HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental Seciences Associates, Amendment No. 1 - 062716, 7,
CONTRACT
CONTRACT AMENDMENT #1
WHEREAS, Jefferson County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter
"the County" and Environmental Sciences Associates (ESA), hereinafter "the Consultant,"
entered into a Professional Services Agreement (for consulting services in support of a critical
areas update) on September 21, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the completion date in that Professional Agreement (or "the Agreement') is June
30, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the parties to the Agreement are desirous of continuing to perform pursuant to the
Agreement until December 31, 2016 under the same terms and obligations laid out in that
Agreement except as stated below, and
NOW, THEREFORE the Agreement is modified as follows:
1. The completion date listed in the Agreement is removed and a new completion date of
December 31, 2016 is inserted into the Agreement.
AND THE PARTIES FURTHER AGREE:
That all other terms and obligations expressed in the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect including, but not limited to, any scope of work made part of the original Agreement.
By Dated 11.3 , 2016
Title:
Margaret Clancy, Environmental Sciences Associates
By Dated W a: -.. , 2016
Kathleen Kler, Chair, Board of Commissioners
Approved as to Fo / Z I ' /
(p
David Alvarez, Deputy Prosec ing Attorney
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the County of Jefferson, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "the County", and Environmental Science Associates (ESA), hereinafter
referred to as "the Consultant", in consideration of the mutual benefits, terms, and conditions
hereinafter specified.
1. Project Description. The Consultant is retained by the County to prepare supporting
documents for a "Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) Update" in a timely manner, in support
of the County's broader update of its comprehensive plan.
2. Scone of Services. Consultant agrees to perform the services, identified on Exhibit "A"
attached hereto, including the provision of all labor. The scope of services identified in
Exhibit "A" is a part of the full proposal submitted by Consultant, as included as Exhibit
«C„
3. Time for Performance. Work under this contract shall commence upon the giving of
written notice by the County to the Consultant to proceed. Consultant receipt of a
Purchase Order shall constitute said notice. Consultant shall perform all services and
provide all work product required pursuant to this agreement on the dates listed on
Exhibit "A"
4. Payment. The Consultant shall be paid by the County for completed work and for
services rendered under this agreement as follows:
a. Payment for the work provided by Consultant shall be made as provided on
Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" attached hereto, provided that the total amount of
payment to Consultant shall not exceed $99,945.00 without express written
modification of the agreement signed by the County.
b. The $99,945.00 budgeted as compensation for the Consultant is not subject to
alteration, therefore any cost overruns incurred by the Consultant to complete the
grant tasks and deliverables (Exhibit A) shall be borne solely by the Consultant.
C. The consultant may submit invoices to the County once per month during the
progress of the work for partial payment for project completed to date, up to 80%
of total project costs. Such vouchers will be checked by the County, and upon
approval thereof, payment will be made to the Consultant in the amount approved.
d. Final payment of any balance due the Consultant of the total contract price earned
will be made promptly upon its ascertainment and verification by the County after
the completion of the work under this agreement and its acceptance by the
County.
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
CImc-1 Flks,Ca WmtOudo*-MEX-1WKP�k--IScnhcl.4W--n ESACAOnpdMc%-Nb I i.DA EDITS ph adit(N1715 doc rev 0/1/2014 Parc Iof 11
e. Payment as provided in this section shall be full compensation for work
performed, services rendered and for all materials, supplies, equipment and
incidentals necessary to complete the work.
f. The Consultant's records and accounts pertaining to this agreement are to be kept
available for inspection by representatives of the County and the state for a period
of three (3) years after final payments. Copies shall be made available upon
request.
Ownership and Use of Documents. All documents, drawings, specifications and other
materials produced by the Consultant in connection with the services rendered under this
agreement shall be the property of the County whether the project for which they are
made is executed or not. The Consultant shall be permitted to retain copies, including
reproducible copies, of drawings and specifications for information, reference and use in
connection with Consultant's endeavors. Consultant understands and acknowledges that
any records, documents, correspondence or other materials prepared, received or
generated by it, no matter their native format, may be a "public record" as that term is
defined in RCW 42.56.010(3) and thus subject to production to a requester pursuant to
Ch. 42.56 RCW.
6. Compliance with laws. Consultant shall, in performing the services contemplated by this
agreement, faithfully observe and comply with all federal, state, and local laws,
ordinances and regulations, applicable to the services to be rendered under this
agreement.
7. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the County, its
officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability, or
any portion thereof, including attorneys fees and costs, arising from injury or death to
persons, including injuries, sickness, disease or death to Consultant's own employees, or
damage to property occasioned by a negligent act, omission or failure of the Consultant.
Insurance.
