AN ORDINANCE approving grant funding allocation for projects funded through the WaterWorks grant program, Round 2, in accordance with Ordinance 18261.
And move on to number six. This is ordinance 2016 0459, an ordinance approving grant fund allocations for projects funded through the Water Works Grant Program. And this is round two. And so Mike Reed is our staff and that's would you take this away? We begin on page 81. Thank you, Madam Chair. And so this is 2016 0459 and has indicated that the staff report begins on page 81. This is, as you've indicated, the second round of grants since the restart of the Water Quality Grants program. You recall that there was a legal process that resulted in the confirmation to the courts of the eligibility of our wastewater rate funds to support these water quality grants. The Council did approve legislation in 2015 and 2016, establishing a grant criteria providing for grants, ranking committee with representation from a variety of interests, including from each of the Council districts, as well as providing for staffing and administration. And I will note, by the way, that I've seen a matrix of the, the, the grant ranking committee. Four of the positions on that grant ring committee are vacant from, from district. And so we would encourage councilmembers who have not yet made recommendations for names for that committee to do so. The council the council did approve an initial round of grants in the in July of this year. This is the second round of grants completing the cycle for the 2015 2016 biennium. This round of grants includes, I should say, as I went through, identified a number of themes and and characteristics of the grants, a number of things jumped out. So first that there are a significant proportion of the grants that are from non-governmental organizations, including the YMCA is a Youth in Action program, the Allenwood Community Waters Program, the Mountain Town Greenway Education Project, the Environmental Coalition of South Seattle's Environmental Stewards Program. The Seattle Tilth Watershed Stewards Project. In addition to these non-governmental association and community groups, there are projects from our governmental partners who are participants in the region's wastewater system. These includes a Redmond's street sweeping for water quality proposal. Seattle Public Utilities has a proposal that is is recommended to monitor water quality in injection wells that receive effluent from green stormwater infrastructure projects. Bellevue has a project for stormwater retrofit. There's also in this package and an emphasis on education projects. And so the Island Wood Project I mentioned earlier is a community wide project that educates students about political pollution prevention, encourages them to propose solutions to local runoff problems themselves. There is the The Sound Greenway Education Project, which provides hands on education to about 4000 students, which includes classroom sessions, field investigations, the service learning stewardship opportunities are sustainable. Seattle's project, which is referred to as the Green Duwamish Project Design Laboratory that involves providing South County teachers an opportunity to design and test curriculum relating to local water quality and also to facilitate student led community impact projects. Diversity is a value that jumps out as you look at the various projects here. So the YMCA is Youth in Action Project is intended to provide hands on experiences to diverse students addressing environmental needs in the home communities of these these students. The Wood Project I mentioned the community wide project. It's an emphasis on a diverse body of students to whom they provide an educational experience related to water quality. The Environmental Coalition of South Seattle Project provides workshops on pollution, CSOs and water quality to a multilingual, multicultural group of participants. The other key theme that I noted was that these there are a number of the projects which provide which identify specific water quality problems and provide remediation to those problems. And so the Redman project is a street sweeping for water quality project. These are focused. This project on the next one are focused on our urban creeks and streams. In this case, in the Redmond case, the concern was to show how frequent street sweeping was needed in order to achieve the health of a local urban stream. In the case of the UW Bothell Upright Bothell Campus Project, North Creek apparently has a steam stream for which there's been identified as a significant fecal coliform presence in the stream, which has been traced to a large quarry which is on the campus of that that university. And so the project proposes using small rolls of a bio filter filtration material, which is embedded with mushroom bodies. And these mushroom bodies would would be placed such that water is channeled through and sorry, after it's traced to a large what I call a rooftop cross, all the cro. Yes, yes, the famous in the north. They go back and forth every day. It's a big murder of crows, you know. A murder of crows. It's a murder of crows. They're murdering North Creek. Now, your district councilman, Roderick Bauer? No, your district. My mike. It's not my quads, Michael. Mediation NYC. Oh, which I believe refers to mushrooms. These are this bio bio filtration medium is embedded with with mushrooms or fungus, which is intended to filter the stormwater as it's channeled through and over this medium. So that's what that refers to. No. It wasn't. I would like to thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know if you're the right person, Mike, to ask questions about some of the thinking behind the decisions to what are you able to speak to some? And there may be questions that are sort of what do you call rhetorical questions to make a point, you know ? Sure. So we do have Elizabeth Louden here, who's a water works grant manager. Maybe I'll ask her to come forward at this point to answer specific questions. So one of the questions that piggybacks that so when you're answering his question, my answer piggyback to that, I'm looking at the percentage of education there is to on the ground, actual studies and work, and it's a very high percentage. So was that