to know if there is an agreement by previously seated Council Members to complete roads when there is a crash gate. Apparently there was a plan initiated and submitted by the developer with two entries that was resubmitted with one. Chair Dovey made a statement to those that came forward to testifY about the Bayview crash gate and the connectivity of the road that has been talked about by the Twin Lakes Homeowners Association. He said that on September 1/h , at the Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting, there will be a presentation by staff regarding land use and connectivity of roads. The project people are talking about has not yet come to our city. Staffwill be talking about the basics: the comprehensive plan, how connectivity works; the Council will be briefed. Kathy McClung said that at this point the City has not received an application from the developer. The City has had preliminary discussions with them and anticipates that an application will be submitted but does not have one at this time. Ms. McClung said she has committed to the homeowners association that as soon as the application comes in she will let them know bye-mail that staff have received it and then will start the formal public process. The discussion Council Member Dovey is talking about [on Sept. 1/"} is a policy discussion related to the policy which would require a connected road and which can be changed by the City Council. It is not specific to this plat discussion; that will happen later. G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\08-07-06 LUTC Minutes - FINAL. doc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 June 19th, 2006 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. 21 st Ave SW Extension - SW 356th St to nod Ave SW - Improvements Proiect - 100% Design Status Report Marwan Salloum provided the background information on this item. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Conmrittee PASSED Option 1 on to the Sept 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. B. Setting a Public Hearing Date for the Street Vacation of Campus Highlands Divisions 1. 3. & 5 Marwan Salloum provided the background information on this item. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the Sept 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. C. S 320th St at 1st Ave S Intersection Improvement Project - 100% Design Status Report Marwan Salloum provided the background information on this item. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 2 on to the Sept 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. Council Member McColgan asked why the City should acquire the property and then shelve the project. Mr. Salloum responded that the project available budget has adequate funding at the present time to acquire the Right of Way (ROW). Ifthe City acquires the ROW today, it is acquired at today's price and avoids the escalated property costs of the future. You will have the ROWand the project becomes 'construction ready project'. Construction ready projects always get a higher score in the grant funding arena. This project is designed and environmental approval is already done; the only item remaining is ROW acquisition. It just makes sense to acquire the ROWand have the project 'construction ready', especially if the project is on the City TIP and required to be constructed in the near future. Council Member McColgan asked if the ROW acquisition is $864,000. Mr. Salloum said yes this estimated total ROW acquisition amount includes the acquisition of strip-take for 10 parcels. The acquisition cost from one vacant parcel in particular makes up 50% of that cost. That parcel is on the north east comer of the S320th and 1 st Ave intersection. Committee Chair Jack Dovey asked what would happen if the parcel was developed sometime in the future; would that parcel then pay for part of the improvement? Mr. Salloum said it all depends on the timing of the improvements. If they come in prior to the project being completed then they will be required to mitigate that project and pay toward that project cost; mainly the frontage improvement costs on that particular piece of property. If the improvement does not take place until after the city project is completed and accepted by the City Council then they will not be contributing anything toward the project. Chair Dovey said then that if the City did not acquire the ROWand shelved the project and then someone comes in to build something on that property then would they be required to contribute to the project? Mr. Salloum said they would be required to dedicate the ROW as part of their improvement and also contribute the portion that constitutes their frontage improvements to the City proj ect. Mr. Salloum said it depends on if they are developing before the City constructs the project or after the project gets constructed and accepted by the City Council. Council Member Burbidge said that the result of this project, then, will be how many lanes north/south and how many lanes east/west? Mr. Salloum said there would be 6-7 lanes in each direction. There would be seven lanes on I st Ave and six lanes on S 320th Street Chair Dovey said his last question is that, if the Committee votes to 100% design and buy the ROW; staff has the money to buy the ROWand avoid the escalated property costs of the future. If staff shelves it and then someone comes forward and wants to develop it, would they be responsible to pay the $400,000 for the property, because it would be part of a development agreement, and the City would not have to buy it? Chair Dovey said the project is definitely needed or staff would not be at this point right now. Mr. Salloum G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006108-07-06 LUTC Minutes - FINAL-doc ----- Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 June 19th, 2006 agreed. Chair Dovey said if the City does not authorize spending money to do it and that property does not develop for ten years the City will still have to buy it sometime. Mr. Salloum said that is correct and the cost of acquisition will be a lot more than $800,000. Council Member McColgan asked if staff knows whether increasing the number of lanes, and cars going through an intersection at a given time, increases potential safety issues? Mr. Salloum said that the added double left turn will hopefully reduce congestion and therefore reduce the number of accidents. Council Member Jeanne Burbidge asked ifthere was a concurrency issue related to this topic, in terms of the design and the number of lanes. Mr. Perez said yes; this intersection is currently failing its level of service (LOS) standard and is forecasted to continue to fail a concurrency test. That's why it is in the six-year improvement plan. He cited as an example the 320th & SR99 improvement project. The total number of collisions was reduced by 40% by doing that intersection improvement. So, although it is disadvantageous to pedestrians to cross a wider street, from a total societal cost perspective that is more than offset by the improvement in safety for all the users of the intersection. Council Member Dean McColgan asked where this project rated on the TIP. Mr. Perez said it is about number six; it is fairly high up on the list. Additionally, with the LOS the City is experiencing right now this intersection currently operates at about 10% over capacity in the evening peak hour. In the next six years that is forecasted to go to 24% over capacity. Council Member Dean McColgan said that it seems that from a safety perspective from the ranking on the TIP it makes financial sense to acquire the property now. However, he does not like the language 'to shelve the project'. The project is staying on the TIP, it's going to be resubmitted, and the project is not being shelved. Mr. Salloum said he is 100% correct; staff will continue to evaluate the project anytime there is an agency that has money available for transportation projects. When staff says 'shelve the project' the project is ready for construction as soon as money becomes available. The money becomes available when Council obligates enough money to fund the project or staff is able to acquire some grant funding to match whatever the City puts toward the project. Chair Dovey said it seems to him that if this is a number six on the TIP list and if, for some reason, the City does not get grant money then the City should be looking at it's budget, if it is that important, and asking how the City can fund it itself. Mr. Roe said that staff will be doing that. It will be in the next budget cycle for 2007/2008. This is not one of the projects that Council will hear in the next month or two that he is proposing to fund. Council can anticipate Public Works evaluating this project not just in the grant arena but from a general fund and a utility tax perspective in the 2009/2010 timeline. Staff believes that this is an imJ'ortant intersection and an important corridor. The City has two main accesses to the freeway, 320th & 348 and this falls in that corridor. 1 st Avenue parallels SR99; it's another option for people going North/South in our community. 1st Avenue is an important road, as 320th is, so Public Works will continue to look at this project, in the grant arena as well as in the 2009/2010 timeline. The owner of the property in the NE corner is able to sit on the property. They do not need to develop; they can be selective and get the dollar-per-square foot they want. Staff will continue to look at this project in terms of both grants and the City's ability to put money towards it in the 2009/2010 budget. There is a high probability that Council will see it rise to that priority in that timeframe. Item passed unanimously. Council Member Kochmar asked if the intersection is improved with that help the other properties redevelop. Mr. Salloum said that other properties will benefit if that intersection is improved. D. Cottage Housing Code Amendment Isaac Conlen provided the background information on this item. Public Comment: Phil MCullough He said he appreciates the opportunity to address the Council. He is excited that Federal Way is looking at an alternative to the typical suburban development. He has taken the time to edit the draft G:ILUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006108-07-06 LUTC Minutes - FINAL doc ------- ------- -~--- _______n________ Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4 June ] 9th, 2006 ordinance and has provided a key to his comments. His first point is that he added the dual owner household to the household types that were identified as changing household demographics. His second point was about determining the number of cottage housing units or the number of Compact Single Family (CSF) units. His third point addresses the square footage target for cottage housing. He would change the line of demarcation between Cottage and CSF from 1000 feet to 1,100 feet. His fourth point would be that if you increase the upper limit for Cottage housing you have to increase lower limit of the CSF. Item 5, the one he is most interested in seeing modified, is the restriction on the second story. He thinks that limiting the upper floor to 35% really limits the demographic of the type of home that can be built. He thinks the real importance is to try to avoid the bad things that have happened in other cottage housing developments. And then, item 6, he wasn't quite sure if it was intended to only allow the bonus if you had at least 12 units or if you can apply for the affordable bonus even if you have less than 12 units. Mr. Conlen said that was intended to only allow that in situations where you have 7 to 12. You must have 8 or 6 units in Cottage housing before you can have the bonus. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED this item WITHOUT recommendation on to the Sept 5th, 2006'City Council Agenda. Council Member Dean McColgan asked ifhe currently has a home on a 7.21ot and he has a vacant 7.2 lot next to him, can he build cottage housing on those lots? Mr. Conlen said no. There is a'minimum starting size of. 75 acres, so you'd need about 32,000 sq ft. Also, there is not a buffer between the single family 7.2 home and a cottage project; what was talked about last time was a separation requirement between cottage housing projects so you wouldn't have 2 or 3 squished in right next to each other. Council Member McColgan said that getting to some of the comments Mr. MCCullough made, he can see the extra 100 square feet. Has staff has a chance to look at the 35% top floor limit? He assumes this ordinance came from another jurisdiction that already has this in place. Mr. Conlen said that the intent there is to keep 'tall skinny houses' from manifesting themselves in these projects. He said with the 35% sq footage limitation on the second floor you are starting to limit the flexibility the builder has in terms of design issues. You can't do the dual master upstairs, which is one of the examples in one of the projects that this particular builder is interested in building. There are other ways to accomplish the limitation that would still prevent the 'tall skinny houses' but would provide more flexibility in terms of design. Staff could look at two or three different options that would accomplish the objective that would not have the same limitation on square footage. Chair Dovey said he agrees with Council Member McColgan that going from 1,100 to 1,000 sq ft does not make sense. The extra 100 feet probably opens the market a bit more. He does not have a problem with that. 1,300 sq ft does not make sense. He asked for an explanation on how the 1.5 or 2 point factor works. As he understands it, ifhe puts together an acre of7,200 sq ft lots, which he could do anywhere that 7.2 is, he could build 12 cottage houses? Mr. Conlen said you're probably looking at a lower number, like nine cottages; when talking about the CSF you will get a number lower than that. Chair Dovey said if you could put nine cottages on an acre and if you're building 1,300 sq ft units you could fit six or seven, it seems counter productive to what the City is trying to do. The City is trying to make a different type of housing that is still dense. Mr. Conlen said that the concept is that there should be a trade-off when you ask for increased density and the proposed ordinance recognizes that with cottage housing. It says that developers are getting twice the density; they are asked to keep these as very small units. What is being talked about with the CSF is somewhere in between the traditional unit and the cottage unit. It says developers get 1.5 times the density they would otherwise be able to achieve and also limits them, but not as much as the cottages. It's a continuum, with single family units at 1 to 1, cottages houses at 2 to 1, and CSF right in the middle. You have a larger unit so as a trade off you get a somewhat of a lower density. That is the concept staff is going for. That is where the other 35% criteria comes into play; it says that the CSF style would be limited to 35% of the units. That forces there to be a mix of unit types within the property. That is one of the issues that Mr. MCCullough objected to; he felt it was too limiting in terms of the overall ability of the developer to build those types of units. Council Member McColgan says that what he is still struggling with is, ifhe owns a house in the 7.2 zoned lot and someone owns four contiguous lots next to him, they can build a cottage development. That tells him that the City has allowed those four 7.2 lots to be down-zoned to R2000 or R2200. That is the argument the Council will get from the community. Mr. Conlen said he does not want to pretend that there is no G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006108-07-06 LUTC Minutes - FINAL-doc - ------- -------- ------~ Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 5 June 19th, 2006 controversial element to this. He believes that the counter argument to that is that these are extremely small units. The overall impact is going to be similar to what four 3,000 - 3,500 sq ft homes on that site would have. Council Member McColgan asked if there is any way to have a demonstration project that avoids being put next to developed 7.2 lots. Mr. Conlen said given the level of build-out in Federal Way it would be tough to find a site that could be isolated that way. He said it's an interesting issue because reactions have been different in the various communities where this product has been permitted. There have been some strong objections; there are other areas where the projects have been well accepted. Chair Dovey asked how big a project can be done. Mr. Conlen said there is not a limit on the acreage but there is a limit on the total number of cottages to a base level of 12. The planning commission decided to allow four additional units if ~ of the additional units were affordable housing units. The maximum total units could be up to 16 cottages. That is within the single-family type zoning. The multi-family type zoning is treated differently because there are different issues there. Chair Dovey asked that, if there were four demonstration projects, and there are 32 people that come to the City and say they would like to be one of the four, has the City developed the criteria with which to choose? Mr. Conlen replied that the identified process is administrative so staff would make that decision. A staff member would make a recommendation to Ms. McClung and she would then make a decision. He said it would be similar to accepting requests for comp plan amendments; it would be a docketed process where you have a deadline to get your application in so that way staff can evaluate them side-by-side rather than piecemeal. Council Member McColgan said the reason for a demonstration project is to see if it is something that fits in our community. If there are four projects and all four don't work then you have quadrupled your problem. Mr. Conlen said the value of doing more than one is that, if you do four and three turn out great and one turns out badly, you have a more realistic idea of how they are going to fit into the community. If you just do one and it's bad, that may not be an accurate representation; you're just not getting as wide of a sampling. The other thing to keep in mind is that this is an ordinance that Council is permitting. It can be repealed at any time. The benefit of the demonstration is that it sets up a formal evaluation process. Council Member McColgan said once the project is up and the land is developed that does not do any good if it is a bad project. He said that some of his colleagues who are not present have questions; he is wondering if this is a topic that they just need to move to full Council and have a discussion about it there. Chair Dovey he's not opposed to moving it to Council to have the discussion. He personally think thinks this is a discussion the full Council should have; he thinks it's an important enough ordinance that, like most zoning issues, it is important enough for Council to talk about. Chair Dovey asked if LUTC should make a motion to move this item forward to Council to put on the agenda. Mr. Conlen asked if there is any direction to be provided to staff here regarding the comments received and presented as this discussion played out. Chair Dovey responded that the square footage should be changed to 1,100 instead of 1,000. It is fine to adjust the 35% second floor limitation. Council Member Jeanne Burbidge said the 1,100 sq ft makes sense to her as well, but she would find it helpful for the Council to have more illustrative material available so they have a more complete understanding of the issues that are being raised. Mr. Conlen said that Mr. MCCullough's position is that the multiplier from 2 to 1.5 on the number of Compact Single Family units is not necessary. He said it is a philosophical topic for the Committee: Do you want to see a more traditional cottage development or are you willing to accept a product that could be entirely CSF? Chair Dovey commented that Federal Way is looking at different cities that are accepting cottages; how big are they, generally? Mr. Conlen said the majority that he has seen limit cottages to 1,000 sq ft. The example staff has seen involving CSF is Kirkland; they allow those up to 1,500 sq ft. They do the same thing with the multiplier. They reduce it from 2 to 1.5; that's the only example he has seen that allows the CSF housing. Chair Dovey said that if Federal Way goes to 1,100 sq ft, this city is being more generous, potentially, than many other locations and are just cutting out the market for someone who wants 1,300 or 1,500 in a cottage development. G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006108-07-06 LUTC Minutes - FINAL-doc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 6 June 19th, 2006 Ms. McClung said that when staff met with the developer on the proposed projects he has in mind, the unit he displayed was very attractive and she thinks it would be complementary in a cottage housing development. Her personal preference would be that if the Council was going to eliminate one of the other (the 35% or the 1.5 multiplier for CSF) she would prefer to eliminate the 1.5 multiplier and keep it that 35% of the units can be the larger ones. That way you can get a mix. Council Member McColgan said that was fine with him and Chair Dovey thought that was reasonable. Ms. McClung thinks that an opinion about how they fit into other residential neighborhoods from either a real estate broker or an appraiser might be helpful. She thinks it will be more likely to positively impact them than some of the usual developments. Council Member McColgan said he would welcome anything that would address that issue. If those things can be addressed up front and Council can have a full understanding of how that would work that would be great. Council Member McColgan asked Chair Dovey ifhe was saying 'no' to 1,300 sq ft CSF? Chair Dovey said he was not interested in having a whole bunch of 1,300 sq ft houses. He is not opposed to having a mix with some 1,300 in there but he does not want to turn around and find that the Council has zoned cottages but has gotten all 1,300 sq ft cottages instead of what the cottages were intended to be. Council Member McColgan said he would agree with that; he thinks if there is a demonstration project it would seem better to limit what can be done on it so it the impact of that demonstration project can be fully studied. Council Member Burbidge said she understands what Council Member McColgan is saying but she also believes that having some variation could be useful as long as there is a provision that it is variation and not standardization. Council Member Kochmar asked if only 35% ofa project's units could be 1,300 sq ft; she thinks that makes a lot of sense. 1,100 sq ft with 35% being 1,300 sq ft but no more than 35%. Chair Dovey said he could live with that. Ms. McClung responded that if the Council was going to eliminate one provision or the other, she would eliminate the 1.5 and keep it at 35%. Chair Dovey concurred that it would be more consistent. Ms. McClung said that the maximurn number of 1,300 sq ft units in the biggest project will just be 35% of 16. Chair Dovey said they are agreed that this item will be on the agenda of the next Council Meeting, to be voted up or down, with no recommendation from the LUTC. He asked Mr. Conlen if a motion was needed. It is not. E. 2006/2007 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Area FlexPass for Citv Hall Rick Perez was not required to give the background information on this item. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the Sept 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. F. P AA Annexation Update - Stone Creek & Van Doenhoff Kathy McClung said staffhas not yet met with the City of Milton staff; a meeting has been scheduled. She has spoken to the property owner that attended the last meeting and will be raising this issue with the City of Milton. Ms. McClung said that the City of Federal Way will approach Milton first and then talk to the resident. Staff also has a draft inter-local-agreement from King County that was received late last week. Derek Matheson, Ms. McClung and Isaac Conlen will be meeting on that, perhaps with other staff including Iwen Wang and Cary Roe. There will also be another meeting on putting together a schedule for public information and getting more details on the schedule. To sum up, there is still a lot to do. 5. FUTURE MEETINGS The next scheduled meeting will be August 21 s\ 2006. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m. G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006108-07-06 LUTC Minutes - FINAL-doc ----------- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY . MEMORANDUM DATE: August 21 S\ 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Neal Beets, City Manager FROM: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director SUBJECT: PM Stone Creek Sub-division & the Von DoenhoffProperty BACKGROUND: A verbal report will be provided. K:\LUTC\2006\08-21-06 PAA Stone Creek & Von Doenhoff issues - placeholder.doc ---------- ---- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5,2006 ITEM #: ..... ... .....................__ ........................ ............................................................................. ............mm........._...... ... ............................. n.. . .................................................................._........ ......................... ....................................................... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 2007 Arterial Streets Landscape Maintenance Services - Authorization to Bid POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to seek bids for the 2007 Arterial Streets Landscape Maintenance Services Contract? COMMITI'EE: LUTC MEETING DATE: August 21, 2006 CATEGORY: ~ Consent 0 Ordinance Public Hearing 0 City Council Business 0 Resolution "Other ~!~~~.~..!Q~!~y.:M~~~!l~::J}I()!:1.~,..~!!.~~t~y~!~~s.M.Cl!lCl.g~~.... .. . ................................-.-............ ................................... ................H......... ..................H.....__............... The City of Federal Way contracts for arterial street landscaping a tenance services. The existing contract will expire December 2006. Staff recommends advertising this project for bid. The approved budget for the 2006 Right of Way Landscape Maintenance Contract is $180,000.00. Currently, City Council has not yet approved and adopted the 2007/2008 budget for right of way landscape maintenance services. Attachments: None. Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to solicit bids for the 2007 Arterial Streets Landscape Maintenance Services and return to LUTC with a request for permission to award the project to the lowest responsible, responsive bidder. 2. Do not authorize staff to bid for the 2007 Arterial Streets Landscape Maintenance Services and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council to authorize staff to soHCitbids for the 2007-ArtenaI'Streets Landscape Maintenance Services and return to the LUTC Committee with a request for permission to award the project to the lowest res onsible, res onsive bidder. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: fhfK.. to Council to Commidee To Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Option 1 on the September 5, 2006 Council Consent Agenda for approval. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "1 move to authorize staff to solicit bids for the 2007 Arterial Streets Landscape Maintenance Services and return to the LUTC Committee with a request for permission to award the project to the lowest responsible, responsive bidder" (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: D APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # D DENIED 1 ST reading D TABLED/DEFERREDINO ACTION Enactment reading D MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # ~---- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2006 ITEM #: ........................................ ..................................................--...._-_...... ... ...................................................... ........................................................................ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 2007 STREET SWEEPING SREVICES - AUTHORIZA nON TO BID POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to seek bids for the 2007 Street Sweeping Services Contract? COMMITTEE: LUTC MEETING DATE: August 21, 2006 CATEGORY: [gI Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing 0 City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other _~!~I<:!':~J?g~!~y.:M.'.l~_~~~~!}g~1.P.:!.~!I"~~!.~y.~!.~1.P.:~M~~g~E _m DEPT: Public Works ...... ................. ...................................... ................................................................................ m.............. The City of Federal Way contracts for Street Sweeping Services. e existing contract will expire December 2006. Staff recommends advertising this project for bid. The approved budget for the 2006 Street Sweeping Services is $71,605.00. Currently, City Council has not yet approved and adopted the 2007/2008 budget for Street Sweeping Services. Attachments: None. Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to solicit bids for the 2007 Street Sweeping Services and return to the LUTC Committee with a request for permission to award the project to the lowest responsible, responsive bidder. 2. Do not authorize staff to bid for the 2007 Street Sweeping Services and provide direction to staff. STAFF'REC01ViMENDA iioN:Staff recommends councifioautborizestaJitosollaTblcls" fortbe-2607Street-Sweeplng Committee with a request for permission to award the project to the lowest CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ to Council to Committee To Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Option 1 on the September 5,2006 Council Consent Agenda for approval. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to authorize staff to solicit bids for the 2007 Street Sweeping Services and return to the LUTC Committee with a request for permission to award the project to the lowest responsible, responsive bidder. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1 ST reading 0 TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2006 ITEM #: - ............................... ......._....__............ ................ ..........mm............... ......................... ................................................................ ....................................-....... .................-.........-..-......... . CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Pacific Highway South Northbound Left Turn Lanes at S 316th Streets - Bid Award POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council award the Pacific Highway South Northbound Left Turn Lanes at S 316th Street Project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: August 21,2006 CA TEGORY: [gI Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing 0 City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other ~!~!':!':_!b:!.Q~!~:x:Ml;l:~l;l:~.~l;l:E9.~!l?'.!>.:~:'.~~~~~_~y~~~~~M~~~g~ .. EPT: Public Works ..................... ............-.......-..............-..... ............................................. Attachments: LUTC memo dated August 21st, 2006 Options Considered: 1. Award Pacific Highway South Northbound Left Turn Lanes at S 316th Street project to DPK Inc. the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in the amount of$110,786.00 and approve a 10% contingency of$II,078.00, for a total of$121,864.00 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Also, authorize staff to transfer the required funds from the unexpended Pacific Highway South Phase II proj ect. 2. Do not authorize bid award and provide direction to staff. ...............................-..--..........-.............................. ...... ................. ..............................-............ ......................... . . ........... ......._..... .,................................. .... ................ ............__......,....... ........... .... .......................... ........................................................_.................._........................._m....._ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: Ch/K.. Council Conunittee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Option 1 on the Sept. 5, 2006 Council Consent Agenda for approval Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "Award Pacific Highway South Northbound Left Turn Lanes at S 3](/h Street project to DPK Inc. the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in the amount of $110,786.00 and approve a 10% contingency of $11,078.00, for a total of $121,864.00 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Also, authorize staff to transfer the required funds from the unexpended Pacific Highway South Phase II project." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1ST reading 0 T ABLED/DEFERREDINO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # ~-- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: August 21, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Neal Beets, City Manager ~ FROM: Marwan Salloum, P. E., Street Systems Manager ' .... -- --- SUBJECT: Pacific Highway South Northbound Left Turn Lanes at S 316th Streets - Bid Award BACKGROUND: Staff requested bids from six contractors on the City's Small Works roster. Two of the six responded and submitted a bid on August 14,2006 for the Pacific Highway South Northbound Left Turn Lanes at S 316th Street project. See attached Bid Tabulation Summary. The lowest responsive, responsible bidder is DPK, Inc. with a total bid of$110,786.00. Project funding will come from unexpended funds from the Pacific Highway South Phase II project. In order to proceed with this project, Staff is requesting authorization to award the project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and to transfer the required funds to complete the project from the unexpended Pacific Highway phase II project fund. Staff will be present at the August 2151 Land Use & Transportation meeting to answer any questions the Committee might have. cc: Project File - ________n________________________ ------------ ---------------- 000000000000000000 000000000000000000 oooooooooo~oo~oooo ooooOro~OO~N~~N~OOID IDOroO~O~~~IDroM~~Noom~ro~ ~ g~~~ggg~~~~~~~~~~g~~~ CP 0 ~ ~~ ~ l- E :;:l Ul W ~ 000000000000000000000 ~ o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ 8888i~~88~~~g~~88~8~8 o IDOroO~~~~~ ~~~~oo~~ ~ C Ql M~~O ~N~ ~~O~ ~ ~ w () ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ll. 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 OOOOOOOOOO~~OOON ~ ~8~~~~~~~~~8~~~~~0~NN ro ~ ~~IDM~mw~~~No~m~~~N~~~ ~ 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N~~ ~ ~~ I- ~~ ~ ~~~ Us N"O "0 c: lO .- lO E m€8 ooooooooooooooooo~o~o Olo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~ ~I- OOOON~OOO~~~~OONIDIDOIDO "0 CP ~o~~ro~~oo~~~ro~~ID~~O~~ o () ~ON~~~N~~ ~~~~~ID ~ N o .C ~~IDM ~~~ ~W~~ W W S ll. ~~~~ ~~ ~~ 000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000 OOOOOOOOOOO~ID~OOM~OMO OOOOIDO~OON~N~N~om~~~~ ~OOO~~N~~MN~ro~mo~~MMM Z - - - - - - -~ - - - - - - - - - - -~ -~ O ~o ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ I-'- ~ ~~~~ :: en o~ 0 Z .... E S ..... W "0-- Q) I- m~c ~ X ~3 000000000000000000000 ~ W ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~o~~~~~ Z Ql 8888~~~88~~~~~R8~~g~~ ~ () ~qqq~~~~~ ~~~~q~ M M ~ .~ N~~ro ID~ wWooo W w => U) ll. ~~~~ ~~ ~~ I- 0 ~ ~~ I- 0 LL N W ~ -I:!: ~ In oct In In a:: a:: ~ In < u.. u.. >- Z Z Z In In u.. In u.. c:( ~ ~u..~~~~o~u..~lnUI-I-I-~~~~~w I- I- W en W => C 0::: (!) :J 001n OLn"'"roLnN 0 N 1-... 0 ................\O\ON........M\O~CO\OCO........M....O.... en ~ E ........ MLn.... M N <( ~ = W U) I- .... <( C") c en (!) - @) Z ~ 8! :I: 0 ~ I- Z UlIl ::l W 0> _0 ... C:c: 1Il ::lU ~ a.. 0- ro o 'Vi ~ el -e ~ '""' E or, 0 l:!~'>::l 0>8! .s VI w 0 Q) U c: ro 1Il >- C 1 c="O 0 .l!!:a ~ g'~ <( (II OJ' I} .2 C5 C5 e ~ -5 e.. N '5. C:o Q) 3: . .....u 1Il..... U N ro c: El 0>::lQ)._ c:0> c: C:c..NU:p .- . c:=a:: > c: 0 -O","NlIlro\O ~ .... lo. '-0 L..~O._ U c:,-,-\O'"O~ ~ z' ~~"O ~OUD ~ "'"c:~~ ~~ (!) ~! ~~c: g.~.\,I.gc.~ ilo>l:C\03l::g;g'~l:! Oc: L...l!!ro tn~~~::l~ roE ~ -I-->~ :I: -g .2 Ol ro ir; "0"0 ~ ~ fii E ~ ~ ~ ~ fii fii .0 .~.\,I ~ o ~~ c::S:~ ppl-~~B ~~~~:a:a51n~E - 0 Q~::l~C:C:~roU O>WOlllllll~~U~~ro LL ~ tlroln._ooro ~O>.~~ 1Il1ll<<-<<-"O~~~ - ::l~.....~UU~o>"OE~ro"O~~~~~c:"01- o ~&~~\,I\,I&€~~::l~!UU~~"Oro~~ <( E c:EOO~EEEro~E~~1Il<<~~2E~~ a.. CP 0~~~~~~~0~ro02::E::E~~~~l:!~ ..... ul-'-~<<-l-l-l-ua::a::lna::u~~a::a::w~~~ ~NM~~~~ro~~~~~~~~~~~~~ COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5,2006 ITEM #: - .................. . .........-............. ..... .......................................................--....... ............-.....-......... ......-..........._......... ................................---................................................. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Lakota Creek East Branch Restoration Improvement - Final Acceptance POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council accept the Lakota Creek East Branch Restoration Improvement Project constructed by Kemper Construction Corporation as complete? COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation MEETING DATE: Aug. 21, 2006 CATEGORY: [g] Consent D Ordinance D Public Hearing D City Council Business D Resolution D Other ~!~J.<'J.<'~~l:'2~!~y:!>.~~~A:~.~~~~~,~:~:,~YYMMa.:~a.:g~~ DEPT: Public Works ...................................-.-...............................-................- Attachments: LUTC memo dated August 21st, 2006 Options Considered: 1. Authorize final acceptance of the Lakota Creek East Branch Restoration Improvement Project, constructed by Kemper Construction Corporation in the amount of $419,663.76 as complete. 2. Do not authorize final acceptance of the Lakota Creek East Branch Restoration Improvement Project, constructed by Kemper Construction Corporation as complete and provide direction to staff. ........................................................................-.........- ............................. ....................... ................................ ........................-................ ................................. ............--........... .... .............................................. . .............................._.....__.__...,.. ..._...........M ..........._...... .. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1. CITY MANAGER ApPROV A DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ COWlcil Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: LUTC recommends Option I be forwarded to the September 5th Council meeting and placed on the Consent Agenda for approval. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "] move to approve final acceptance of the Lakota Creek East Branch Restoration Improvement Project, constructed by Kemper Construction Corporation in the amount of $419,663.76 as complete." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1 ST reading 0 TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: August 21 s" 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Neal Beets, City Manager FROM: Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manage@- SUBJECT: AG 05-087, Lakota Creek East Branch Restoration Improvement - Final Acceptance BACKGROUND: This project restored approximately 2,625 lineal feet of the East Branch of Lakota Creek from the mouth of the creek, upstream to SR-509 at Lakota Park (the upstream limit); including an unnamed tributary (hereafter referred to as the North Tributary) which extends approximately 500 feet off of the right bank half way through the project limits. Several fish passage impediments were eliminated; selected stream banks stabilized, and fish habitat structures added. In addition, stormwater flows were tightlined from the upper end of the North Tributary to the East Branch to reduce channel erosion in the North Tributary and reduce sediment input to the East Branch. The project was physically complete on December 6, 2005. The final construction contract amount is $419,663.76 (including monies held for invasive species control that will be paid in one year). This is $24,583.74 below the $444,247.50 original bid price and $69,008.49 below the $488,672.25 budget (including contingency) that was approved by the City Council on May 17,2005. Since physical completion of the project, the city has been waiting for the contractor to finish several punch-list items in order to accept the project as complete. These punchlist items were minor in nature and did not affect the proper function of the project. These items have finally been finished and included grouting of a manhole, filing of paperwork, and obtaining signed releases from property owners. Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works construction project, the City Council must accept the work as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and State Department of Labor and Industries requirements. The above referenced contract with Kemper Construction Corporation is complete. cc: Project File Day File ------.- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2006 ITEM #: .............~..__......... ....................--...............................-....... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Award of Contract for RFB 06-110 Slope Mower Bid POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to award the bid for a new slope mower to the lowest, responsive bidder, Kut- Kwik Corporation in the amount of $57,108.03, tax included? COMMITTEE: LUTC MEETING DATE: Aug. 21,2006 CATEGORY: ~ Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing 0 City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other STAFF REPORT By: Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manager~ DEPT: Public ~?rk~..__..mm.__m..._ m...m'_m_m .......................................................................-..............-..".....-.....-..............................................-......-...............................--........................................................-.....-............................................-..........-. ....................................-.........-.-.............................. Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated August 21st, 2006. Options Considered: 1. Authorize the City Manager to award the bid for a new slope mower to the Kut-Kwik Corporation for $57,108.03 tax included, based on bids opened June 16th, 2006. Authorize staff to use remaining replacement reserves from previous purchase of slope mower 200A, $1,358, as well as up to $14,139 from SWM funds to cover the purchase price in excess of replacement reserves of $41,611. Any salvage value from the existing mower will be used to offset any transfers from unallocated reserves. 2. Do not authorize the purchase of the new slope mower, reject all bids and provide direction to staff. ......m..._..........................~..................................... ..................._........ ........................... ...................__._ ............~ ................................._............_.........._..__.............. . . ... .. ..................................._- ......................................--..........................................-..... ............-..........- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1 be forwarded to the Council .Consent Agenda on September 5th, 2006 for approval. I ....... CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: JackDovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1ST reading 0 TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # --- -------- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: August 21, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Neal Beets, City Manager FROM: Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manager~ SUBJECT: Bid A ward for new slope mower - RFB 06-110 BACKGROUND: On June 16, 2006, sealed bids were opened for the purchase of a new slope mower, RFB 06-110, for Surface Water Management's use for pond maintenance. Purchase of this mower will replace an existing mower (SWM 204B All Terrain Excel-Hustler 640 mower) that has reached its service life. Three bids were received, however one (DewEze) does not meet a critical criteria and therefore it is recommended to be rejected as non-responsive. Of the two remaining, both are outside of the available replacement reserves funds for the mower being replaced. Mower 204B has $41,611 in replacement reserves available. The attached spread sheet shows the results of the bids by manufacturer, bid price, and an evaluation of the technical specifications. The DewEze 72 ATM72LC is the lowest bidder by price but is unable to meet the critical requirement of continuously mowing on a slope of 40 degrees. In 2005 SWM purchased one of the DewEze mowers after testing a mower in two of our larger ponds. At that time, the limitation for slope mowing was not discovered due to which ponds were mowed. After utilizing the purchased mower for a full mowing cycle in 2005, it became apparent that it cannot mow up to the 40 degree slope continuously. Approximately 50% of the existing SWM ponds have slopes that exceed the capabilities of this mower. In order to overcome this limitation in 2006, SWM changed mowing procedures to utilize two mowers in tandem with the result that SWM maintenance was able to mow all the ponds and in a shorter time frame than ever before. Based on this, it is our conclusion that purchase of a second mower capable of mowing continuously on 40 degree slope will compensate for the shortcomings of the DewEze and serendipitously result in mowing efficiencies due to the change in mowing procedures. The KutKwik mower is the lowest responsive, responsible bid by the Kut-Kwik Corporation at $57,108.03 tax included, FOB. The KutKwik does not have a fuel gauge but this does not pose an issue with the day-to-day operation of the mower and therefore SWM requests this requirement be waived. In order to purchase the new mower, SWM is requesting authority to utilize the remaining replacement reserves from the previous mower purchased in 2005, approximately $1,358, as well as transfer up to $14,139 from SWM funds to cover the purchase price of $57,108.03. Any re-sale value from the existing mower would be used to offset the transfer from SWM reserves. The current estimated re-sale value of the existing mower is $3,000 - 6,000. K:\LUTC\2006\08-21-06 RFB 06-110 slope mower bids award.doc --------- RFB 06-110 Bid Technical Specification Evaluation Worksheet Bid Opening - Friday, June 16, 2006 Bid 1 Bid 2 Bid 3 Bid 4 KutKwik Peterson E ui Power Trac Brim Tractor SSM38-72D Aebi TT75 DewEze A TM72LC $57,108.03 $104,665.6 Non-Responsive $35,733.42 Technical S ecification Tax Included FOB Tax Included FOB Tax Included FOB Engine Spec 1 - The engine shall be diesel fueled and consist of Meets Meets Non-Responsive four linders Engine Spec 2 - The engine shall Exceeds - 38 HP Exceeds - 60 HP Non-Responsive Meets have a ross HP of at least 30 HP Engine Spec 3 - The fuel tank shall hold a minimum of 12 Exceeds - 17 gal Meets Non-Responsive Meets allons Transmission Spec - At a minimum, the groundspeed of the Meets Exceeds - Up to 25 Non-Responsive Meets unit shall be variable between 0-8 MPH MPH Tire Spec 1 - The unit shall be equipped with tractor/bar tread Meets Meets Non-Responsive Meets tires Mower DecklOp Spec 1 - The mower shall be capable of Meets Meets Non-Responsive continuous cutting on a slope up to 40d rees Mower DecklOp Spec 2 - The mower shall be equipped with a rear discharge deck at least 72" in Meets Non-Responsive Meets width but not greater than 96" in width Mower Deck/Op Spec 3 - The mower deck shall the equipped Meets Meets - Flail mower Non-Responsive Meets withthr~ (3) heat treated steel, 100 blades rou h cut blades Mower Deck/Op Spec 4 - The mower deck shall be equipped Meets Meets Non-Responsive Meets with puncture proof casters Mower DecklOp Spec 5 - At a minimum, the mower deck height Exceeds - 1.5"_6.5" Meets Non-Responsive Meets shall be variable between 2 to 4.5 inches Cab/Instrument Spec 1 - The Exceeds - Enclosed operator's station shall be Meets cab w/ AC Non-Responsive Meets ROPS/FOPS certified Cab/Instrument Spec 2 - The unit shall have installed mounted gauges to include engine temp, Meets Non-Responsive water temp, fuel level, hour meter, and volt meter Cab/Instrument Spec 3 - The operator's station shall be Meets Meets Non-Responsive Meets equipped with an operator's safety switch and parkin brake Cab/Instrument Spec 4 - The operator's station shall be equipped with a seat belt and Meets Meets - Automatic Non-Responsive Meets cushion seat. The seat or levelling operator' station shall level to at least 30 de rees DimensionlWeight Spec 1 - The final configuration of the unit shall Meets - 3,100 Ibs Meets Non-Responsive Meets not exceed 5,000 ounds K:\LUTC\2006\08-21-06 RFB 06-110 Mower Bid Spec Eval.xls Tab: Sheet1 1of2 ~-~ RFB 06-110 Bid Technical Specification Evaluation Worksheet Bid Opening - Friday, June 16,2006 Bid 1 Bid 2 Bid 3 Bid 4 KutKwik Peterson EQuip Power Trac Brim Tractor SSM38-72D Aebi TT75 DewEze ATM72LC $57,108.03 $104,665.6 Non-Responsive $35,733.42 Technical Specification Tax Included FOB Tax Included FOB Tax Included FOB DimensionlWeight Spec 2 - The Meets - 120 inches Meets Non-Responsive Meets final configuration of the unit shall not exceed 192 inches in length DimensionlWeight Spec 3 - The overall unit transport width shall Meets 92 inches Meets Non-Responsive Meets not exceed 96 inches Other Spec - The vendor shall provide two (2) operator's Meets Meets Non-Responsive Meets manuals and two (2) parts manuals WalTanty Spec 1 Meets Meets Non-Responsive Meets WalTanty Spec 2 Meets Meets Non-Responsive Meets WalTanty Spec 3 Meets Meets Non-Responsive Meets Additional WalTanty 2 year warranty - Additional year: $1,500 N/A $1,175.00 Non-Responsive Third year: $2,000 Specifications Met - 21 total 20/21 20/21 0/21 18/21 excluding Additional WalTanty K:\LUTC\2006\08-21-06 RFB 06-110 Mower Bid Spec Eval.xls Tab: Sheet1 2 of 2 ---- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2006 ITEM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Lake Jeane Outlet Improvement Project - 50% Design Status Report POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to proceed further with design of the Lake Jeane Outlet Improvement Project and return to the Council at 85% design completion for further reports and authorization? COMMITTEE: LUTC MEETING DATE: Aug. 21, 2006 CATEGORY: [gl Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing 0 City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other STAFF REpORT By: Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Mana~EPT: Public Works ..