The Consultant shall obtain and keep in force during the terms of the Agreement, policies
of insurance as follows:
If and only if the Consultant employs any person(s) in the status of employee or
employees separate from or in addition to any equity owners, sole proprietor, partners,
owners or shareholders of the Consultant, Worker's Compensation Insurance in an
amount or amounts that are not less than the required statutory minimum(s) as established
by the State of Washington or the state or province where the Consultant is located.
Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance providing bodily injury and property
damage liability coverage for all owned and non -owned vehicles assigned to or used in
the performance of the work for a combined single limit of not less than $500,000 each
occurrence with the COUNTY named as an additional insured in connection with the
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
0 WLANNIN"ompplan and Updn MASTER FOLDERu016 OMA Penodk UpdMeWWmin< Commnaon Periodic AM =W%CAOL9pm.W SLu6TWks hW knows Ag,re.MeM ESA CAO updelc d•20.1 S•DA EDITSA.
rev. 9f 112014 Pad. 2 of I I
CONSULTANT'S performance of the contract.
General Commercial Liability Insurance in an amount not less than a single limit of one
million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and a aggregate of not less than two (2) times
the occurrence amount ($2,000,000.00 minimum) for bodily injury, including death and
property damage, unless a greater amount is specified in the contract specifications. The
insurance coverage shall contain no limitations on the scope of the protection provided
and include the following minimum coverage:
a. Broad Form Property Damage, with no employee exclusion;
b. Personal Injury Liability, including extended bodily injury;
C. Broad Form Contractual/Commercial Liability — including completed operations;
d. Premises — Operations Liability (M&C);
e. Independent Contractors and Subconsultants
f. Blanket Contractual Liability.
Such insurance coverage shall be evidenced by one of the following methods:
* Certificate of Insurance;
* Self-insurance through an irrevocable Letter of Credit from a qualified financial
institution.
Certificates of coverage as required by this section shall be delivered to the County
within fifteen (15) days of execution of this agreement.
Any deductibles or self-insured retention shall be declared to and approved by the County
prior to the approval of the contract by the County. At the option of the County, the
insurer shall reduce or eliminate deductibles or self-insured retention or the Consultant
shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim
administration and defense expenses.
Failure of the Consultant to take out and/or maintain any required insurance shall not
relieve The Consultant from any liability under the Agreement, nor shall the insurance
requirements be construed to conflict with or otherwise limit the obligations concerning
indemnification.
It is agreed by the parties that insurers shall have no right of recovery or subrogation
against the County (including its employees and other agents and agencies), it being the
intention of the parties that the insurance policies so affected shall protect both parties
and be primary coverage for any and all losses covered by the above described insurance.
It is further agreed by the parties that insurance companies issuing the policy or policies
shall have no recourse against the County (including its employees and other agents and
agencies) for payment of any premiums or for assessments under any form of policy. It
is further agreed by the parties that any and all deductibles in the above described
insurance policies shall be assumed by and be at the sole risk of the Consultant.
It is agreed by the parties that judgments for which the County may be liable, in excess of
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
G TLANNINGWOMPPIN aid Updates MASTER FOLDER120I6GMA P-0dw UpdaWPkmning COannssm Penodk Assew WCAOtSpCCW Stud)"Pmf s i Srn m Agreeaea ESA CAO updac A-20.11•DA FADS dx
m W ia01A Page 3 of 11
insured amounts provided herein, or any portion thereof, may be withheld from payment
due, or to become due, to the Consultant until such time as the Consultant shall furnish
additional security covering such judgment as may be determined by the County.
The County reserves the right to request additional insurance on an individual basis for
extra hazardous contracts and specific service agreements.
Any coverage for third party liability claims provided to the County by a "Risk Pool"
created pursuant to Ch. 48.62 RCW shall be non-contributory with respect to any policy
of insurance the Consultant must provide in order to comply with this Agreement.
If the proof of insurance or certificate indicating the County is an "additional insured" to
a policy obtained by the Consultant refers to an endorsement (by number or name) but
does not provide the full text of that endorsement, then it shall be the obligation of the
Consultant to obtain the full text of that endorsement and forward that full text to the
County.
The County may, upon the Consultant's failure to comply with all provisions of this
contract relating to insurance, withhold payment or compensation that would otherwise
be due to the Consultant.
9. Independent Contractor. The Consultant and the County agree that the Consultant is an
independent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this agreement.
Nothing in this agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and
employee between the parties hereto. Neither Consultant nor any employee of
Consultant shall be entitled to any benefits accorded County employees by virtue of the
services provided under this agreement. The County shall not be responsible for
withholding or otherwise deducting federal income tax or social security or for
contributing to the state industrial insurance program, otherwise assuming the duties of
an employer with respect to Consultant, or any employee of Consultant.
10. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants that the firm has not
employed or retained any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working
solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that the firm has not paid
or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely
for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other
consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract.
