AN ORDINANCE approving an agreement to transfer land between King County and the city of Algona and authorizing the King County executive to sign and implement the agreement.
And then item number four at a minimum, five and six, sorry, are both regarding the construction of a new solid waste transfer station in the city of Algona. We have an existing station in the city of EL going to do an operation for more than 50 years and is in need of an upgrade and expansion. We've been planning additional capacity for the last decade. The executive has now proposed locating a new transfer station directly north of the existing site on county owned property within the city of Algona. The two pieces of legislation before us today are a construction agreement and a land transfer agreement, which outlined the conditions through which the city of Algona would allow the proposed new transfer station to proceed. We have Council Staff Mary Bourguignon and Tara Rose here to brief the committee and representatives from the Solid Waste Division are also here if we have any questions for them, and we're hoping to take this up for action today. So with that, I'll ask staff to please go ahead and brief the committee. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Mary Burge and from council staff and I'm here with Terre Rose, the materials for this presentation begin on page five of your packets. But I'm going to start with the large map that is at your place. Thought it might be helpful just as a geographic orientation to point out the area that we are discussing. So if you look at the map, you'll see that we are located in the city of Algona. If you follow the large arrow, you can sort of see the surroundings and you'll see that there are two properties highlighted. The one to the south that is highlighted in red is the existing Algona transfer and recycling station. That property was purchased in portions by the county beginning in the 1930s and the transfer station has been operating there since the 1960s. That property is approximately 200,000 square feet. It's somewhat topographically constrained and therefore is proposed to be replaced by this site just north of it that is outlined in Green, which is the proposed location for the new transfer and recycling station. That property is approximately 300,000 square feet. Before I leave the map, if you look just a little bit farther down to the south, you'll see a bright blue line along the West Valley Highway south, right at the border between the city of Algona and unincorporated King County. The agreements contain a provision that the city and county would agree to a boundary adjustment so that the city of Algona would control the entire entirety of West Valley Highway. Along that stretch. Right now, the boundary is sort of in the middle of the road and we split the maintenance. And so for ease of maintenance, as well as cost reductions to the county, the agreement would include this proposed boundary adjustment. If you'll flip the map over, you'll see a closer up view of the two properties. And I just want to point out one thing here in the green property, you'll notice that it's comprised of several individual parcels with some city streets running in between them. Those city streets would be vacated and made over to the county as part of the agreement so that we would then own the property in its entirety to be able to operate the proposed transfer station. So with that, I will turn back to the packets and we'll move to page six. Just a quick history of this property. I mentioned that the existing site has been in operation as a transfer station since the 1960s. In December 2007, when the council approved the Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan, it recommended that King County modernize the regional solid waste system and develop several new transfer stations, including a new one in South County. In 2014, when the Transfer Plan Review final report was adopted, that decision was reiterated with a proposal for a new transfer station in South County in 2012 as part of its search for possible locations for a new transfer station. The Solid Waste Division purchased the proposed site in Algona and then began an environmental review process that looked at three alternatives the existing site, which was a no action alternative, the new site that had been purchased in Algona as well as the site in Auburn. That environmental review process concluded last year. It identified the new site in Algona as the preferred location, and at that point the city of Algona challenged the Environmental Impact Statement. The two agreements before you today would allow for the proposed New South. County Recycling and transfer station to move forward. They include a land transfer agreement and a construction agreement. And the city of Algona City Council passed legislation approving both of them earlier this year. I will also note, just in terms of the history of this process, that several years ago, in 2012, the Council required that prior to the Solid Waste Division beginning any design work on this transfer station that it conclude commit to and transmit a report on procurement methods for the new transfer station. And it has done so, in fact did so in September of this year and has recommended that it use traditional public works bidding for the procurement for this new transfer station . With that, I'll move on to page eight and just run through the two agreements. You'll see that on the bottom of page eight is a section about the construction agreement, which is covered in proposed ordinance 2017 0324. So I'll start with that one. That agreement first requires that a procurement method be identified. I noted that the division has indicated they plan to use traditional public works bidding, and the agreement would commit that by September 30th of 2019, which is called the Project Decision Date, that the county would select a procurement method, notify the city and take the first major step toward construction. And we have worked with executive staff and understand that they feel confident that they can meet this deadline. Next, the agreement outlines the number of terms that the city and county have agreed to in terms of mitigate mitigation and the permitting process. It would outline the development standards that the county must comply with, as