LUTC PKT 07-12-2010MEETING AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Topic Title/ Description
A. Approval of Minutes: June 12, 2010
B. West Hylebos Creek Culvert
Replacement/Removal and Flood Control
Improvements Project — Bid Award
C. Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement
Projects
D. Proposed Amendment to FWRC — Appeals of
Hearing Examiners Decisions
E. Department of Ecology Stormwater Grant — FY
2012 Grant Funding Offer -
F. Department of Ecology Retrofit and LID
Competitive Grant
City of Federal Way
Council
City Council
Page
or Info
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Time
LeMaster
July 12, 2010 City Hall
Action
N/A
5:30 p.m. Council Chambers
Tang
MEETING AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Topic Title/ Description
A. Approval of Minutes: June 12, 2010
B. West Hylebos Creek Culvert
Replacement/Removal and Flood Control
Improvements Project — Bid Award
C. Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement
Projects
D. Proposed Amendment to FWRC — Appeals of
Hearing Examiners Decisions
E. Department of Ecology Stormwater Grant — FY
2012 Grant Funding Offer -
F. Department of Ecology Retrofit and LID
Competitive Grant
4. OTHER
5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS: There will be no LUTC meeting Monday, July 19, 2010. The next
regularly scheduled meeting will be Monday, August 2, 2010 at 5:30 P.M. in City Hall Council Chambers.
6. ADJOURN
Committee Members City staff
Dini Duc%s, Chair Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management
Jim Ferrell, Member Darlene LeMaster, Administradve Assistant 11
Jack Dovey, Member 253-835-2701
G. 1LU7C1LU7CAgendas and summanes 201017--12-10 WrCAgenda.doc
Action
Council
Presenter
Page
or Info
Date
Time
LeMaster
3
Action
N/A
5 min.
Tang
Action
July 20, 2010
5 min.
7
Consent
Mulkey
11
Action
August 3, 2010
5 min.
Business
Richardson
13
Action
July 20, 2010
5 min.
Ordinance
Appleton
29
Action
July 20, 2010
5 min.
Consent
Appleton
33
Action
July 20, 2010
10 min.
Consent
4. OTHER
5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS: There will be no LUTC meeting Monday, July 19, 2010. The next
regularly scheduled meeting will be Monday, August 2, 2010 at 5:30 P.M. in City Hall Council Chambers.
6. ADJOURN
Committee Members City staff
Dini Duc%s, Chair Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management
Jim Ferrell, Member Darlene LeMaster, Administradve Assistant 11
Jack Dovey, Member 253-835-2701
G. 1LU7C1LU7CAgendas and summanes 201017--12-10 WrCAgenda.doc
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
June 21, 2010 City Hall
5:30 PM City Council Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
Committee Members in Attendance: Committee Chair Dini Duclos and Committee Member Jack Dovey. Council
Member Jim Ferrell was excused.
Council Members in Attendance: Mayor Linda Kochmar and Council Member Burbidge
Staff Members in Attendance: Director of Parks, Public Works, and Emergency Management Cary Roe, Deputy Public
Works Director Marwan Salloum, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Street Systems Project Engineer John Mulkey, Building
Official Lee Bailey, Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins, Senior Traffic Engineer Maryanne
Zukowski, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant II Darlene LeMaster.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Duclos called the meeting to order at 5:33 PM.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
3. BUSINESS ITEMS
Forward
Topic Title/Description to Council
A. Approval of the June 7, 2010, LUTC Minutes N/A
Committee approved June 7, 2010, LUTC minutes as presented.
Moved: Dovey Seconded: Duclos Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
B. S352 "d Street Extension Project from Enchanted Parkway South to Pacific Highway South 7/06/2010
—100% Design Status Report and ILA with Lakehaven for Design Consent
Streets Systems Project Engineer John Mulkey presented information on this item. There was
no public comment. Mr. Mulkey stated that four of the five property owners have made verbal
commitments to dedicate land; written agreements will follow. Committee Member Dovey was
concerned that one property owner has still yet to agree to dedicate land to the City. Should the
City even go forward with the project unless there is unanimous support from the affected
property owners?
Mr. Mulkey shared the property owner's concerns with the proposed project. The four
remaining property owners find the proposed project worthwhile and wish to dedicate the
needed portions of their land to the City regardless if the City has to pay for the 5d' parcel.
Chair Duclos stated that if four businesses are supportive of the project and are looking forward
toward the benefit the project will have on the entire area, that that may supersede one property
owner who is not as cooperative.
Director Roe contributed the benefits the project would bring to the City and surrounding
community.
Land Use/Transportation Committee
previously directed $2.7 of the funds left from the low bidding of SR 99 to be kept to be used at
CM discretion, while Million is available to transfer to another capital project.