For breach or violation of this warranty, the County shall have the right to annul this
contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or
consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
11. Discrimination Prohibited. The Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it
under this agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin,
religion, creed, age, sex or the presence of any physical or sensory handicap in the
selection and retention of employees or procurement of materials or supplies.
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
G.IPLANNING1CaupPIU and Upbtcs MASTER FOLDER1X116 GMA Periodic Ueda %PI"v%C0M156wn Paieft Avessaa VE40+WMI S10d)+Profeati01al Se— Agtacna:n FSA CAO updae 11 -30 -15 -DA EDITS 4K
rcr. 9112014 Page 4 of I I
12. Assignment. The Consultant shall not sublet or assign any of the services covered by this
agreement without the express written consent of the County.
13. Non -Waiver. Waiver by the County of any provision of this agreement or any time
limitation provided for in this agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other
provision.
14. Termination.
a. The County reserves the right to terminate this agreement at any time by giving
ten (10) days written notice to the Consultant.
b. In the event of the death of a member, partner or officer of the Consultant, or any
of its supervisory personnel assigned to the project, the surviving members of the
Consultant hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this agreement,
if requested to do so by the County. This section shall not be a bar to
renegotiations of this agreement between surviving members of the Consultant
and the County, if the County so chooses.
15. Notices.
Notices to the County of Jefferson shall be sent to the following address:
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Notices to Consultant shall be sent to the following address:
ESA
5309 Shilshole Avenue NW
Suite 200
Seattle, Washington 98107
16. Integrated Agreement, This Agreement together with attachments or addenda, represents
the entire and integrated agreement between the County and the Consultant and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements written or oral. This
agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both County and
Consultant.
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
G IPLANNING?Cam Ku and Updmm MA.SMR FOLDERQ016 0MA Periodic Up&6P4nniog Comma Periodic AucsmeiwCA&Speaal AWrWroftssional SmXc Apeeme ESA CAO uplme g -2415 -DA EDrrs doc
en 911/2014 Pagc S of 11
DATED this
SIGNATURE, PAGE
ET4 _
Name of Consultant
SIGNATURE PAGE
day of Je 20 I j
— rIG��C� C�a�
Consultant's Representative ( lease print)
(Signatu �_
G�0% co E
�
'
Liql_
Date
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
David S"UHivan, Cjiair
;4—
Phil Johnson,'Member
Kathleen Kler, Member
Approved as to form only:
4m�� �LW,22±hl
David Alvarez Date
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Carl Smith Date
DCD Director
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
C:U1, '41autaLA�MD;uaLUxalNti TywnB�WiuJnr.lT nywrary 1--,Fe4I%Cminl.OutP,�ktVPTNMYUjIPm&,mmlat S—ia.. A�;rumrnl ESA CA0 ulv4nc8?Il 15A*red. 3'1 2014 PaRciaf 11
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of service is based on Section 2 of the proposal dated 8-13-15 and delivered to the
County by ESA on that same date. The scope of services and assumptions are presented below..
Scope of Services:
Task 1: Rest Available Science Review and Report
Jefferson County performed a review of best available science in 2004 as part of its
Comprehensive Plan update. The County commissioned the development of scientific
information for its wildlife habitat and channel migration zones as part of the update and has
since a complete shoreline characterization as part of its Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
update. ESA will review and synthesize this information with additional published scientific
information from state agencies on best practices for protecting critical areas, with a particular
regard to agricultural areas. We will prepare a BAS bibliography and synthesis report that
leverages all of the existing information with a focus on wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas.
Along with a detailed review of the current best available science, the report will include a
summary of the key scientific findings since 2004 that may not be represented in the current
CAO. This summary will inform development of the recommendations report (Task 3) and
provide a reader -friendly description of the applicable science to citizens, decision makers, and
other stakeholders.
Task 2: Watershed Characterization Report
ESA will compile existing biological and physical data relating to critical areas within eastern
Jefferson County, with a focus on stream conditions in agricultural areas. This will make use of
data and inventories already completed, such as water quality data collected by the Jefferson
County Public Health and the Jefferson County Conservation District, as well as Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife species and habitat data.
To present and organize the data in the characterization report, ESA will delineate separate
watershed analysis units based upon watershed boundaries and land use patterns. For example,
the Chimacum Creek watershed would be one separate analysis unit, and the Ludlow Creek
watershed would be another. Early in the characterization process, ESA will prepare draft
watershed analysis unit maps to the County for review. For each analysis unit, ESA will
document existing habitat conditions and functions, aquatic and terrestrial species use, water
quality, and other relevant habitat and critical areas data. Based upon a review of the data and
conversations with County staff and local experts, we will describe watershed -specific
management recommendations and restoration/mitigation opportunities. These descriptions will
be accompanied by maps showing the relevant critical areas data for each analysis unit. To
accompany the report, the collected data for each watershed analysis unit will be summarized
into a 1 -page, reader -friendly watershed "fact sheet." The fact sheets will be targeted to citizens
and landowners, to help them easily understand the environmental conditions, issues, and
opportunities in each of the County's watersheds.