high in Brown in round one or is this inordinately high because this round two. Good morning, council members. My name is Elizabeth Loud and I'm the water quality, the water works grant manager. And so for this round there were a a higher number of education projects and that was discussed by the grant ranking committee and higher than the previous round. And they felt that they wanted to fund recommend for funding the projects that that were strongest and that were best at meeting the criteria of providing benefit to water quality and demonstrating a connection with wastewater treatment division responsibilities. So they did note that there was a high number of education projects and they felt that those were the best projects out of the 39 submitted to meet the criteria. Go ahead and at the gross question. Sure. Thanks. And we preface my remarks by saying I'm one of those who has struggled to find someone to represent District five on the committee. And I feel like I've paid the price for it a little bit in the sense. And so this is somewhat of a leading question. But to what degree was geographic equity considered as one of the factors? And the reason I ask this is a comment as much as a question, and it's not you. It's a committee of folks, but you might be able to offer some insight to it is that in South King County in particular, there's little to no there's a couple of kind of broad projects that got a little bit of money that serve all of the the county. But there seems to be a lack of investment in South King County and in particular, Council District five. At the same time, we're sending a quarter of $1,000,000 over to Kitsap County, to a large, well funded environmental center. And the committee passed on funding a King County Environmental Center doing a similar project in South King County at a fraction of the cost. Why would what benefit in the rest of your fare? QUESTION But what do my constituents get out of this? And I guess is and do you know the rationale for sending the money over to Kitsap County instead of investing in environmental education programs here? And then to what degree do you think the committee members took into account geographic distribution? That's not your decision. So I recognize that. But you might be able to at least offer some helpful insight and. Sure. Yeah, I know. I'm happy to answer that question. So first of all, the funding for the island would proposal is for work that would be happening with the Seattle school district districts. It would not be going to Kitsap County per say. So as you may be aware, Island Wood does did merge a number of years ago with another nonprofit called Home Waters, which works in the city of Seattle. And more than half of their programing is outside of their base on Bainbridge Island. So they do a number of programs around King County. And so I think that addresses that issue that it is a large dollar amount and it was something that the committee considered. They do scrutinize the higher ticket items carefully to see if there is a regional benefit. And with this with the island, what project they the committee saw a benefit to being able to implement to develop over the course of three years develop and implement curriculum on a very large scale because the Seattle school district is the largest school district in Washington state with the hopes that this curriculum could be shared with other school districts in the future and that the lessons learned could be shared with other entities who are doing similar projects. So hopefully that answers the the I. And what piece of the question and in terms of geography. So I mentioned the committee does look at fit to criteria and what there's there's a process where they have several meetings where the they will read all of the application materials and do individual scoring. And then we look. At those preliminary scores and then have long discussions about them. And so some of the other factors that go into play, sometimes they change their ranking based on discussions because there may be an aspect of a particular proposal that they weren't aware of or something else that that they'll learn through the discussion process from other committee members . And in addition, they do look at geographic distribution as well as other factors. So they're looking at types of projects. Is is there they're looking at the whole portfolio of recommended projects are that are there are a diverse number of types of projects. Is it diverse geographically? Have they they they had a preference or recommendation not to fund more than one proposal from the same entity in in a single session. And I'm trying to think if there are other factors for distribution, but they are looking at distribution as well. So a clarifying follow up. So do you know the extent to which and people disagree over how to allocate money all the time, but it's nothing new. But the notion that the whole county's paying in rate payers throughout the county, we want to make sure we get ahead of it. You know, water doesn't follow political boundaries, but the extent to which we want to make sure that. Generally speaking, the communities they're all paying in get a return, get to see these dollars put to use in their can, you know, in their community and is a political lowercase p kind of lens on things. But I think it's real and a democracy, you know, those that contribute, you know, you try to share the costs and benefits broadly and in an equitable way. So I wondering if it really got down to that level of analysis of looking simply at a map and say, okay, are we covering all the county? You know, what percentage of dollars are going to, you know, one big city versus others or are we catch in the northeast, south and central parts of the county? And then the second part would be to what degree? You know, sometimes capacity makes things more attractive. You know, and a lot of our grant programs, we've looked at kind of the social justice inequity, where organizations that already are well funded or have the ability to put together more competitive applications at this level. Were that where some of the committee members able to dove in and move an application didn't appear as competitive on the surface, if it's coming from a smaller organization or