June 21, 2010
Mayor Kochmar stated she is in favor of this project moving forward. Committee Member
Dovey said he was unsure of the project without 100% property owner approval. Director Roe
stated that the Committee approving this recommendation does not bind the City's commitment
to this project.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Dovey Seconded: Duclos Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
C. S 3201h Street at I-5 Southbound Off Ramp — 30% Design Status Report 7/06/2010
Consent
Deputy Public Works Director Marwan Salloum presented information on this item. There was
no public comment or discussion.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Dovey Seconded: Duclos Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
D. 2011— 2016 Transportation Improvement Plan 7/06/2010
Public
Senior Traffic Engineer Maryanne Zuklowski presented information on this item. There was no Hearing
public comment or discussion.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Dovey Seconded: Duclos Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
E. Amendments to Title 13 FWRC; Adoption of 2009 Construction Codes
7/06/2010
Building Official Lee Bailey presented information on this item. Mr. Bailey handed out an Ordinance
updated draft ordinance to replace the ordinance in the agenda packet. There was one public 1St Reading
comment:
Gordy Olson, Deputy Fire Chief, South King Fire and Rescue — Deputy Fire Chief Olson spoke
in favor of residential fire sprinklers and requested that Council consider requiring fire
sprinklers in new construction of single and two-family dwellings and townhomes.
Committee Member Dovey asked for clarification on what was being adopted and how that
differed from the appendices to the Code. Mr. Baily explained that the appendices are only
considered part of the local code if independently adopted by the individual jurisdiction. The
amendments being considered in the subject code amendments in regard to fire sprinklers are for
businesses and multi -family units.
Committee Member Dovey requested that staff returns some time in the future to discuss
residential fire sprinklers for single and two-family dwellings as well as townhomes.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Dovey Seconded: Duclos Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
4. OTHER
5. FUTURE MEETING
The next scheduled LUTC meeting falls on a holiday and City Hall will be closed in observance of July 4`h. LUTC is
GALUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2010\6-21-10 Minutes.dm
Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 June 21, 2010
being rescheduled for Monday, July 12, 2010, at 5:30 PM in City Council Chambers. The following regularly
scheduled LUTC meeting on July 19, 2010 is tentative, pending the demand for agenda items.
6. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 PM.
Attest:
COMMITTEE APPROVAL:
Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II
Dini Duclos, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member
G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2010\6-21-10 Minutes.doc
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July . 20, 2010 ITEM #:
.........
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: West Hylebos Creek Culvert Replacement/Removal and Flood Control Improvements Project— Bid
Award
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council award the West Hylebos Creek Culvert Replacement/Removal and Flood
Control Improvements Project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: July 12, 2010
CATEGORY:
® Consent ❑ Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing
❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution ❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Fei Tang, P.E., Surface Water Project Engineerl.- jDEPT• Public Works
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ...................
Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated July 12, 2010.
ions Considered:
...................................................................................................................... ........... ....................................................................................... .................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................_......._..
1. Award Schedule A in the amount of $174,397.55, and conditioned upon receiving the funds from private
developer to complete the work, award Schedule B in the amount of $6,696.44, totaling $181,093.99
(including sales tax), for the West Hylebos Creek Culvert Replacement/Removal and Flood Control
Improvements Project to Lloyd Enterprises, Inc., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and approve a
10% contingency of $17,439.76 for Schedule A and $669.64 for Schedule B, for a total of $199,203.39,
and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.
2. Do not award the West Hylebos Creek Culvert Replacement/Removal and Flood Control Improvements
Project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and reject all bids, and provide direction to staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the July 20, 2010 City Council Consent
Agenda for approval..
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: rel DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Committee Council Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommends forwarding Option 1 to the July 20, 2010 City
Council Consent Agenda for approval.
Dini Duclos, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "Award Schedule A in the amount of $174,397.55, and conditioned upon
receiving the funds from private developer to complete the work, award Schedule B in the amount of $6,696 44,
totaling $181,093.99 (including sales tax), for the West Hylebos Creek Culvert Replacement/Removal and Flood
Control Improvements Project to Lloyd Enterprises, Inc., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and approve
a 10% contingency of $17,439.76 for Schedule A and $669.64 for Schedule B, for a total of $199,203.39, and
authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1sT reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # __
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 12, 2010
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: Brian Wilson, City Manager/Police Chief
FROM: William Appleton, P.E., Surface Water Manager
Fei Tang, P.E., Surface Water Project Engineer
SUBJECT: Fest Hylebos Creek Culvert Replacement/Removal and Flood Control Improvements
Project— Bid Award
BACKGROUND
Six (6) bids were received and opened on June 29, 2010, for the West Hylebos Creek Culvert
Replacement/Removal and Flood Control Improvements Project. See attached Bid Tabulation Summary. The
lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. with a total bid of $181,094 (sales tax included).
The low bid received was (39%) below the engineer estimate.
This RFB consists of two bid schedules. Schedule A is to remove a culvert, regrade the stream channel, and
replant the area with native plants. Schedule B is to construct a storm drain outfall and a portion of the sanitary
side sewer for the private developer. Per our agreement, the private developer is completely responsible for the
cost of Schedule B work. The low bidder's bid for Schedule A and B are $174,398 and $6,696, respectively. We
have notified the developer of the cost to construct the private improvements and if the funds to complete the
work are not received, schedule B will not be included in the contract with Lloyd Enterprises, Inc.