~..-_..................................._.........''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''............-.......-.-........-......................-........................................................-............................-..--.----............................ . .......... . ...... ...... _.............._~............................._.....-..................._...........................................-.......... ................-....-.......... Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated August 21 S\ 2006. Options Considered: 1. Authorize Surface Water Management staff to proceed with design of the Lake Jeane Outlet ImprovementProject and return to the LUTC Committee at the 85% design completion stage for further reports and authorization. 2. Do not authorize staff to continue with the project and provide direction to staff. .---...............- ......................-.......-...- .................- .............._~..._....................................... ............................................... .............................-.......-............. .... ..................-.... ...............................- ....................-.-................- .........................-.....--.-...-..............-...--.... ....... STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 above to the September 5, 2006 Council Consent Agenda for approval. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward staff recommendation for Option 1 to the Sept. 5,2006 City Council Consent Agenda. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to authorize Surface Water Management staff to proceed with design of the Lake Jeane Outlet Improvement Project and return to the LUTC Committee at the 85% design completion stage for further reports and authorization. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1 ST reading 0 TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: August 21 S\ 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Neal Beets, City Manager FROM: Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manag~ SUBJECT: AG 06-031, Lake Jeane Outlet Improvement Project- 50% Design Status Report BACKGROUND: According to the Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan, flooding is predicted around Lake Jeane during the occurrence of a 10-year storm and structural flooding would occur during a 25-year storm, under existing development conditions. In order to solve the flooding problem, SWM will replace the two existing outlet structures with a new single outlet structure. SWM will also replace the two existing undersized and failing trunk lines with a new 36-inch diameter concrete pipe between the outlet structure and the next downstream structure, approximately 210 lineal feet. With the proposed improvements, flooding around the lake can be controlled up to the 100-year, 24-hour storm event under future land use conditions. The project design is approximately 50% complete, which includes the following completed tasks: . Topographical Survey and Mapping - obtained from Twin Lakes Golf and Country Club . Geo technical evaluation of the site sub grade and groundwater conditions . Gathering of existing utility information . Drafting of SEP A checklist . Project design plans to 50% level Ongoing tasks include: . Processing various permits including SEPA documentation, City's Director's Approval, and HPA Permit . Coordination with utility providers to minimize impacts to existing underground utilities and coordinate relocation where conflicts are unavoidable . Project Design to 85% Level ESTIMATED PROJECT EXPENDITURES: Design $111,802 Year 2007 Construction (Estimate) $276,000 20% Construction Contingency $55,200 10% Construction Management $27,600 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $470,602 AVAILABLE FUNDING: TOTAL A V AILABLE BUDGET $555,000 cc: Project File Day File ---------- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2006 ITEM #: . .. ...........................__..~...... .... . ............. .....................~...... . .............................................. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Inter-local Agreement Extension POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to extend the existing WRIA 9 Inter-local Agreement for nine years? COMMITTEE: LUTC MEETING DATE: Aug. 21,2006 CATEGORY: ~ Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing 0 City Council Business 0 Resolution ~ 0 Other ~.!~!!:F.:~~!'.9.~!~Y.:!>.~~!A:~.~~i~h,!>.:~:,.~~f.~~~~~!~~M~~~g~~mmm DEPT: Public Works .. ..................._.._...~.........._...... ............................ ............-........ ............................H...... Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated August 21 st, 2006. Options Considered: 1. Authorize the City Manager to sign an extension of the Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Inter-local Agreement with King County for a period of nine (9) years. 2. Do not authorize the extension of the ILA and provide direction to staff. .......-.. .......................-...-..-............ . ................ ...............H ..............................._...'....H ............._.......... ........................_.....H.....H............_..... .............. ............_.._.......~_._.....m..H.....HH....mm._._...~...... STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Federal Way has participated in WRIA 9 Planning efforts for six years at a cost of $59,665. The final Salmon Habitat Plan is complete and does not contain any Capital Facility projects for Federal Way with the exception of one in Dash Point State Park. At this time, we are being asked to extend the ILA for an additional nine (9) years at a total anticipated cost of$160,659 (assuming no cost increases for inflation). With the exception of being viewed as active participants in regional planning efforts, staff sees limited benefits to Federal Way with continued participation in the WRIA 9 planning efforts. Because of this and the regional aspect of participation, staff are bringing the issue forward to Council for direction. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1 ST reading 0 TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # ----- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: August 21, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Neal Beets, City Manager ~L~) FROM: Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manager SUBJECT: WRIA 9 ILA Extension BACKGROUND: The City of Federal Way has been an active member in the Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) Inter- Local Agreement (lLA) for salmon conservation based planning efforts in the Green/Duwamish basin for six years. As an active member, Federal Way has contributed financially and with staff resources towards the development of the "Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Resource Inventory Area 9 Salmon Habitat Plan". This Plan was adopted by Federal Way Resolution in December of 2006. The Plan does not include any capital projects for Federal Way in either the GreenlDuwamish basin or the nearshore environment. In 2006 the City Council agreed to continue participation in the ILA for one more year while approvals and ratifications from various legislative bodies were pursued at the State and Federal agency levels. Funding of the Plan development for the past six years has come from the City's Surface Water Utility. Funding levels have been between $10,333 and $8,000 per year for a total of $59,665 for the past six years. At this time, the City is being asked to extend the ILA for another nine (9) years at a cost of $17,851 per year which amounts to $160,659 over the life of the lLA assuming no increases due to inflation. A copy ofthe Inter- local Agreement is attached. The significant increase in funding is attributed to inclusion of the nearshore drainages of Federal Way into the WRIA 9 planning area from the WRIA 10 planning area. WRIA 10 does not have an equal planning process and stops any nearshore investigation at the Pierce/King County line. Inclusion in WRIA 9 for the past 18 months has been at no additional cost to the City but has resulted in additional nearshore investigations, assistance with funding pursuits on Camp Kilworth and other benefits. At this time, if the City decides to sign the extension, the expanded area of nearshore drainages will be used in the . share calculations for the ILA. lLA support staff have provided a summary of benefits, both past and future, they see with continued participation by Federal Way in the lLA process. This summary is attached. There appears to be limited direct benefits to Federal Way and as such, it is a question to the council as to whether or not Federal Way should continue to participate. K:\LUTC\2006\08-21-06 WRIA 9 lLA.doc ------~----- ----------- - -~--- ----------------- 0')"0 ~ o C ro <( 0 III 10' ~ ~a.. m - E CID~> C=>. ..... 0::: C .~ 0 .!: CO > :J CO "0 U ~ :> .Q CO C 0 "5> 0 <3 ro UO > ffi C CO ID j!! , >tc~~cc~E~ Q) O~-'-~ o 0 :J U ID .- ID - 0) Ci E - I ::::: ~ ::::J .J a..~~j!!~~~~i~~co~~mm~~c o~~mmuow~~~~z~oooo~ob .J U~NM~~m~romo~NM~~mO~ C g ~~~~~~~~m ~ ~ S~ 0 ~ ~~ ~ Mro~~~~~~~roroNmNON~= ~ = mm~O~MM~~M~~MmNM~~ ro M mmMmNmMro~m~~Mm~NOO m 0 ~m~N~oM~ro~m~m~~o~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~MN~~~~ro~~~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~M M ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0- N~N~oomm~~roN~Mroro G>><( cu c:i'<i""':""N""c:i'<ic:i""""':""':N'<i""N 'te C)_Q) ~M N C! III Co ... 0 ~O<( 0 >~ ~ C ~~~NMmro~No~oN~mm Mm~m~OONmmN~m~~~ MommoroNm~roLOmmm~~ ~_............_- ~m~mmN~mm~NmO~m ~~~~~~~N~~~~~M~ ~ ~ ~~N ~~ o ~ I ~ ~~~~*~~~~*~~~**~ ~ cu ~rom~~mmNomN~rommm ~ ! c:i""""':N""':""':c:i""OOOO""':c:i""':NOON <( ~ E 2 ro~~~~~roMMmo~oM~~ co O ~~mmM~m~m~~N~MN~ E ~MO~M~o~oro~LO~~mo 0 U. - ~~NmmmNm~~Ll'i~cicicici u . > ~~~~~~~MLO~~~Nm~ co "C <(.~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ CI) - ~ + .c Q) en :;, ... cu CI) > . ~ ~ ns 'C ~ 3= Q) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ D ~ 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ID ~ Q) OMO~~NO~O~~~N~MN > o ~.,... ~ 0::: <( <(0 C 1!!. - ID X 0::: "' romNMmro~LO~~mro~roNm ~ ,....: > VI ~~~M~mom~mm~MmmN 0 > Q) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ 0 ~~~~mm~~~~mmomo~ ~ N CI) tJ) L.. - ~N~~~~~N~m~~~~~~ 2i I .c ,.. ,.. Co ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ 0. C ~.... '" 0 ::> .Q ~"6 .t: e:. ID ~ .Q ,.. ,^ c .s .2 ... V, 0 III - "C ::s :0::: ~ ~ ~ ~o ~o ~o ~o ~ ~ ~o ~o ~ ~ ~ ~o ~o Q) ~ II. LL.. .... IfIIII 0 0 0 0...... 0..... 0' 0....... 0 0 0' 0' 0 0 0 0' 0...... \J ...... - 1ft .w Mm~o~~mroo~mrom~M~ :J III "CC __ VI :;, c:i u:i .....: '<i N ...t .....: <ri "" <ri N .....: N '<i a> "" u UO u 0 Co ~N ~ X CI) 0 ID ro E ~ 0 ~ m .!: IA - ~ ~ E ~, ~ ~ CO ~ O ~ VI "0 ~ 0 "0 .J "" C ~ f.,:: C - CJ ..... <C 0 III >. >. >. 8!..Q ~ en CI) CU _ 0') E CID~~ c:~>.::::J ~ ~ 0::: ~ '" 0 .~ 0 .!: CO > :J CO "0 U ~ C ~ ::s; LL. <( cocO "5>O<3ro UO>ffiCCOIDj!! :JO > ,... ~ C C ~ ~ C C ~ E ~ ID 0 ~ - .- > . ...... ;V 0 0 :J U ID .- ID - 0) -0. E - I ::::: ~ U m ~.- D 'c>IIl:J"Oc ~CCOco~ q: ~ :> t ~ :J j!! :J 0 ID C ID ID .!: CO 0 ID ID ID :J 0) 9 _ ... > f1. ~ ~ m m U 0 w ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ 00 00 ~ .!: ~ '.Q- 0 t-- .