a newer organization, was there the ability to dig dig a little deeper and account for some of those institutional advantages that some of the big players have? Yeah, those are those are excellent questions. And so, first of all, the percentage of money there was a look at what areas I had projects represented. They did not consider the exact dollar amount per district or per area, but they were looking at is do the do the does the portfolio of of projects that are recommended for funding represent all parts of the county and they felt that it did. This one did. Yeah. Yeah. I like the South King County. Sure. So the South King County I Ecos Environmental Coalition of South Seattle so there. Wasn't any direct us to what. Page. Oh 82. Seattle is not South King County. So right. So yeah well that's. I mean has the word south in it but that's South Seattle. Sure. Yeah. And, and Ecos actually works. So. They're not limited to the city of Seattle. So they're working with they're working with different community groups. I don't know if you consider Tukwila part of South Bend County. Yeah. I'm sorry. The chart, what it's throwing me is there was the, the project location was listed or my chart. Now. Is Seattle on. Okay. That's okay. So one that would help with that. Yeah. Clarifying that. Okay. Not everybody has the information that you have, which is unfortunate. We should all have that chart. Well, especially the following I requested. Oh. Okay. Well, it would help overall informed on this. I can make copies of that if you'd like. You know, even now I. Know that we have a whole lot more time to get into this, I'm sure. No, no, I'm having the same feeling you're having. First of all, if I can jump in with you too, on this, I feel like there's a lot of silo work being done right now. When you look at the BRIGHTWATER mitigation account, which obviously is not this account, but it's the same agency, there is so much money going into broader mitigation account for education and for training and for all kinds of things. For education, it is an an inordinate amount of money. So we have an account for that. This was supposed to, in my mind, be for on the ground projects and experiments. So we would have more research on like one project you talked about was like street sweeping for water quality. So we would have some good information on how you do that. And to me, that's what these projects were for. What am I going to learn to make it better for water quality? And so I'm a little surprised by the delineation here. And secondly, in the same venue as what Councilmember other Grove was saying, there is not one project on here for the local government in this county, not one. And it's almost half the landmass of the county, I'm sure. Yes. Councilmember by right that I think this. Issue should be brought up again at another meeting because they come from the Grove and you have raised some issues that I'm particularly interested in. I know it comes from I wrote that GROSS predecessor was particularly interested in geographic representation, and you and I have represented both ends of the county. So I would in light my mindful, the fact that the third district we're supposed to have started 20 minutes ago and that you're always going to come after the flood district to say, I would recommend we hold this issue after the new year, because I would like to have everybody have a spreadsheet and everybody has the same equal distribute. Both paper, as well as perhaps a good understanding of the distribution of the funding around King County because they have a cross before they raised it. It's okay. It's okay. We don't have a clue. I think you're absolutely right. Councilmember McDermott was also showing that the chart doesn't really show clearly what communities are involved in which. So I think we need better information on that. And I'd also like to get information back on the amount of money that is being spent, an education out of the BRIGHTWATER funds through the Brightwater education account and how many classroom hours we are doing up there on that, because that was what that was supposed to be for. So I think we. When you're done. Okay, I think we need to hold this one and get better information, delineate it by area and get information about the Brightwater education account. And then we will hear from Council Member Dombroski around chair. Couple of things to stay here. I think Councilmember up the grove meant this, but he used the word countywide and I think he meant within the sewer service area just so everyone's on the same page, because the Councilor Lambert's comments seem to indicate that, again, we were done countywide. But I think we're all understanding that these projects need to be in or connected to have a nexus to the sewer service area or benefit to the service area where the rate payers are, because that's the source of the funds. Correct. First line second point to keep in mind is I believe that this is kind of remember when we and this council took the rate vote, we took the rate vote to add the water works funding to the sewer rate, wholesale rate. And we set up a process to have half council designated and half committee recommended subject to council approval within the committee recommended a random reform bill which we all supported. I think we all support it, but to add some additional district representation to it, right? And so that's where we are working on getting that stood up. And Mike, I think you noted that to address some of this geographic balance, which was important to me and as you can see why it's important to everybody on the dais here. This, I believe, is what you've called the second round of the committee designated projects. So we've had one round that's come through, right? Correct. And this is the second round. So as we sit on the dais and look for geographic balance and project balance, I think if you could help us by getting the members the totality of the projects around one, around two is that makes sense. So sure, there may have been some funded last time that might balance out this round if people saw them. And we just can't remember that. Right. And Councilmember Domestique, I might note that at this afternoon's Regional Water Quality Committee, there is going to be a presentation