Reference checks on Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. by City staff indicates that the contractor has performed similar
work. As a result, City staff believes Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. can successfully complete this project to the City's
satisfaction. Therefore, the lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of
$181,094 (sales tax included). Any funds remaining in the project when it is complete will be transferred to the
unallocated SWM funds for future capital project.
PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES:
Description
Amount
Engineering Design
$ 50,000
Lloyd Enterprises' bid
$174,397.55
10% Construction Contingency
$ 17,439.76
Construction Inspection & Management (10%)
$ 17,439.76
Printing and Advertising (Estimate)
$ 5,000
Private Construction Costs
$ 6,696.44
Private Construction Contingency
$ 669.64
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$ 271,643.15
PROJECT BUDGET:
Description Amount
SWM Major CIP (Design) $ 214,000
SWM Major CIP (Construction) $ 414,000
Private Developer $ 6,696.44
King County Flood Control District $ 91,000
AVAILABLE FUNDING $725,696.44
cc: Project File
K:\LUTC\2010\7-12-10 W Hylebos Culvert Replacement - Bid Award.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
tchedule B
:st- nFe 10-10+.bs Page 1 Printed: 07/02/2010
SUBJECT: Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects
POLICY QUESTION: Should City Council authorize staff to submit grant applications for transportation
improvement projects?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
CATEGORY:
❑ Consent ❑ Ordinance
® City Council Business
❑ Resolution
MEETING DATE: July 12, 2010
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: John Mulkey P.E., Street Systems Project Engineer'" � DEPT: Public Works
Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated July 12, 2010.
Options Considered:
1. Authorize staff to submit a grant funding application under the 2011 Transportation Improvement Board
(TIB) Funding Program for the following transportation improvement projects:
• S352 d Street Extension (SR 161 to SR 99)
• 21" Avenue SW at SW 336th Street Intersection Improvements (Median U-turns)
2. Modify the projects for which staff should submit a grant -funding application.
3. Do not submit any grant funding application to TIB for these projects.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the August 3, 2010 Council Business
Agenda for approval.
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: iy_ DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Coif
Committee Council Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommends forwarding Option 1 to the August 3, 2010 Council
Business Agenda for approval.
Dini Duclos, Chair Jack Dovey, Member Jim Ferrel, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to authorize staff to proceed with submitting grant funding
applications under the FY 2012 Transportation Improvement Board ('TIB) Funding Program for the followin
transportation improvement projects: S 352"d Street Extension (SR 161 to SR 99), 21St Avenue SW at SW 336`
Street Intersection Improvements (Median U-turns). "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED IST reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 12, 2010
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: Brian Wilson, City Manager/Police Chief
FROM: Marwan Salloum, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director
John Mulkey, P. E., Street Systems Project Engineer]P
SUBJECT: Grant Funding For Transportation Improvements Projects
BACKGROUND:
This memorandum provides the Council with the current funding availability of new grant funding
programs for transportation projects. Staff has evaluated all projects listed on the City's Six Year
Transportation Improvements Plan (TIP) and concluded that the following projects will likely be
competitive in the 2011 Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Funding Program.
Project (Funding Phase)
Grant
S352 nd Street Extension (SR 161 to SR 99)
(Construction)
FY 2012 Urban Arterial Program (TIB)
21" Avenue SW at SW 336th Street Intersection
Improvements (Median U-turns)
(Design, Right of Way and Construction)
FY 2012 Urban Arterial Program (TIB)
Estimated Possible Grant Required
Proiect Cost Fund City Match
$5,657,500
$4,800,000
$2,959,500
$2,880,000
$1,973,000
$1,920,000
SUBJECT: APPEALS OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONS
POLICY QUESTION: SHOULD THE CITY COUNCIL MODIFY CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THE FEDERAL WAY REVISED
CODE WHERE THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION CAN BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL?
COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation MEETING DATE: July 12, 2010
CATEGORY:
❑ Consent ® Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing
❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution ❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Patricia Richardson City Attorney. DEPT: Law
.......... .......................... ............................................. __ ._..__.. ..... __ .... _....... ........ - ..._..
Attachments: Staff report and proposed ordinance modifying certain provisions in the FWRC where the
Hearing Examiner's decision can be appealed to the City Council.
Options Considered: 1. Approve the proposed ordinance modifying certain provisions in the FWRC
where the Hearing Examiner's decision can be appealed to the City Council.
2. Modify the proposed as discussed.
3. Reject the proposed ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Option 1
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL• t4, 6 J DIRECTOR APPROVAL: 1 (- K
Committee Council Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S):
1ST READING OF ORDINANCE (DATE): I move to forward the ordinance modifying certain provisions in the
FWRC where the Hearing Examiner's decision can be appealed to the City Council to a second reading for
enactment on the August 3, 2010 consent agenda.