~NM~~m~romo~NM~LOm ~ ~ "- 0 0 ,.- .,- .,- ~ .,- .,- .,- co '- tJ) U w 0 ~(1)O g b lLi a::: N sz z -----..------------- -------- GREBIl DUWAMISH Benefits of City of Federal Way Participation in the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for .Salmon Habitat Recovery WATERSHED August 3, 2006 Direct Benefits - Past and Current: . The entire marine shoreline of Federal Way was evaluated by WRIA 9 in the "Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of Water Resource Inventory Area 9 for Juvenile Salmonid Habitat Protection and Restoration" (May 2006). This provides information that can be used in: ~ Updating the City's Shoreline Master Plan, ~ Conducting environmental review of development proposals, and ~ Justifying grant funding requests (such as the ALEA grant listed below). This information will save the City staff time and expense that otherwise would have been required to gather and analyze this information. This report was funded in part through a King Conservation District grant, funding that without the WRIA 9 sponsorship could not have been used to benefit Federal Way. . Feeder bluff mapping for the entire marine shoreline of Federal Way was completed by WRIA 9 in the "Inventory and Assessment of Current and Historic Beach Feeding Sources/Erosion and Accretion Areas for the Marine Shorelines of Water Resource Inventory Areas 8 and 9" (December 2005). Shoreline inventory (level of armoring, types of vegetation) for the entire marine shoreline of Federal Way was completed by WRIA 9 in the "Marine Shoreline Inventory Report" (March 2004). As with the report listed above, these two reports provide information that can be used in: ~ Updating the City's Shoreline Master Plan and ~ Conducting environmental review of development proposals This information will save the City staff time and expense that otherwise would have been required to gather and analyze this information. . In 2006, WRIA 9 staff have been working with Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services staff on two grant applications to acquire Camp Kilworth to preserve its high-value marine shoreline by: 0 Drafting applications for King County Conservation Futures and Washington State Water Access grants 0 Providing photographs, locating graphics, and helping to create presentations for the Water Access review board $400,000 is expected from Conservation Futures. $1 million has been requested from the Water Access fund. Page 1 of3 . In 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006, WRIA staffpartnered with Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services staff and Trout Unlimited to provide natural resource education at the Steel Lake Fishing Derby, reaching nearly 300 children and their families each June. Direct Benefits -- Future: . The City will have the opportunity to partner with WRIA 9 to apply for and leverage habitat restoration funds to conserve high quality shoreline habitats such as those identified in the Prioritization of Marine Shorelines (above). . The City may see the implementation of the one project recommended in the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan that is located in Federal Way. This is Project NS- 16: Dash Point State Park Pocket Estuary Restoration. WRIA staff intend to work with State Parks on implementation. . The City will have the opportunity to use the results of a "change analysis" of the marine shorelines that will quantify the difference between historic and current conditions. When completed by a consultant (with funding from WRIA 9), the analysis will help improve decisionmaking about where to conserve and restore nearshore habitat. . WRIA 9 is the only watershed providing financial support for Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project and is represented on the management committee. This offers the potential for shaping the project list that will emerge. This does not guarantee dollars for Federal Way projects but it ensures that nearshore habitat in WRIA 9 will be considered carefully for projects. . Th~ City will have the opportunity to help identify cooperative programs and policies during Habitat Plan implementation, which may produce model approaches that save time and/or money for the City. Leadership, Collaboration, and Indirect Monetary Benefits: . The City demonstrates a tangible, fiscal commitment to regional solutions to regional problems. . The City continues to benefit from the improved political relationships as a result of six years of working with 15 other cities and King County to prepare the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan and implement projects on-the-ground. The WRIA approach is considered as a model of regional cooperation. Page 2 of3 . On behalf of the City as a WRIA 9 ILA signatory, WRIA staff track and influence federal, state, regional, and local programs that result in funding for implementing salmon habitat actions, including the: 0 Salmon Recovery Funding Board (federal and state funding), 0 Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (federal, state, regional, and local funding), 0 Puget Sound Partnership (federal, state, regional, and local funding), and 0 Shared Strategy/Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council (regional). To track and participate in these processes would cost the City considerable staff time. . The City's continued participation in the WRIA 9 ILA would be another demonstration to NOAA Fisheries and any would-be citizen litigators that the City is committed in terms of action and dollars to avoiding "take" (harm) and recovering salmon. On-going unanimous financial participation of all WRIA 9 jurisdictions in Salmon Habitat Plan implementation also maximizes the likelihood ofreceiving federal and state dollars for projects of watershed significance, which in turn will benefit the entire south county environment. . The City's continued participation in the WRIA 9 ILA would demonstrate the City commitment to improving Puget Sound health. Puget Sound's decline is not reflected in salmon alone - the resident orca whales have the highest levels of PCBs of any marine mammals in the world and are now also proposed for "listing" under the federal Endangered Species Act. Implementing the watershed habitat plans is a major part of restoring Puget Sound. Participating in the WRIA 9 ILA will help support implementation of the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan, which in turn will contribute to Puget Sound health, which in turn will benefit the Federal Way shoreline and its citizens. Page 3 of3 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT For the Green River, Duwamish River, and Central Puget Sound Watersheds within the geographic planning area of Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (which includes portions of Water Resource Inventory Areas 8, 10, and 15) PREAM BLE 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, lying wholly or partially within or having a major interest in the Green River, Duwamish River, and Central Puget Sound Watersheds and within the planning and management area of Watershed Resource Inventory Area 9 ,which includes portions of WRIA 8, 10, and 15, ("WRIA 9") all political subdivisions of the State of Washington ( individually, for those signing this agreement, "Party", and collectively "Parties"); WHEREAS, the planning and management area of WRIA 9 includes all of the area recognized by the State of Washington as WRIA 9 and portions of WRIA 8, 10, and 15; WHEREAS, the Parties share interests in and responsibility for addressing long-term watershed planning and conservation of the aquatic ecosystems of the Green River, Duwamish River, and Central Puget Sound Watersheds and wish to collectively provide for planning, funding and implementation of various activities and projects therein; and WHEREAS, the Parties have participated in an Interlocal Agreement for the years 2001- 2005 to develop "Making Our Watershed Fit for a King" ("Salmon Habitat Plan"), contributed to the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, and desire to continue providing efficient participation in the implementation of such plans; and WHEREAS, the Parties have demonstrated in the Salmon Habitat Plan that watershed ecosystem services are worth billions of dollars of value to local people in terms of stormwater management, pollution treatment, recreational value, and other expensive and difficult to replace services; and WHEREAS, the Parties seek information on watershed conditions and salmon conservation and recovery needs to inform local decision-making bodies regarding actions in response to listings under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"); and WHEREAS, the Parties have prioritized and contributed resources and funds for implementing projects and programs to protect and restore habitat; and WHEREAS, the Parties wish to monitor and evaluate implementation of the Salmon Habitat Plan through adaptive management; and WHEREAS, the Parties wish to continue to use adaptive management for identifying, coordinating and implementing basin plans and water quality, flood hazard reduction, water quantity, and habitat projects in the watersheds; and WRIA 9 Watershed - New lLA 2007-2015 (WRIA 9 Forum Recommended 5-24-06; legal review completed) Page 1 - ----- WHEREAS, the Parties have a strong interest in participating on the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council because of the contributions of the Green River, Duwamish River, and Central Puget Sound Watersheds to the overall health of Puget Sound; and WHEREAS, the Parties have a strong interest in participating on the Lead Entity Advisory Group and other groups associated with the Salmon Recovery Funding Board to collectively seek funding to implement the Salmon Habitat Plan; and WHEREAS, the Parties have a strong interest in participating on the Puget Sound Partnership to develop recommendations to restore the Puget Sound to health and sustain that health by 2020; WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that identification of watershed issues, and implementation of salmon conservation and recovery actions may be carried out more efficiently if done cooperatively than if carried out separately and independently; and WHEREAS, individual Parties are taking separate and independent actions to improve the health of the Green River, Duwamish River, and the Central Puget Sound Watersheds and the overall health of Puget Sound; NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto do mutually covenant and agree as follows: MUTUAL CONVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning provided for below: 1.1 ELIGIBLE COUNTY AND CITY GOVERNMENTS: The local governments eligible for participation in this Agreement as parties are King County, and the Cities of A1gona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent, Maple Valley, Normandy Park, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle, Tacoma, Tukwila, and any newly incorporated city that lies fully or partially within the boundaries of WRIA 9. 1.2 WRIA 9 WATERSHED FORUM: The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum created herein is the governing body responsible for implementing this Agreement. The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum is comprised of designated representatives of eligible governments who have authorized the execution of and become ,Parties to this Agreement. 1.3 WRIA 9 STEERING COMMmEE: The WRIA 9 Steering Committee referred to herein is the cooperative body comprised of a balance of stakeholder representatives and any other persons who are deemed by the Parties to this Agreement to be appropriate members for the implementation of the Salmon Habitat Plan. 1.4 GREEN/DUWAMISH AND CENTRAL PUGET SOUND WATERSHED WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA 9 SALMON HABITAT PLAN: The Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Salmon Habitat Plan is the plan developed by the WRIA 9 Steering Committee and ratified by all of the parties to an interlocal agreement for its development. The Salmon Habitat WRIA 9 Watershed - New lLA 2007-2015 (WRIA 9 Forum Recommended 5-24-06; legal review completed) Page 2 ------ ---- Plan recommends actions that should be taken from 2006 through 2015 (ten years) to protect and restore salmon habitat, using an ecosystem approach, in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds. This Salmon Habitat Plan may be amended from time to time according to the procedure in Section 6 herein and approved amendments shall be considered integral parts of the Salmon Habitat Plan. Efforts under the Salmon Habitat Plan are intended to complement habitat improvements in other parts of Puget Sound and hatchery and harvest actions to recover Puget Sound Chinook salmon and bull trout. The Salmon Habitat Plan constitutes a chapter of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. 