COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6g Page 4 of 6
Meeting Date: August 11, 2020
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
(2) Maintains good-faith standing with permitting agencies, including its ability to
negotiate favorable terms and conditions for future permits.
Cons:
(1) Estimated construction costs alone equal $839,000. However, if the Port were
required to repair the failing culvert under the storage facility in the event of another
failure, the need for a new planning, design and permitting process as well as
associated negotiations for access would likely result in a higher cost.
(2) No party has been willing to claim ownership of the failing culvert under the storage
facility. Accessing the storage facility property to repair the culvert would require
extensive legal negotiations and impact the private business’s operation, which would
also significantly increase costs.
(3) The Port has coordinated planning, design, permitting and funding with the City of
Burien. Failing to follow-through when the project is ready for construction does not
demonstrate good faith and partnership with Burien.
(4) Does not implement Commission Motion 2019-14 directing staff to negotiate an ILA
with Burien to fund the stream restoration project.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Port does not contribute funding to the Burien project, in which case the City
will limit its project scope to repairing the existing culvert under Des Moines Memorial
Boulevard.
Cost Implications: Zero short-term costs, but long-term costs would equal $839,000
construction cost plus legal, planning, permitting, design, and project management costs
Pros:
(1) Reduces short-term costs to zero.
Cons:
(1) A future release from the failing culvert under the Des Moines Storage Facility into the
Port’s mitigation site could put the mitigation site out of compliance with Clean Water
Act permit conditions and prompt an enforcement action by the Corps. Such an action
would require the Port to address impacts from the failing culvert in the same manner
as Alternative 1. In addition to any immediate mitigation measures to address damage
to the wetland from a failure, the regulatory agencies would require the Port to
undertake a long-term solution which would result in the same project and costs
summarized in Alternative 1. Thus, this alternative will be more expensive than both
Alternative 1 and the Port’s proposed $839,000 contribution (Alternative 3, below).
(2) The Port has completed negotiations with regulatory agencies administering the
existing mitigation permits as well as the new Clean Water Act permit authorizing the
Project. Failing to follow-through when the project is ready for construction would
reduce the Port’s standing with permitting agencies, including potentially its ability to
negotiate favorable terms and conditions for future permits.