2"D READING OF ORDINANCE (CONSENT AGENDA DATE): "I move approval of the ordinance "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED IsT reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED— 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION #
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: JULY 12, 2010
TO: LAND USE/TRANSPORATION COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEMBERS
VIA: BRIAN WILSON, CITY MANAGER/POLICE CHIEF
FROM: PATRICIA RICHARDSON, CITY ATTORNEY n "
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WAY REVISED CODE
In an effort to streamline service to citizens and to use City staffing resources efficiently, the City
Attorney identified sections in the Federal Way Revised Code ("I'VaC") where the City Council acts as the
appellate body for some decisions made by the Hearing Examiner, and is proposing modifications. Granted
appellate hearings before the City Council are not frequent. However, historically some of the hearings have
required more than one evening to conduct the hearing, which does not account for time spent in
preparation. Depending upon the complexity of the issue, it may take a fair amount of time for City Council
to issue the decision.
TYPES OF ISSUES THAT CAN BE APPEALED TO CITY COUNCIL
1. Permit for right-of-way activity.
Generally a permit is required when individuals or groups of individuals want to conduct an activity in
the right-of-way. FWRC 4.30.110 establishes the appeal process. Appeals to City Council must occur within
thirty (30) days of notice of appeal.
2. Revocation of business license/registration.
If a business registration/license is revoked or an application denied, FWRC 12.05.230 states that the
Hearing Examiner's decision can be appealed to the City Council. The process for the appeal is "Process
IV". ("Process IV is addressed in more detail below under development regulations).
3. Development regulations including_ environmental decisions.
Process IV is the procedure described for appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision in regards to
environmental decisions — FWRC 14.10.060 — and for development, activities and land ues — FWRC
19.70.010. The procedure requires staff to prepare a report for the hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
The report is quite detailed and involves several pages with exhibits. The detailed report is then sent to the
applicant, the Hearing Examiner, and citizens within a certain area. If the Hearing Examiner's
decision/recommendation is appealed, Staff is required to prepare a second report, attached the hearing
examiner's written decision/recommendation along with all documents submitted at the hearing and again
mail copies to individuals participating in the hearing and those indicating an interest.
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE
An additional consideration in bringing forth the proposed modifications to the FWRC was the
application of the quasi-judicial role in appeals. When Council acts in the quasi-judicial capacity, the
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine ("Doctrine"), as required by state law, applies. The basic premise of the
Doctrine is that the decision making body will only consider the information in the record of the hearing
examiner's hearing when rendering a decision. This limitation is counterintuitive to the legislative body
because citizens are encouraged to interact with the legislators, and because the legislators seek citizen input.
This limitation can be particularly difficult for Council because all are very involved in the community, which
results in additional, outside knowledge.'
The proposed modifications would not change appeals to the City Council under the following
provisions:
FWRC 3.30.070 Tax exemptions
FWRC 11.45.100 — SWM rates
FWRC 18.35 — Preliminary Plat
FWRC 18.45 — Alteration of plat
FWRC 18.50 —Vacate subdivision
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
The FWRC process provisions below are identified in the proposed ordinance. The proposal identifies
provisions to be modified and provisions to be repealed entirely depending upon the substance. In each
provision the Hearing Examiner conducts a hearing to provide the applicant and others an opportunity to
present information, and then the Hearing Examiner issues detailed findings and conclusions to support the
determination. The proposed modifications would indicate that the Hearing Examiner's decision is final for
the City and appeal is then to superior court.
Research reveals that more than ninety cities use a Hearing Examiner process, and many provide that the
appeal goes to superior court. Municipal Research and Services Center ("MRSC") indicates the trend
continues to move towards sending appeals to superior court instead of city council. Attached is a list of
cities that use the Hearing Examiner process and appeals to superior court. Some cities limit the appeals to
superior court for land use decisions?
2 The provisions in FWRC where the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation to the City Council are excluded
from the proposed amendments. Council would continue to make all decisions concerning zoning, plats and
subdivisions.