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
O:,PLANNINOKbmpPlao mid Updnet MASTER FOLDEM20I6 CMA Pamdrt Up"WPla wg Commis Period- Assewo wCAO'SpaW S1od,4Profma l San t Aglomvnm ESA CAO updolc $41b1 -DA EDMdx
1 9,'1/2014 P.V I or 11
Task 3: Recommendations Report
Using the synthesis of BAS under Task 1 and the results of the watershed characterization
conducted in Task 2, the ESA team will identify the policies, regulations, and programs that need
adjustment to better protect and manage critical areas in Jefferson County. The report will be
grounded in Washington State laws and regulations for critical areas and land use and structured
to provide a set of options for revising the CAO regulations, with an emphasis on agricultural
areas. For each set of options, we will also provide a subset of recommendations based on our
experience with GMA, the CAO update process, and Jefferson County.
To accompany the report, ESA will prepare a written summary detailing recommended CAO
changes. For other CAO updates, ESA has developed a consistency matrix that lists the specific
elements of the code, whether they are consistent with BAS, options for change if needed, and
literature references. This type of at -a -glance summary serves as a helpful tool for County staff,
citizens, Planning Commission, and the Board of Commissioners to easily follow the logic for
recommended revisions.
Task 4: Public Participation
ESA will provide technical support and presentations at key junctures up to the amount specified
in the attached budget proposal. If staff limitations require greater consultant support, ESA can
also assist in more involved discussions with the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners. ESA's support for Jefferson County Planning Commission public hearings and
presentations to the Board of County Commissioners at any step in the process could include
meeting facilitation, and development of maps, PowerPoint presentations, and other relevant
presentation materials.
General Assumptions:
The following assumptions apply to completing all tasks and providing all deliverables listed in
the scope of services above:
• The Consultant project manager will provide updates to the County via email or
conference call as needed (generally every two weeks) throughout the project period.
• The County will lead all administration, communication and coordination to manage
meetings and handle meeting logistics, fees, etc. for the duration of the project.
• All draft deliverables will be provided in electronic format. Electronic documents will be
delivered in both PDF and MS Word format. Final documents will be delivered free of
"draft" watermarks or other draft markings, with one hardcopy provided along with
electronic format.
• ESA will provide draft materials to the County one week prior to scheduled meetings.
• A single (1) review cycle is assumed for all deliverables / interim work reviewed by the
County and associated parties; the County will be responsible for consolidating all
comments for each deliverable into a single document for transmittal to the Consultant.
• The timeframe for a review cycle (from transmittal of the document(s) for review to the
County to receipt of consolidated County comments) is assumed to be two weeks.
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
G:1FLANNINGTW14-- and Up -a MASTER FOLVERU016 GMA Penodie Upd31,ApIannin` CWrAWm Penodz As.n nnCAO+Spwa151Wr Wrofe3,ioual Senxes AS—m ESA CAD npdNc 5-20-I S -DA EDITS da
rev. 9!I R014 PWF sof 11
• Unless otherwise noted, the Consultant will participate in required meetings via phone
conference as a first option and efforts will be made to consolidate meetings throughout
the project to save travel expenses.
• The project does not include involvement of a citizen's advisory committee or a technical
advisory committee. Coordination or facilitation of such a committee is not included in
this scope of work.
• The County will be responsible for receiving and responding to public comments over the
course of the project and during the legislative process.
• Review of the recommended revisions to the ordinance under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) is not included in this scope of services.
• Adoption of a revised ordinance is the responsibility of the County and not the
Consultant.
Assumptions for Specific Scope Activities
The following assumptions apply to completing specific activities listed in the scope of services
above:
• The best available science report will be limited to three specific critical areas: fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and wetlands. Critical
aquifer recharge areas and geologically hazardous areas will not be addressed.
• The watershed characterization will be completed using existing and available
information and data on hydrologic conditions, soils, land cover, impervious surfaces,
parcel information, water quality data, and habitat and species data. No new data will be
collected as part of the project. The County will provide and/or assist in identification of
preferred base data (GIS files) and information.
• information for the entire County will be assembled and summarized as part of the
watershed characterization, but it is assumed that reader -friendly watershed "fact sheets"
will be prepared only for watersheds in eastern Jefferson County and not all watersheds
in the County.