well as the cost for the permitting, which would be a cost of up to $300,000, and would guarantee that the city may condition but not deny the conditional use permit needed to operate the transfer station. The city would also, by this agreement, agree that the mitigation included in the final environmental impact statement is adequate and that the county would agree that the county would complete this mitigation prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy for the new transfer station. The county would agree to be responsible for newer modified utilities needed to serve the new station. Though the agreement does outline provisions for a late comers agreement for any nearby properties and the county and city agree to use the Mitigation Reserves program for in lieu fee mitigation to address wetlands on commercially zoned properties in the city. Next, the agreement. I'm sorry, Americas as possible. So can Councilmember Lambert. Could you explain a little more that last sentence the in lieu of fees for what. This this would be as part of the overall mitigation process the city and county have agreed to a way to manage wetlands and they would use the in lieu fee mitigation program as a way to do that. Explain a little more about that in live the program. So that is I can get you that offline. That is a separate part of the county code and it's a program, I think Erin Austin's has briefed on it within the last year or so. But I can get you that offline if you'd like. Great. So next part of the agreement is that the county and city have agreed to various maintenance and mitigation work that would be completed on West Valley Highway to handle the additional traffic expected from the transfer station. There are maps in the agreement that I don't know that we need to go over, although we can. But there are segments identified and various tasks outlined for what the county would be doing both during the construction process and then on an ongoing basis to mitigate any impacts for traffic to the site. Next, I had mentioned the street vacations that would be needed since the property that is proposed for the transfer station is comprised of several parcels. The agreement outlines a street vacation process through which the county would agree that the city owns the street right of way and the city would agree to vacate this right of way prior to the county receiving a building permit with the county to pay for appraisals and the full value of the right of way. And then finally, there are sections in the proposed agreement that outline the dispute resolution process and, if necessary, an arbitration process. If there are no more questions about that agreement, I'll move on to the land transfer agreement. Let's pause for 1/2. Any questions at this point about this construction agreement? Okay. All right. So I'm just I'm sorry. Go ahead. Councilmember. Very briefly, on the street, they. In compensation issue. Are we when you said we'll pay the full value, is that as it is that unemployment. Has been raised? Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So next, moving on to the land transfer agreement, which is covered in proposed ordinance 2017 zero 325, this agreement where the construction agreement covered essentially the new site. This agreement would cover the existing site and it would cover the county's deconstruction cleanup and transfer to the city of the existing transfer station property, as well as the ownership , maintenance and operation of West Valley Highway in the area that I had pointed out on the map. Specifically, this agreement would require that the county would test, deconstruct and then transfer the existing station property to the city. And there are specific requirements outlined for the county to complete additional hazardous substance testing in addition to Phase one environmental site assessment to deconstruct the existing station by removing all of the facility except the wall, stormwater facilities and sewer water lines within 18 months of the station being closed. Cleaning the property to state standards for industrial properties. And then indemnifying the city. And I will note that legal counsel did point out that this indemnification would continue past the county's closure of the site and its transfer of the property to the city, but identified this as a business decision and not a legal concern. And then finally, as I noted, the property would be conveyed to the city after the cleanup next. As I had noted, the city and county share a boundary that runs along the middle of West Valley Highway in a portion of the area between Fifth Avenue South and First Avenue North. And as part of this agreement, the two entities would commit to a future boundary adjustment so that the city would control the entirety of the West Valley Highway right of way in that area. I will go on to note that fiscal impacts for the two agreements for the biennium are an estimate of $400,000, $300,000 in permitting costs and $100,000 for some of the work needed on West Valley Highway, specifically to reimburse the city for its local matching fund for a grant for that work. In terms of the larger budget for the new transfer station, the budget is estimated at $113 million. This project has been identified as a high risk project, which is part of the mandatory phased appropriation program, meaning that the council would need to approve each phase of the project. At the moment, the Council has, through the 2017 2018 biennial budget, appropriated funds for design and planning work. But future work and construction is not anticipated until the next biennium. And that concludes my staff report, unless there are questions and we do update McLaughlin here from the division. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Very, very good report. Any other questions at this time? I have a sort of a couple of general ones. This appears to all hang together and make a great deal of sense. Do we feel that these agreements resolve all siting issues between the city and the county? I would let the executive speak to that. I want to come on up and. Share your thoughts. I mean, I understand that there are contingencies built in here. But in terms of the decision to select this site and to move forward to the next steps, do we feel that we have a good resolution that is well supported by all parties? Yes, Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to be here. For the record, my name is Pat McGrath, and I serve as your Solid Waste Division Director. I do say with confidence that this represents an agreement that settles any, any and all concerns that the city has brought forward. As we as we've kind of pursued this siting approach. And the agreement represents the interests of both the county and the city in a very balanced and fair way. Okay. Thank you very much. And then my second question is, when I look at the terms, nothing jumps out at me as being particularly, you know, the way they all, as I said, hang together when you when you read them in this logical way. But I think about risks going forward. I heard the words hazardous substance testing. And I mean since this is I don't know actually what uses are there now. Do we expect any surprises? That's a really nonsensical question. Do we do we worry about any surprises? Well, we certainly yeah. It's it's a it's a valid question. It's a question that the city brought forward. We don't have any concerns and we don't anticipate any surprises. But there are there are contingencies and in a legal framework, in the event that such is discovered. But the reason we don't have that concern is that we've done some preliminary investigation and and review to make that determination. And we will continue to monitor that process throughout the course of the contract. This contract actually calls for some additional review periods to make sure that if there is anything that it's identified early on and remediation can be addressed in a timely fashion, but we don't have anything to to raise that concern to us at this point based on how that property has been used. Thank you. I will say that for all of last year, the mayor of Algoma was my vice chair on the Regional Transit Committee. So we had, you know, occasion to chit chat about what was going on down in Algona. And he was very complimentary of the way that the Solid Waste Division worked with the city, at least at that phase as we were getting towards agreement. And my understanding is that this is something that they are satisfied with, which is another example. I think along with some of the work we've done in my district recently of the division working hard with our our city partners. So I do appreciate that. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? This is before us for action today. And we have two ordinances. The first one is proposed ordinance 2017, down to zero 3 to 4. I would entertain a motion. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to propose ordinance 2017 0324 with the do pass recommendation. Okay. I don't see any amendments. So with that council member up to the third one, Rick Bauer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I had the opportunity to also know the Mayor of Algona quite well. I represent our going on the County Council, and it's been a roller coaster. But the roller coaster, I definitely found it equally remote. I don't think Pat and his staff are finding that it's the mayor of going is very not parochial. He's very personal and very, very caring about the city. And like a lot of our areas of South County, there is a sense that maybe they were the poor stepchild. And I want to thank you for making him part of the family, because as the process moved forward, he became more comfortable about what was happening. I really admire Dave Hill, the mayor, because he cares about his city, cares about a very tough economic community that doesn't get treated as well as some other cities. And King County and you and your staff did an outstanding job of reaching out, making him a part of the process, making him treated with respect, because that's a big issue for a lot of folks in South King County is a sense of lack of respect from Seattle and so on. Thank you. Publicly and I think Councilmember Banducci for her help on this as well. All right. And yes, ALGON is well represented by its city and its council representatives. So thank you. Any other comments with that? I'll call for roll call, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember DEMBOSKY, Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Gossett, I. Councilmember Cole Wells. Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott. Council Member of the Grove City Councilmember Yvonne Record. Madam Chair. Hi. Madam Chair. The vote is salmon eyes. No nos. Councilmember Stone and Bond right up to Grove. Excuse OC by your vote. Proposed Ordinance 2017 does two or 3 to 4 will move to the full council with a do pass recommendation. And is there any reason to expedite that? Madam Chair, the companion legislation oh 3 to 5 requires public notice, and it's been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on November 13. So notes for that if you want. Well, this one doesn't have that restriction, but if you want to keep them together, they could both go together on November 13th. I think it's clean is to keep them together so we won't expedite them and we won't put them on consent. All right. That brings us to proposed ordinance 2017, DASH 0325, which is the companion land transfer agreement. Councilmember Lambert, when you put that before us, I'd like to proposed or in 2017 zero 3 to 5 of the do pass recommendation. All right. It's been moved and is before the body. Any further comments or questions? Okay. Marker. Please go ahead and call the roll. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski, Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Garza, Councilmember Cole Wells. Councilmember Lambert, hi. Councilmember McDermott. Hi. Councilmember up the Grove. Councilmember one right there. Hi. Madam Chair. Hi. Madam Chair. The vote is seven is no nos. Council members done in. The grove excuse to right by your vote. That measure is also moved to the full council with a unanimous to pass recommendation. So we'll go on to the public hearing and next steps. Thank you all very much for your work on this agenda. Item number seven. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilmember Lambert is correct. We should go back and improve the minutes while we have folks here. So if you would like to put the minutes of October 4017, 2017, meaning before us with the due package recommendation, any comments or questions on the minutes?