Mod —
Repeal
CODE PROVISIONS
FWRC 4.30.110 — Appeal Hearing Examiner Decision re: Activities in Rights of Way
FWRC 12.05.210 — Decision of Hearing Examiner Business License/Registration
FWRC 14.10.060 — Appeal Hearing Examiner Decision re: Environmental. Administration
FWRC 19.70— Appeal Hearing Examiner Decision re: Process IV development regulations
.010 — Administration of Process IV
.150 — Hearing Examiner's Decision
FWRC 12.05.230 — Appeal to City Council (to be consistent with FWRC 12.05.210 modification
above)
FNVRC 19.70 — Appeal Hearing Examiner Decision (above)
§ .170 — Appeal of Decision (to be consistent with modifications above)
§ .180 — Notice of Appeal Hearing (to be consistent with modifications above)
§ .200 — Staff report on appeal (to be consistent with modifications above)
� .210 — Closed record appeal (to be consistent with modifications above)
§ .220 — Scope of appeal (to be consistent with modifications above)
§.230 — Burden of proof in appeal (to be consistent with modifications above)
§ .250 — Criteria for Council's decision (to be consistent with modifications above)
HEARING EXAMINER
APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT
Jurisdictions in Puget Sound Area
Auburn
Bainbridge Island
Bellevue — Process II appeals may go to Shoreline Hearings Board or Growth Management Hearings
Board
Bothell
Bremerton
Burien
Everett
Kent — all quasi-judicial matters right of appeal is to superior court
Lake Forest Park
Medina
Mercer Island
Olympia
Puyallup
Sammamish
Shoreline
Tacoma — in some matters (not in NorthShore however)
University Place
HEARING EXAMINER
APPEAL. TO CITY COUNCIL
Jurisdictions in Puget Sound Area
Des Moines
Edmonds
Fife
Kirkland
Maple Valley
Renton
Tukwila
K:\memo\2010\staff report\appeals to city council(2)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to
Appeals of the Hearing Examiner Decision; amending FWRC 4.30.110;
12.05.210; 14.10.060; 19.70.010; 19.70.150; and repealing FWRC
12.05.230; 19.70.170; 19.70.180; 19.70.200; 19.70.210; 19.70.220;
19.70.230; and 19.70.250. (Amending Ordinance Nos. 08-578,92-134,09-
599,
8-578,92-134,09-
599, 95-231, 91-86,09-594, 07-573, 04-468, 97-291, 93-185,92-133,90-40,
90-43, 09-631, 02-424, and 99-337)
WHEREAS, the City Council of Federal Way continue to strive for simple, clear, and
streamlined processes with public participation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Federal Way desires to provide for efficient and timely
processes to address citizen concerns; and
WHEREAS, the applicants are entitled to a resolution as quickly as possible; and
WHEREAS, HB 1724 (regulatory reform) expressed goals are to minimize procedural steps,
remove barriers and streamline the permitting processes: and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Federal Way finds it is in the best interest of the citizens to
modify the Federal Way Revised Code to provide that the Hearing Examiner's final decision would
be appealed to superior court.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. FWRC 4.3 0.110 is hereby amended to read as follows:
4.30.110 Appeals.
(1) Appeal period. An applicant for a permit under this chapter must appeal any
decision denying or revoking the permit within 14 days of issuance of the notice of the
denial or revocation, by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk. Upon receipt by the
city clerk of the notice of appeal, a hearing shall be held before a hearing examiner
designated by the city. Notice of the hearing shall be given to the appellant at least 10
Ordinance No. 10- Page I of 10
Rev 1/10
days prior to the hearing. At the hearing the appellant shall be entitled to be heard and
introduce evidence on his or her own behalf.
(2) Decision of the hearing examiner. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be
rendered within five days of the close of the hearing. The decision shall be in writing
and shall set forth the findings and reasons for the decision, and the applicant shall be
notified in writing. The decision of the hearing examiner is final unless appealed within
Gl
(3) Appeal to Gity oeune-4. The Gity GGURGH shall hear aR appeal of the heaFiRg
The decision of the
Gi*��G*; hearing examiner shall be final upon issuance.
Section 2. FWRC 12.05.210 is hereby amended to read as follows:
12.05.210 Decision of the hearing examiner.
After considering all of the information and comments submitted on the matter, the
hearing examiner shall issue a written decision, including findings of fact, conclusions,
and order, affirming, reversing, or modifying the decision, action, or penalty being
appealed based on the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions. Unless a longer
period is agreed to by the applicant, the hearing examiner shall issue the decision
within 10 working days after the close of the public hearing. Notice of the decision shall
be mailed to all parties. In the event of revocation or denial of a license or registration,
the hearing examiner shall provide that the revocation or denial shall be for a period of
not less than one year unless the hearing examiner determines that extraordinary
circumstances exist justifying a shorter period of time, in which case the justification for
such decision shall be set forth by the hearing examiner in writing. In determining the
minimum time of the revocation or denial during which reinstatement or issuance of a
business license or registration shall not be considered, the hearing examiner shall
consider among other factors:
(1) The degree of the licensee or registrant's culpability, if any, and the conduct
leading to the revocation, suspension, denial, penalty, or other decision of the clerk;
(2) The criminal nature of the conduct, if any;
(3) The effects on the community and whether the business or activity was a threat to
the public health, safety or welfare; and
(4) Any mitigating evidence.
The decision of the hearing examiner is final uRle s annealed within 14 days to the
the
final decision of the city, and the failure to comply with the decision of the hearing
examiner shall constitute a misdemeanor.
Ordinance No. 10- Page 2 of 10
Rev 1/10
Section 3. FWRC 14.10.060 is hereby amended to read as follows:
14.10.060 Administrative appeals.
(1) Any interested party may appeal to the hearing examiner a threshold
determination, a determination of the adequacy of a final environmental impact
statement, and the conditioning or denial of an action. No more than one appeal may
occur regarding threshold determinations or final environmental impact statements and
the appeal shall consolidate any appeals of procedural and substantive determinations
under SEPA with any hearing or appeal on the underlying action in a single
simultaneous hearing before one hearing officer, except for appeals of a determination
of significance; appeals of a procedural determination made by an agency when the
agency is the project proponent, or is funding the project; appeals of a procedural
determination made by an agency on a nonproject action; and appeals to he Git
mil. The appeal shall be conducted under the provisions of process IV; provided,
that the notice distribution requirements of process IV shall be replaced with the notice
distribution requirements of FWRC 14.10.040.