• The recommendations report will be limited to regulations for three specific critical areas:
fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and wetlands. The
report will address the other critical areas only in the context of how policy and
regulations can better protect all critical areas using a watershed -based approach.
Recommendations will be focused on critical area regulations (JCC 18.22) and will not
include stormwater, clearing and grading, zoning, or other land use regulations.
• A maximum of 54 consultant hours are allocated for supporting public participation and
meetings with County elected officials. This assumes presentation at two (2) public
meetings of the Planning Commission and one (1) at a public meeting of the Board of
Commissioners.
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
QIPLANNINGIComp t" - Updala MASTER FOLDERWI I6 GMA PokUpdmelPlamaag C— Pcriodk Aaeasme WAMSWml %*d ok
k adoaal Senlcea ASmener ESA CAG opdne 9 -20 -15 -DA EDITS dw
rw. 9! 12014 Page 9 of I I
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT TO CONSULTANT
The Consultant will provide the County with an invoice for its services rendered by the 10th of
each month. The Consultant shall be paid within 60 days of the county's receipt of the monthly
invoice. The Consultant will also provide with each invoice a summary of the costs incurred, the
name and job title of the person(s) performing the work, the work performed to date of invoicing
by task number.
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Critical Areas Ordinance Update
1 S
5309 Shilshole Avenue NW
Suite 200
Seattle. WA 98107
206.789.9858
208.789.96M
August 13, 2015
Carl Smith
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Subject: Critical Areas ordinance Update Project
Dear Carl:
As you undoubtedly know first-hand, regulating critical areas within agricultural areas can be one of the most
challenging and contentious issues of implementing the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). To help
update Jefferson County's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) while accommodating agricultural uses, the County needs a
team with a sound understanding of the science, substantial expertise in GMA critical areas compliance, and thorough
awareness of the County's landscape and land use issues. Environmental Science Associates (ESA) has the combination
of skills and experience to efficiently complete all project elements and improve outcomes of critical areas
management.
ESA's proposed team of scientists and policy experts are well-respected for helping local governments tackle difficult
land use and environmental challenges through thoughtful, disciplined, and objective means. Our team has a wealth of
critical areas, resource management, and public involvement expertise to dedicate to this effort. ESA's scientists and
planners have assisted numerous cities and counties with their CAO update processes, and have developed many "Best
Available Science" reports and CAO update recommendation reports. For example, we are currently working with Island
County and the Cities of Port Orchard and Federal Way on their CAO updates, and have completed updates in Kent,
Duvall, Sammamish, Tukwila, Gig Harbor, and Burien, as well as for Whatcom and Pierce counties. ESA is also a
recognized leader in shoreline master planning and has assisted a large number of jurisdictions, including Jefferson
County, with updates to Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs).
We have proposed lion Logan as our project manager for this work lion is a scientist who has been engaged in critical
area and watershed planning work around Puget Sound for 14 years. As a project manager, lion excels at delivering
quality products on-time and within budget. She knows the science and the legal framework that drive critical areas
regulations, and sees her job as facilitating Jefferson County's development of its own unique approach to meet GMA
critical areas requirements.
The attached proposal provides more information about our experience and approach. Our compact format describes
our strategy in terms of team qualifications, project understanding, directly relevant experience, and budget
breakdown, which addresses approach and outcomes for the four tasks in your RFP. We would be thrilled to work with
you on this important effort and look forward to your review of our proposal. Please contact me at
mclancy@esassoc.com or call me at 206.789.9658 with any questions. As an officer of the firm, I have the authority to
sign an ESA contract.
Sincerely,
ESA
197,
Margaret Clancy, PWS
Vice President
Director, Northwest Region
Firm's Areas of Expertise
Since the early 1990s, ESA has been engaged in CAO
updates and has a wealth of experience crafting policies
and regulations that address community needs,
reflect best available science (BAS), and meet Growth
Management Act (GMA) requirements. We have helped
Whatcom, Kittitas, and Pierce Counties and numerous
cities evaluate and update their critical area ordinances.
Currently, we are working with the cities of Edmonds,
Port Orchard, Lynnwood, Federal Way, Duvall,
Renton, and Kent to update wetland, stream, habitat,
floodplain, critical aquifer recharge area, and geohazard
regulations. Our role on these projects ranges from
comprehensive policy and regulatory updates to minor
amendments to select portions of the code. We know
that no two jurisdictions are the same; each has its own
unique natural resources, stakeholder groups, political
climate, and land use issues and opportunities. We have
worked with a wide range of County and City staff to
develop approaches to the update process that meet
their needs, and we are able to adapt our strategy as the
update process moves along.