1.5 MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE: Management Committee as referred to herein consists of seven (7) elected officials or their designees. The seven elected officials of the Management Committee are chosen by the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum, according to the voting procedures in Section 5 herein, charged with certain oversight and administrative duties on the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum's behalf. 1.6 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 Watershed Forum, in exchange for payment. The Service Provider may be a Party to this Agreement. 1.7 FISCAL AGENT: The Fiscal Agent refers to that agency or government who performs all accounting services for the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum, as it may require, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 39.34 RCW. 1.8 STAKEHOLDERS: Stakeholders refers to those public and private entities within WRIA 9 who reflect the diverse interests integral to implementing the Salmon Habitat Plan, which may include but is not limited to environmental and business interests. 2. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Agreement include the following: 2.1 To provide a mechanism to protect and restore the ecological health of the Green/Duwamish Rivers and Central Puget Sound Watersheds. 2.2 To provide a mechanism, through an annually agreed upon work plan, for implementing and coordinating local efforts to address issues with watershed-wide or basin implications, including but not limited to flood hazard reduction, surface and groundwater quality, water quantity, and habitat. 2.3 To provide a mechanism and governance and funding structures for jointly implementing the Salmon Habitat Plan. 2.4 To develop and take actions on key issues during the implementation of the Salmon Habitat Plan. 2.5 To provide a mechanism for cooperative review and implementation of recommended policies and regulations needed for response to listings under the Endangered Species Act. WRIA 9 Watershed - New lLA 2007-2015 (WRIA 9 Forum Recommended 5-24-06; legal review completed) Page 3 ~~ ------- ----------------- 2.6 To provide a venue for the ongoing participation of citizens and other stakeholders in salmon recovery and other watershed efforts and to ensure continued public outreach efforts to educate and garner support for current and future watershed and Endangered Species Act listed species response efforts by local governments and in accordance with the Salmon Habitat Plan. 2.7 To provide a mechanism for securing technical assistance and any available funding from federal, state, and other sources to implement the Salmon Habitat Plan. 2.8 To provide a mechanism for implementing other habitat, surface and groundwater quality, water quantity and flood hazard reduction projects with other local, regional, tribal, state, federal and non-profit funds as may be contributed to or secured by the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum. 2.9 To annually recommend projects for grant funding by the King Conservation District through the King Conservation District's Forum grant program distribution. 2.10 To annually recommend projects for implementation of planning, engineering, permitting and construction tasks for the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Projects in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2.11 To provide a framework for cooperating and coordinating among the Parties on issues relating to WRIA 9 to meet the requirement of a commitment by any Party to participate in WRIA 9 planning and implementation, to prepare or implement a basin plan, or to respond to any state or federal law which may require these actions as a condition of any funding, permitting or other program of state or federal agencies. Participation is at the discretion of such Party to this Agreement. 2.12 To provide a mechanism to approve and support, through resources, funding from grant sources or other means, implementation of restoration and protection projects and programs. 2.13 To provide a mechanism for on-going monitoring and evaluation of the Salmon Habitat Plan implementation through adaptive management as defined in the Plan. It is not the purpose or intent of this Agreement to create, supplant, preempt or supersede the authority or role of any jurisdiction, governmental entity or water quality policy bodies .including the Regional Water Quality Committee. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM. Once effective, this Agreement shall remain in effect for an initial term of nine (9) years; provided, however, that this Agreement may be extended for such additional terms as the Parties may agree to in writing with such extension being effective upon its execution by at least five (5) of the eligible local governments within WRIA 9 representing at least seventy percent (70%) of the affected population within the geographic area of WRIA 9, as authorized by the legislative body of each local government. Such extension shall bind only those Parties executing the extension. WRIA 9 Watershed - New lLA 2007-2015 (WRIA 9 Forum Recommended 5-24-06; legal review completed) Page 4 -- - ----------- ---- 4. ORGANIZATION AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE WRIA 9 WATERSHED FORUM. The Parties to this Agreement hereby establish a WRIA 9 Watershed Forum to serve as the formal governance structure for carrying out the purposes of this Agreement. The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum is a voluntary association of the county and city governments located wholly or partially within the management area of or having a major interest in WRIA 9 who choose to be Parties to this Agreement. 4.1 Each Party to this Agreement shall appoint one (1) elected official to serve as its primary representative, and one (1) alternate representative to serve on the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum. The alternate representative may be a different elected official or senior staff person. 4.2 Upon the effective execution of this Agreement and the appointment of representatives to the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum, the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum shall meet and choose from among its members, according to the provisions of Section 5 herein, seven (7) officials or their designees, to serve as a Management Committee to oversee and direct the scope of work, funds, and personnel agreed to and contributed under this Agreement, in accordance with the adopted annual budget and work program and such other directions as may be provided by the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum. Representatives of the Fiscal Agent and Service Provider may serve as non-voting ex officio members of the Management Committee. The Management Committee shall act as the executive subcommittee of the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum, responsible for oversight and evaluation of any Service Providers or consultants, administration of the budget and work plan, and for providing recommendations on administrative matters to the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum for action, consistent with other subsections of this section. The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum shall consider new appointments or reappointments to the Management Committee every two years following its initial appointments. 4.3 The services cost-shared under this agreement shall be provided to the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum by the Service Provider, which shall be King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, unless selected otherwise by the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum. The Management Committee shall prepare a Memorandum of Understanding to be signed by a representative of the Service Provider, and a representative of the WRIA 9 Watershed 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 0.5 Full Time Equivalent, 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 concerning the performance of services hereunder. WRIA 9 Watershed - New lLA 2007-2015 (WRIA 9 Forum Recommended 5-24-06; legal review completed) Page 5 ------------- --- 4.3.1 A subset of the Parties to this Agreement may purchase and cost share services from the Service Provider in addition to the annual cost-shared services agreed to by all Parties pursuant to Section 4.3 herein. 4.3.2 The Management Committee shall prepare a Memorandum of Understanding to be signed by a representative of the Service Provider, and a representative of the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum, which shall set out the expectations for the additional services so provided to the subset of Parties to this Agreement. 4.4 The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum, by September 1 of each year, shall establish and approve an annual budget that provides for the level of funding and total resource obligations of the Parties for the following calendar year. Such obligations are to be allocated on a proportional basis based on the average of the population, assessed valuation and area attributable to each Party to this Agreement, in accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit A, which formula and accompanying data shall be updated by the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum when more current data become available. Tacoma's cost share will be determined on an annual basis by the Parties and will be included in the annual updates to Exhibit A. The weight accorded Tacoma's vote for weighted voting pursuant to Section 5 herein shall correspond to Tacoma's cost share for each year relative to the cost shares contributed by the other Parties. 4.4.1 The level of funding, total resource obligations, and allocation of obligations for those members of the Parties that agree to cost share additional services pursuant to Subsection 4.3.1 herein shall be negotiated and determined by those Parties purchasing the additional services. 4.4.2 The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum shall incorporate the negotiated additional cost share and incorporate the services in its annual budget and work plan. 4.5 The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum shall oversee and administer the expenditure. of budgeted funds and shall allocate the utilization of resources contributed by each Party or obtained from other sources in accordance with the approved annual work program. 4.6 The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum shall review and evaluate the duties to be assigned to the Management Committee hereunder and the performance of the Fiscal Agent and Service Provider to this Agreement, and shall provide for whatever actions are necessary to ensure that quality services are efficiently, effectively and responsibly delivered in the performance of the purposes of this Agreement. The performance of the Service Provider shall be assessed every three years. 4.7 The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum may contract with similar watershed forum governing bodies such as the Puget Sound Shared Salmon Strategy and Puget Sound Partnership or any other entities for any lawful purpose related to the purposes provided for in this agreement. The Parties may choose to create a separate legal or administrative entity under applicable state law, including without limitation a nonprofit corporation or general WRIA 9 Watershed - New lLA 2007-2015 (WRIA 9 Forum Recommended 5-24-06; legal review completed) Page 6 partnership, to accept private gifts, grants or financial contributions, or for any other lawful purpose consistent with the purposes provided for herein. 4.8 The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum shall adopt other rules and procedures that are consistent with its purposes as stated herein and are necessary for its operation. 