(2) Appeals are subject to the provisions of WAC 197-11-680(3), and the restrictions
in RCW 36.706.050 and 36.706.060 that local governments provide no more than one
open record hearing and one closed record appeal for permit decisions.
(3) All appeals filed under this section must be filed in writing with the city clerk within
14 calendar days of the date of the decision appealed or the conclusion of the comment
period or completion of the giving of required notices, whichever is longer; provided,
that appeals of determinations of nonsignificance for which public comment is required
are extended seven additional days. All appeals shall contain a specific statement of
reasons why the decision of the responsible official is alleged to be in error.
Section 4. FWRC 19.70.010 is hereby amended to read as follows:
19.70.010 Administration.
Various places in the Code indicate that certain developments, activities or uses are
permitted only if approved using process IV. Certain appeals of agency decisions are
also governed by process IV. This chapter describes process IV.
All development applications subject to this process and also subject to the
requirements of Chapter 19.115 FWRC, Community Design Guidelines, shall first
comply with process III as to those requirements, and then proceed with process IV as
to any other required review. Any appeal of the director's decision as to community
design guidelines pursuant to this section shall be decided at the same time as and in
conjunction with the process IV review. If the development, use or activity that requires
approval through process II or III is part of a proposal that also requires approval
through process IV, the entire proposal will be decided upon using process IV, if the
director determines that will result in more efficient decision making.
Under process IV the hearing examiner will make the initial final decision following a
public hearing.
Ordinance No. 10- Page 3 of 10
Rev 1/10
Section 5. FWRC 19.70.150 is hereby amended to read as follows:
19.70.150 Hearing examiner's decision.
(1) General. After considering all of the information and comments submitted on the
matter, the hearing examiner shall issue a written decision. In an agency decision
appeal, the examiner shall affirm, reverse, or modify the decision being appealed based
on the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of this
section do not apply to agency decision appeals.
(2) Timing.
(a) Unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant, the hearing examiner
shall issue the decision within 10 working days after the close of the public hearing.
(b) The hearing examiner will endeavor to issue his or her decision on the land
use and design components of the process IV project permit approval within 120 days
of the issuance of the letter of completeness issued pursuant to FWRC 19.15.045,
except that the following periods shall not be included in the calculation of the 120 -day
period:
(i) Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the city to
correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. In
these instances, the period excluded from the 120 -day calculation shall begin on the
date the city notifies the applicant of the need for additional information and run until the
earlier of the date the city determines whether the additional information satisfies the
request for information or 14 days after the date the information has been provided to
the city. If the city determines that the information submitted by the applicant under this
subsection is insufficient, it shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies and the
procedures under this subsection shall apply as if a new request for studies had been
made.
(ii) Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being
prepared following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW.
(iii) Any period for administrative appeals of the SEPA threshold
determination; provided, that the time period for consideration of such appeals shall not
exceed 90 days for an open record appeal hearing. The parties to an appeal may agree
to extend the 90 -day period.
(iv) Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the
city.
The 120 -day time period does not apply if a project permit application under this
chapter requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or this title; requires
approval of a new fully contained community as provided in RCW 36.70A.350, a master
planned resort as provided in RCW 36.70A.360, or the siting of an essential public
facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or if a project permit application under this
chapter is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall
Ordinance No. 10- Page 4 of 10
Rev 1/10
start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be complete
under FWRC 19.15.045.
If the hearing examiner is unable to issue his or her decision on the land use or
design review components of a process IV project permit application as provided in this
subsection, the city shall provide written notice of this fact to the applicant. The notice
shall include a statement of reasons why the decision has not been issued within the
120 -day period, and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of final decision.
(3) Decision criteria. The hearing examiner shall use the criteria listed in the
provisions of this title describing the requested decision in deciding upon the
application. In addition, the hearing examiner may approve the application only if:
(a) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
(b) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title and all other
applicable laws;
(c) It is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare;
(d) The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to
serve the anticipated demand from the proposal;
(e) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and
configuration for access; and
(f) Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and off site, are
adequately mitigated.
(4) Conditions and restrictions. The hearing examiner shall include in the written
decision any conditions and restrictions that the examiner determines are reasonably
necessary to eliminate or minimize any undesirable effects of granting the application.
Any conditions and restrictions that are imposed become part of the decision.
(5) Contents. The hearing examiner shall include the following in the examiner's
written decision:
(a) A statement granting, modifying and granting or denying the application.
(b) Any conditions and restrictions that are imposed.
(c) A statement of facts presented to him or her that support the decision,
including any conditions and restrictions that are imposed.
(d) A statement of the hearing examiner's conclusions based on those facts.
(e) A statement of the criteria used by the hearing examiner in making the
decision.
(f) The date of issuance of the decision and a summary of the rights, as
established in this chapter, of the applicant and others to appeal the decision of the
hearing examiner.
(g) A statement of any threshold determination made under the State
Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21 C RCW.
(h) A statement that affected property owners may request a change in
valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
(6) Distribution of written decision. Within five working days after the hearing
examiner's written decision is issued, the director shall distribute the decision as
follows:
(a) A copy will be mailed to the applicant and the appellant.