ESA has substantial experience working in Jefferson
County, both for the County and other clients. We
supported the development and adoption of the
County's Shoreline Master Program (SMP), which
included completing a comprehensive inventory
and analysis of nearshore and freshwater shorelines
throughout the County. For the Hood Canal
Coordinating Council (HCCC), ESA helped identify
priority freshwater and nearshore sites for their In -Lieu
Fee (ILF) mitigation and Integrated Watershed Plan
projects, which included sites within Jefferson County.
As part of this project we worked directly with Jefferson
County staff to evaluate the County's wetland and
stream mitigation policies and procedures to identify
potential deficiencies and also incorporate the HCCC
iLF program into County code. Currently, ESA is working
with the County on a project to implement the SMP,
with a focus on achieving "no net loss" of ecological
functions as required by the Shoreline Management Act.
Because of this past and ongoing experience, we fully
understand that agriculture is vital to the economy and
culture of Jefferson County and realize that developing
new and/or different environmental regulations in
agricultural areas can be contentious. Complicating
this issue is the fact that agricultural uses often occur
• Experienced team with over50 CAO/SMP updates
completed within the past decade.
• Team members with Jefferson County experience.
• Project manager with current CAO update
experience.
• Excellent relationships with Ecology and Tribal staff.
• Familiar with BAS scientific literature.
The City of Tacoma was challenged before the Growth Management
Hearings Board for the adequacy of its critical marine fish and wildlife
habitats. ESA reviewed Tacoma's adopted Critical Areas Preservation
Ordinance, prepared a BAS review of critical habitats, and summarizes
protection measures. The revised ordinance was adopted and the
challenge was resolved.
in and near floodplains, wetlands, and riparian habitats,
which are designated critical areas. This is the case in the
Chimacum valley and in the Snow/Salmon valley and in
other parts of Jefferson County. As with our other CAO
projects, we will use our sound understanding of the
science, good relationships with Tribes and regulatory
agencies, and public involvement expertise to develop
workable solutions to accommodate agricultural uses
while meeting the requirements of the GMA.
We selected staff for this project based upon expertise
and availability and we confirm that proposed staff are
sufficiently available to complete this project within
your schedule. Although some of the ESA staff working
in Jefferson County such as Aaron Booy (ESA's project
manager for the County's "no net loss" project) are not
included as part of the project team (because they are
busy fulfilling their other commitment to the County), all
ESA staff are available to provide advice for this project
on an "as -needed" basis. In this way, we can put all of our
Jefferson County knowledge and experience to work on
this project.
August 13. 2015 Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordnance Update
Section 1: Firm's Areas of Expertise
Role: lion will marble the ESA team to the
CAC update and will lei gevdopmenl
d the BAS review and report and the
recorrdnenda1Kr8 repot
Role: Adam wk suprxxl llori with daily tasks
and lead development of tie watershed
daaclennitron report.
Role: As proal director. Margaret will asst
with strategy. policy devebPrr r'll, and
quality sS,slxance for all products on the
CAC) uodale
Christina Hersum
Associate Biologist
• Natural resource protection policy
analysis & development
Scott Olmsted
Senior Ecologist
• Natural resource protection policy
analysis & development
Jonny Kemp
GIS Analyst
• Mapping & GIS analysis
lion is a senior ecologist familiar with both freshwater and marine
nearshore systems who enjoys projects that tackle natural resource issues
at a landscape scale, require spatial analyses, and deliver products useful
to decision makers. She has 14 years of experience as an environmental
consultant in the Pacific Northwest and brings an interdisciplinary approach
to complex environmental and natural resource issues. lion has authored a
full range of scientific and regulatory compliance documents including BAS
reviews for city and county governments. She is currently assisting the cities
of Kent, Federal Way, and Renton with their CAO Update processes.
Adam has over 12 years of experience in natural resource management in the
Pacific Northwest, with a focus on watershed -based land use planning. He
manages and supports a diverse set of interdisciplinary projects involving
environmental permitting and compliance, aquatic habitat and watershed
restoration, and community land use planning. Adam has reviewed and
performed hundreds of wetland and stream assessments and has completed
several watershed plans. He is currently servicing as Project Manager for Port
Orchard's CAO update.
Margaret will support lion with all aspects of the project, including
providing strategic direction and ensuring quality assurance and quality
control. She is a recognized expert in critical area ordinance development,
and has worked on a wide array of environmental and land use
management issues around Puget Sound. Margaret managed Jefferson
County's SMP update as well as ESA's work on the Clallam County's SMP
Update and the Hood Canal Coordinating Council's ILF project. With
Margaret's involvement in the project, Jefferson County will benefit from
the lessons learned on these previous efforts and other ecologically -focused
planning projects across Washington State.
• Biological and regulatory monitoring,
fieldwork, species identification, & data
collection.
• Knowledge of local, state, & federal
regulatory processes.
• Specialized experience in wetland
sciences, mitigation planning, &
permitting.
• Solid understanding of local, state.
national, and tribal environmental law &
permitting practices.