5. VOTING. The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum shall make decisions, approve scopes of work, budgets, 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. If unanimous agreement of members cannot be reached then the Parties to this agreement may reach consensus by a majority recommendation with a minority report. Any Party who does not accept a majority 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 Watershed Forum, the WRIA 9 Watershed 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 Watershed 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 made by each Party as set in accordance with Section 4.4 herein in the year in which the vote is taken. 5.2.3 For any action subject to weighted voting to be deemed approved, valid and binding, 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. A vote of abstention shall be recorded as a "no" vote. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SALMON HABITAT PLAN. The Salmon Habitat Plan shall be implemented consistent with the following: 6.1 The WRIA 9 Steering Committee, which shall be appointed by the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum, shall be an advisory body responsible for making recommendations for implementing the Salmon Habitat Plan to the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum, including substantive plan amendments recommended as a result of adaptive management. The WRIA 9 Steering Committee shall provide information to the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum regarding progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the Salmon Habitat Plan. Recommendations of the WRIA 9 Steering Committee are to be consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum may authorize additional advisory bodies to the WRIA 9 Steering Committee, such as an adaptive management work group. WRIA 9 Watershed - New lLA 2007-2015 (WRIA 9 Forum Recommended 5-24-06; legal review completed) Page 7 --------------- 6.2 The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum shall act to approve or remand any substantive changes to the Salmon Habitat Plan based upon recommendations by the WRIA 9 Steering Committee within ninety (90) days of receipt of the proposed changes, according to the voting procedures of Section 5 herein. In the event that the Salmon Habitat Plan changes are not so approved, the recommended changes shall be returned to the WRIA 9 Steering Committee for further consideration and amendment and thereafter returned to the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum for decision. 6.3 The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum shall determine when ratification is needed of substantive changes to the Salmon Habitat Plan by the Parties. The changes shall be referred to the Parties for ratification prior to the submission to any regional, state, or federal agency for further action. Ratification means an affirmative action, evidenced by a resolution, motion, or ordinance of the local government's legislative body, by at least five Parties representing at least seventy percent (70%) of the total population within the geographic planning and management area of WRIA 9. 6.4 Upon remand for consideration of any portion or all of the Salmon Habitat Plan by any regional, state or federal agency the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum shall undertake a review for consideration of the remanded portion or plan. The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum may include further referral to the WRIA 9 Steering Committee for recommendation or amendments thereto. 6.5 The Parties agree that any changes to the Salmon Habitat Plan shall not be forwarded separately by any Party to any regional, state or federal agency unless the changes have been approved and ratified as provided herein. 7. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES; BUDGET; FISCAL AGENT; RULES. 7.1 Each Party shall be responsible for meeting only its individual obligations hereunder as established in the annual budget adopted by the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum under this Agreement, including all such obligations related to the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum and WRIA 9 Steering Committee funding, technical support and participation in related planning and implementation of 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 each year of this Agreement shall not exceed the amounts that are established annually. pursuant to Section 4.4 herein. 7.3 No later than September 1 of each year of this Agreement, the WRIA 9 Watershed 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 WRIA 9 Watershed - New lLA 2007-2015 (WRIA 9 Forum Recommended 5-24-06; legal review completed) Page 8 and implementation activities within WRIA 9. The Parties shall thereafter take whatever separate legislative or other actions as may be necessary to address such individual responsibilities under the proposed budget, and shall have done so no later than December 1 of each year. Parties may elect to secure grant funding to meet their individual obligations. 7.4 Funds collected from the Parties or other sources on behalf of the WRIA 9 Watershed 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 Watershed Forum pursuant to rules and procedures established and agreed to by the WRIA 9 Watershed 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. 7.5 Any Party to this Agreement may inspect and review all records maintained in connection with such fund at any reasonable time. 8. LATECOMERS. A county or city government in King County lying wholly or partially within the management area of or with a major interest in WRIA 9 which has not become a Party to this Agreement within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this Agreement may become a Party by obtaining written consent of all the Parties to the Agreement. The provisions of Section 5 herein otherwise governing decisions of the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum shall not apply to this section. The Parties of the Agreement and any governments seeking to become a Party shall jointly determine the terms and conditions under which a government may become a new Party. The terms and conditions shall include payment of an amount by the new Party to the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum. The amount of payment is determined jointly by the existing Parties of the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum and the new Party. The payment of the new Party is to be a fair and proportionate share of all costs associated with activities undertaken by the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum as of the date the government, becomes a new Party. Any government that becomes a Party pursuant to this section shall thereby assume the general rights and responsibilities of all other Parties. 9. TERMINATION. 9.1 The obligations of any Party under this Agreement may be terminated by the Party, through action of its governing body, only upon sixty (60) days' written notice to the other Parties by not later than November 1 for termination effective January 1 of the following year. The terminating Party shall remain fully responsible for meeting all of its funding and other obligations through th~ 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. It is expected that the makeup of the Parties to 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 only meet their respective share of the obligations of the WRIA 9 Watershed WRIA 9 Watershed - New lLA 2007-2015 (WRIA 9 Forum Recommended 5-24-06; legal review completed) Page 9 Forum as reflected in the annual budget. The shares of any terminating Party shall not be the obligation of any of the Parties not choosing to exercise the right of termination. 9.2 This Agreement may be terminated in its entirety at any time by the written agreement of all of the Parties. 10. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent permitted by state law as to city and county governments, and federal law as governing to tribes, 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 to this Agreement 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. In the event that either Party incurs any judgment, award, and/or cost arising therefrom, including attorneys' fees, to enforce the provisions of this Section, all such fees, expenses, and costs shall be recoverable from the responsible Party to the extent of that Party's culpability. The provisions of this Section shall survive and continue to be applicable to Parties exercising the right of termination pursuant to Section 9 herein. 11. 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 Act, or any other act, statute, regulation or ordinance of any local municipality or government, the State of Washington, or the United States. 12. VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT. This Agreement is voluntary and is acknowledged and agreed that no Party is committing to adopt or implement any actions or recommendations that may be contained in the Salmon Habitat Plan. 13. NO PRECLUSION OF ACTIVITIES OR PROJECTS. Nothing herein shall preclude anyone or more of the Parties from choosing or agreeing to fund or implement any work, activities or projects associated with any of the purposes hereunder by separate agreement or action, provided that any such decision or agreement shall not impose any funding, participation or other obligation of any kind on any Party which is not a party to such decision or agreement. 14. 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 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, any agency or department of the United States, or the State of Washington, or to form the basis for any WRIA 9 Watershed - New lLA 2007-2015 (WRIA 9 Forum Recommended 5-24-06; legal review completed) Page 10 liability on the part of the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum or any of the Parties, or their officers, elected officials, agents and employees, to any third party. 15. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be amended, altered or clarified only by the unanimous consent of the Parties to this Agreement, and requires authorization and approval by each Party's governing body. 16. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. 17. APPROVAL BY PARTIES' GOVERNING BODIES. The governing body of each Party must approve this Agreement before any representative of such Party may sign this Agreement. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement among the Parties, and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, oral or otherwise, regarding the specific terms of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated below: Approved as to form: CITY OF ALGONA By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF AUBURN By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF BLACK DIAMOND By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: WRIA 9 Watershed - New ILA 2007-2015 (WRIA 9 Forum Recommended 5-24-06; legal review completed) Page 11 -------- ~- -~ Approved as to form: CITY OF BURl EN By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF COVINGTON By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF DES MOINES By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF ENUMCLAW By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: WRIA 9 Watershed - New lLA 2007-2015 (WRIA 9 Forum Recommended 5-24-06; legal review completed) Page 12 Approved as to form: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF KENT By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: KING COUNTY By: By: . Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF MAPLE VALLEY By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: WRIA 9 Watershed - New lLA 2007-2015 (WRIA 9 Forum Recommended 5-24-06; legal review completed) Page 13 ------------- Approved as to form: CITY OF NORMANDY PARK By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF RENTON By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF SEATAC By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF SEATTLE By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: WRIA 9 Watershed - New lLA 2007-2015 (WRIA 9 Forum Recommended 5-24-06; legal review completed) Page 14 -------------------------------- Approved as to form: CITY OF TACOMA By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF TUKWILA By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: WRIA 9 Watershed - New lLA 2007-2015 (WRIA 9 Forum Recommended 5-24-06; legal review completed) Page 15