Ordinance No. 10- Page S of 10
Rev 1/10
(b) A copy will be mailed to each person who submitted written or oral testimony
to the hearing examiner.
(c) A copy will be mailed to any person who has specifically requested it.
(d) A copy will be mailed to the King County assessor.
(7) Decision final. The hearing examiner's decision is the final decision for the city.
Section 6. FWRC 12.05.030 is hereby repealed in its entirety.
WMM
Section 7. FWRC 19.70.170 is hereby repealed in its entirety.
9-Mr,161M InfeWLYMMICI
MA-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
lip
-
-
- - -
�NWNT-
ELI -
pop
_
_
FT
20MMI.
A SIM
Ordinance No. 10- Page 6 of 10
Rev 1/10
Section 8. FWRC 19.70.180 is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 9. FWRC 19.70.200 is hereby repealed in its entirety.
113,111,111,N ZILMLI&C-A!
PON
Section 9. FWRC 19.70.200 is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Ordinance No. 10- Page 7 of 10
Rev 1/10
ZI
-
- - - -
Ordinance No. 10- Page 7 of 10
Rev 1/10
Section 12. FWRC 19.70.230 is hereby repealed in its entirety.
: Hhe' &M�MFMM
Section 13. FWRC 19.70.250 is hereby repealed in its entirety.
(1) After GORsideFiRg the matter as provided iR •
after(a) if Gity GGURGiI deteffniRes that the disputed fiRdiRgG of fact and GE)RGIUS*ORS
(2) NetiGe
- final deGisien of the
•.
A Gepy will be mailed to the applk;aRt.
A Gepy will be mailed to the peFson whe filed the appeal.
A Gepy will be mailed to any peFsen whe submitted written oF
(3) Effec-. The decision of city council is the final decision of the city.
Section 14. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this chapter, or its application to any person or situation, be declared unconstitutional or
invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
chapter or its application to any other person or situation. The City Council of the City of Federal
Way hereby declares that it would have adopted this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence,
Ordinance No. 10- Page 9 of 10
Rev 1/10
clauses, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 15. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the
correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection
numbers and any references thereto.
Section 16. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective
date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 17. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days
from and after its passage and publication, as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of
2010.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MAYOR, LINDA KOCHMAR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.:
Ordinance No. 10-
K:\ord\2010\HEX appeals
Page 10 of 10
Rev 1/10
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 20, 2010 ITEM #:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: Department of Ecology Stormwater Grant — FY 2012 Grant Funding Offer
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to pursue a State Department of Ecology Stormwater Grant
for $306,369 to be used to assist the City in implementing the Phase II NPDES permit?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: July 12, 2010
CATEGORY:
® Consent ❑ Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing
❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution ❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: William Appleton, P.E., Surface Water Manager DEPT: Public Works
Attachments:
Memorandum to Land Use and Transportation Committee dated July 12, 2010
Options Considered:
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute and submit the required grant agreement in order to obtain grant
assistance in the amount of $306,369.
2. Do not authorize staff to execute and submit the agreement and provide direction to staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the July 20, 2010 City Council Consent Agenda for approval.
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: A ^' \ DIRECTOR APPROVAL: ��
Committee Council Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the July 20, 2010 City Council Consent Agenda for
approval.
Dini Duclos, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to authorize the City Manager to execute the grant agreement
required to apply for grant assistance in the amount of $306,369."
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED IST reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 12, 2010
TO:
Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA:
Brian Wilson, City Manager/Police Chief
FROM:
William Appleton, P.E., Surface Water Manager
SUBJECT: Department of Ecology Stormwater Grant — FY 2012 Grant Funding Offer
BACKGROUND:
On June 21, 2010 the City received a letter (attached) from the Department of Ecology announcing that
Federal Way has been identified for a Municipal Stormwater Capacity grant. The total amount of this
award is $306,369. Grant funding is to be used to carry out the requirements of the NPDES stormwater
permit through training, equipment purchases, education and outreach, inspection/monitoring and
program development. There are no matching funds required for this grant. All funds awarded must be
expended by June 30th, 2012.
A "Grant Acceptance Intent Notice" (GAIN) has been signed by the City Manager and submitted to the
Department of Ecology (DOE). A formal grant agreement must be signed and executed by
October 1, 2010.
Staff is requesting authorization to submit the required grant agreement in order to obtain grant assistance
in the amount of $306,369. This amount has been included in the 2011-2012 SWM Budget as a new
program proposal.
cc: Project File
Day File
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47600 - Olympia, WA 98504-7600 - 360-407-6000
711 for Washington Relay Service - Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-634
June 17, 2010
The Honorable Jack Dovey, Mayor
City of Federal Way
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
Re: Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grants
FY 2012 - Grant Funding Offer
Dear Mayor Dovey:
JUN 21 2010
I am pleased to inform you that your community has been identified for a Municipal Stormwater
Capacity grant from the Department of Ecology's (Ecology) new stormwater grants program. The
total amount of this award is $306,369.