• Experience with analyzing visual data,
spatial analytics, and providing GIS
support.
• Remote sensing & analysis.
• Development of dynamic maps &
graphics.
• City of Tacoma BAS Review
• City of Lynnwood CAO Update
• NAVFAC NW Forage Fish Surreys
• Island County CAO Update
• Hood Canal Coordinating Council ILF
Program Support
• Rick Tollefson Trail
• City of Edmonds CAO Update
• City of Duvall Watershed -Based Planning
• Mukilteo Watershed -based Stormwater
Plan
Approach to the Project
ESA has crafted a straightforward approach to complete
all the tasks described by Jefferson County in the RFP.
We feel that this approach will successfully guide the
County to protect agriculture lands while improving
management of wetlands and streams, with the
ultimate goal of meeting the requirements of the GMA.
We want to emphasize that close coordination with
County staff is a central theme in our approach. Our
experience has taught us that updating existing
regulations requires not only knowledge of best
available science, but also a solid understanding of how
the code is being implemented and enforced at the staff
level.
The following describes our proposed scope of services
for each task.
Jefferson County performed a review of best available
science in 2004 as part of its Comprehensive Plan
update. The County commissioned the development
of scientific information for its wildlife habitat and
channel migration zones as part of the update and has
since a complete shoreline characterization as part of
its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. ESA will
review and synthesize this information with additional
published scientific information from state agencies
on best practices for protecting critical areas, with a
particular regard to agricultural areas. We will prepare a
BAS bibliography and synthesis report that leverages all
of the existing information with a focus on wetlands and
fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
Along with a detailed review of the current best
available science, the report will include a summary
of the key scientific findings since 2004 that may not
be represented in the current CAO. This summary will
inform development of the recommendations report
(Task 3) and provide a reader -friendly description of
the applicable science to citizens, decision makers, and
other stakeholders.
IIon Logan, Senior Ecologist and our Project Manager,
will lead development of the BAS review and report.
Dungeness River. Reach Y
h aT. w��ao¢Nr •�••r.e .ec.. .a
Forthe Clallam CountySMP Update, ESA created one-page"reach
sheets" that described, in plain language, the relevant ecological
conditions, habitat functions, and management opportunities for
each shoreline reach.
ESA will compile existing biological and physical data
relating to critical areas within eastern Jefferson
County, with a focus on stream conditions in
agricultural areas. This data will make use of data and
inventories already completed, such as water quality
data collected by the Jefferson County Public Health
and the Jefferson County Conservation District, as well
as Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife species
and habitat data. In areas where habitat data is lacking
or insufficient, ESA scientists will conduct targeted
fieldwork to assess habitat conditions.
August 13.2015
leflerson Co nl,, Critical Arms Ordinance Update
Section, 2: Approach to the Proiect
To present and organize the data in the characterization
report, ESA will delineate separate watershed analysis
units based upon watershed boundaries and land
use patterns. For example, the Chimacum Creek
watershed would be one separate analysis unit, and
the Ludlow Creek watershed would be another. Early
in the characterization process, ESA will prepare draft
watershed analysis unit maps to the County for review.
For each analysis unit, ESA will document existing
habitat conditions and functions, aquatic and terrestrial
species use, water quality, and other relevant habitat
and critical areas data. Based upon a review of the data
and conversations with County staff and local experts,
we will describe watershed -specific management
recommendations and restoration/mitigation
opportunities. These descriptions will be accompanied
by maps showing the relevant critical areas data for
each analysis unit. To accompany the report, the
collected data for each watershed analysis unit will be
summarized into a 1 -page, reader -friendly watershed
"fact sheet:' The fact sheets will be targeted to citizens
and landowners, to help them easily understand the
environmental conditions, issues, and opportunities in
each of the County's watersheds.
Adam Merrill, Watershed Scientist and our Deputy
Project Manager, wilt lead development of the
watershed characterization report.
Using the synthesis of BAS under Task 2 and the results
of the watershed characterization conducted in Task
3, the ESA team will identify the policies, regulations,
and programs that need adjustment to better protect
and manage critical areas in Jefferson County. The
report will be grounded in Washington State laws
and regulations for critical areas and land use and
structured to provide a set of options for revising the
CAO regulations, with an emphasis on agricultural
areas. For each set of options, we will also provide a
subset of recommendations based on our experience
with GMA, the CAO update process, and Jefferson
County.
cut
AMIT
l�
t ,,,
>�r.-7 f
After a line -by-line review or the City of Renton's ctrrent CAO,
ESA summarized a list of recommendations for cote revisions in
a simple and straightforward matrix for City plann?ig staff- The
recommendations were packaged in five categories: 1) inconsistent
with BAS; 2) gap/ missing protection; 3) internal colsistency; 4)
clarity/ user-friendliness; and, 5) updates to reflect current City
procedures.