which will include actually both round one, round two, and I'll look to Sherman to confirm that it will also include the the council directed projects as well. And I correct. Yes, that will be the council director projects. I don't think that's a fair comparison. It's our job to do those. And but this time this committee recommended half. I think the points being made about balance are good because the ratepayers, countywide or not, came up with answers are paying it. Finally, I kind of want to echo Councilmember Lambert's issue. I think she's raising about kind of some of the education pieces. And I've been interested in making sure that this money that is designated for water quality be spent on water quality, improving water quality. And I understand how education you can make an argument that education of our community to be individual stewards of our streams and wetlands and rivers and lakes can have a value. I get that. But it is to me more tenuous and further away than a direct investment in in-stream and in water body projects and improvements. We got into a little bit of trouble on this before in the cover litigation by funding, you know, salmon celebrations and things like that. And I personally think we need to be very careful and steer clear of that and make sure that we are keeping our word to the ratepayers about making sure that these dollars go for water quality or projects and programs that have a true and direct nexus to improving water quality. That is the Metro mission from what it was formed by the voters. And when we stray away from it, we get into a little bit of a trouble. So finally, I don't remember who adopted the criteria that the committee is using to measure this. Was that was that an advisory committee itself that adopted that or did we approve those here at the council? I just don't recall we did. So there are criteria listed in the implementation guidelines. Yes. Good for yourself. Yes. As folks look at this issue, I think it's important that we go back, remember that we adopted the criteria. And as part of that, we said, hey, come to come in. We want council approval on the recommended projects. And that's for this very reason to make sure that the community is balanced in its distribution of the funds and true to the criteria that the Council has adopted. So just some big picture. No. And may I add one point. And in the implementation guidelines, it does list education projects as one of is an example of the type of project that could be funded through this through this grant fund. So and at the time, I was concerned about that because I also knew about the other Brightwater accounts. And I think, you know, in, you know, when we do everything in silos, you know, it's easy to say and it is round two and this is much more on that one education piece. But I think for the taxpayers, we want to look at globally what we're spending and make sure that we know what we're spending over that category and making sure that we actually have some documented science that helps us to make good decisions for the future. Like I like that one example that was cleaning the streets so we can do that better. So I think it's a good idea to take this back and look at it again, maybe have any harm. I don't know. Is there any harm in us holding it till January? Well. It's okay, Sharman saying no problem. Okay. So I think let's have some offline meetings about this. We can talk with council member at the Grove and others that are interested council member about duty to do night. Me. Yes, I, I wanted to say one thing and I have been in the place that councilmember up the group finds himself in with regard to any number of grant making works that we do, not just water works but others that go through this kind of a process. And and I have found up until this morning that I usually look at the list and feel exactly the way councilmember up the group felt, which is that, you know, my district pays an awful lot into all of this stuff. In fact, in some buckets we pay more than any other district and we don't see it coming back to us. And that's okay in a sense. I mean, there's got to be a balance, there's got to be a level of balance it but none of them individually are going to look like we put a dollar in. We got a dollar out exactly like today. I feel very happy because there's one project that's clearly within my district and another that probably slops over into mine a little bit. And that's nice. But I'm. I will. Yeah. And Councilmember Dombrowski advised me every time I say something like what we just heard, you know, I felt the same way my first year on the council. And I was told that if you watch over time, there's a kind of an evening out that naturally happens. I haven't been here long enough to see that yet. Today I feel a little bit of evening, but I support very much as looking at the fuller context as as Councilmember Dan Malcolm and you, Madam Chair, pointed out, there's there's a broader context here for these particular kinds of programs, and I am very happy to see that and assess that. So I support that direction. Thank you. Thank you. And as as one of nine members of local government, that is every day. And so I feel the pain. Councilmember, just briefly, I appreciate Councilmember Valdez's comments. I and with one exception, I don't think it naturally occurs. I think we have to build oversight and systems that make sure it occurs. And that's why, for example, on this project, I ran that legislation to make sure council members could have a representative on the committee, because without it , it's not by intent. It just, you know, people look out for their neighbors if they're at the table and if you're not at the table, you're dinner, someone may not look out for you. So that's what we're doing here today. Great. So we were I'm happy in early January to meet with anybody that wants to meet with me on this topic, and then we'll bring it back probably the end of January. Thank you. Thanks for the good discussion, everybody. All right. We're going on to the next proposed motion, 2016 0548. There's the motion approving the third quarter 2016 expenditures for emergent needs and anticipated project costs. Summary Report Provided Prepared by the Road Services Division. The Road Services Division.