The 2010 Washington State Legislature provided $54,609,000 for local governments covered by the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I and II Municipal Stormwater
permits for stormwater management activities, retrofit of existing stormwater facilities, and
implementation of low -impact development (LID) techniques. Ecology is offering two financial
assistance grant programs with the 2010 legislative appropriation: 1) The Municipal Stormwater
Capacity Grants program, and 2) The FY2012 Stormwater Retrofit and LID Competitive Grants.
Information and guidelines for the second competitive grant program will be available on Ecology's
website at:
http://www.ec .wa.goy/programs/wq/funding/cycles/2012/index.htmi
Eligible local governments covered by the NPDES Phase I and II permits may use the Municipal
Stormwater Capacity Grants to implement and manage stormwater activities. This letter includes
instructions and a Grant Acceptance Intent Notice (GAIN) to receive the Municipal Stormwater
Capacity Grant. To initiate the agreement process, the GAIN must be returned to the following
address no later than 5 pm, July 2, 2010 (e-mail and fax copies are acceptable):
Washington State Department of Ecology
Water Quality Program
ATTN: Mindy Ballinger
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
E-mail: mindy.ballinger@ecy.wa.gov
FAX: 360407-7151
cot
The Honorable Jack Dovey
City of Federal Way
Page 2 of 2
Ecology will mail agreements for signature upon receipt of a completed GAIN. An agreement
template will be available by June 30, 2010, on the Ecology Water Quality page for your review prior
to signing. All funds must be obligated in the grant agreement and spent by June 30, 2012.
If you are unable to use this grant offer, please inform Ecology in writing as soon as possible, so that
all available funds can be redistributed to eligible Phase I and II communities.
Please contact your Regional Permit Specialist listed at
b_4://www ecy.wa goy/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/municontacts.htmi if you have any
questions or concerns.
Thank you for your continued efforts to improve and protect Washington's water quality.
Sincerely,
Z��X�
Kelly Susewind, P.E., P.G.
Water Quality Program Manager
KS:PB:mb
Enclosure: Grant Acceptance Intent Notice
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 20, 2010 ITEM #:
.............................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: Department of Ecology Stormwater Retrofit and LID Competitive Grant
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to submit a project proposal for the Department of Ecology
Stormwater Retrofit and LID Competitive Grant?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: July 12, 2010
CATEGORY:
® Consent ❑ Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing
❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution ❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: William Appleton, P.E., Surface Water Manager DEPT: Public Works
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................. ........................ ................ ............................................ ......... ........
Attachments:
Memorandum to Land Use and Transportation Committee dated July 12, 2010
Options Considered:
I. Authorize staff to submit a proposal to DOE for the expansion of the 356th Regional Detention Pond
Facility to be funded thru a DOE Stormwater Retrofit and LID Competitive Grant and SWM Capital
Funds.
2. Do not authorize staff to submit the proposal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the July 20, 2010 City Council Consent Agenda for approval.
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Committee Council Commi, a Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the July 20, 2010 City Council Consent Agenda for
approval.
Dini Duclos, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to authorize staff to submit a proposal to DOE for the expansion of
the 356" Regional Detention Pond Facility to be funded thru a DOE Stormwater Retrofit and LID Competitive
Grant. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1ST reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 12, 2010
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: Brian Wilson, City Manager/Police Chief � / y� C6j
FROM: William Appleton, P.E., Surface Water Manager �E�`
SUBJECT: DOE Stormwater Retrofit and LID Competitive Grant
BACKGROUND:
The 2010 Washington State Legislature appropriated over $54 million to the Department of Ecology for
local governments to address stormwater management and control. The funding is available to local
municipalities covered by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I and II
Municipal Stormwater permits.
On June 17`h, 2010 the Department of Ecology announced the availability of Stormwater Retrofit and
Low -Impact Development Competitive Grants to support the planning, design, and construction of
stormwater retrofit and LID projects. Ecology will distribute a total of $23,447,000 under this program.
The maximum grant amount for individual projects is $1.0 million of total eligible costs and recipients are
required to provide a 25% cash only match.
Surface Water Management recommends submitting a grant application for the S 3561' St Regional
Detention Pond Expansion Project, a project proposed to be programmed in SWM's 2011-2012 budget
cycle and a project that SWM believes would be competitive for grant funding.
The project entails expanding the existing regional detention pond facility (RDF) to the south, utilizing
the property vacated as part of the realignment of S 356th and the associated S 356th/SR 99 intersection
work. Expansion of the RDF will provide the following water quality benefits: 1) Reduce downstream
erosion as evidenced by the failing system of existing weirs; 2) Reduce channel migration and bed load
movement downstream; and 3) Enhance water quality in the North Fork of the West branch of Hylebos
Creek.
The total project cost is estimated at 1.7 million dollars. One million dollars could potentially be covered
by grant funding with the remaining $700,000 provided by SWM capital funds, covering the 25% cash
match requirement.
Grant applications must be submitted by August 31, 2010, and project completion must occur within four
years of the final grant offer.
Staff is requesting authorization to submit a grant application for the expansion of the S 3561i RDF for
consideration of funding thru the DOE Stormwater Retrofit and LID Competitive Grant.