To accompany the report, ESA will prepare a written
summary detailing recommended CAO changes. For
other CAO updates, ESA has developed a consistency
matrix that lists the specific elements of the code,
whether they are consistent with BAS, options for
change if needed, and literature references. This type
of at -a -glance summary serves as a helpful tool for
County staff, citizens, Planning Commission, and the
Board of Commissioners to easily follow the logic for
recommended revisions.
lion Logan will lead development of the
recommendations report.
Led by ilon Logan and Adam Merrill, ESA will provide
technical support and presentations at key junctures.
If staff limitations require greater consultant support,
ESA can also assist in more involved discussions
with the Planning Commission and Board of
County Commissioners. ESA's support for Jefferson
County Planning Commission public hearings and
presentations to the Board of County Commissioners
at any step in the process could include meeting
facilitation, and development of maps, PowerPoint
presentations, and other relevant presentation
materials. ESA has provided similar support to cities
and counties around Puget Sound and we pride
ourselves on our ability to clearly communicate critical
area -related issues to decision -makers.
Section 2: Approach to the Project
The figure below shows a draft schedule for completing project tasks, based
upon the deadlines stated in your RFP. Before we are under contract, ESA
will work with County staff to establish an updated project schedule and
path to achieving the overall June 2016 project deadline.
Throughout the project Ilon Logan, our proposed project manager, will
actively manage our team to ensure work progress for each task is on track
for on-time delivery. All time and materials are tracked weekly through our
project management software, allowing for rapid and real-time updates on
time and effort on a weekly basis.
Icon will regularly update the County project manager of schedule, both
through phone calls and monthly progress reports.
Task 1 RAS Revs A RePon
DIOR RaPort
Final Reoon 0
ask 7 1N]terstaN Chanctr�xetrr'+ Raf'Pn
Drag AnalTsis u^n MOPS 0
D,stt Report
Feral RRODI 0
Task 3 RvPon
.D,zA Rapon
F,na: Report 0
Tack 4: Pudic PartloParmt
1st pWWMg Comm PresenWkor V
2rd Plam ng Comm Presen:RWI 0
eoora a'Com -SWM'$ W. -Wil 0
August 13 2015 ;eferson County Critical Areas Ordinance Update
Similar Past Projects
City of Sumner ✓ ✓ ✓
City of Tacoma ✓
City of Tukwila ✓ ✓ ✓
City of ✓ ✓ ✓
Woodinville
• Jefferson County No Net Loss - ESA is currently assisting Jefferson
County with implementation of their updated SMP, focused around an
EPA grant funded framework intended to maximize SMP success and
achieving no net loss of ecological functions. Ongoing efforts include
completing an updated reach -by -reach inventory and characterization
of existing natural and built environmental conditions, which includes
review of critical areas conditions along the County's numerous miles of
marine and freshwater shorelines, as well as assessing initial shoreline
development permit decisions since the SMP became effective in early
2014. Assessment of permit decisions is requiring detailed review and
understanding of integrated critical areas regulations; and for many
shoreline development sites ESA is completing site visits to assess
how permit actions are affecting conditions on the ground. These
efforts, coordinated closely with Planning Department staff, provide
us familiarity with critical areas conditions and management decision
implications across the Jefferson County landscape.
ESA has been serving Puget Sound clients out of our Ballard off�ce since
1987. Our critical areas protection and comprehensive planning experience
stretches from the early 1990s to the present. A few examples a. a listed below.
Relevance buffets, number of staff involved, and references for'hese projects
Jurisdiction
ore listed in the table found in Section 4 of this proposal. We invite you to
-,efferson County ✓
contact the references listed in Section 4 of this proposal to verify our team's
Island County ✓ ✓ ✓
performance on similor projects.
Whatcom County ✓ ✓
Clark County ✓
Plerce County ✓
Mason County ✓
Jefferson County's SMP Update - In addition to completing a
Kittitas County ✓ ✓
comprehensive inventory and analysis of nearshore and freshwater
shorelines, ESA provided a consistency review and regulatory
Pend Orielle
County
integration strategy as precursors to developing shoreline goals,
policies, and regulations. Working with Policy and Technical Advisory
City of Lynnwood ✓
Committees and County staff, ESA developed recommendations
City of Edmonds ✓
for updating the SMP and assessing the cumulative effects of
City of Port ✓
implementation. We also prepared a restoration plan, in cooperation
Orchard
with the Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory and Ecology, which
City of Gig Harbor ✓ ✓ ✓
identified and prioritized restoration opportunities throughout
City of Kent ✓
the County. ESA helped the County present the Draft SMP and
associated work products to the public through a series of charrettes
City of Federal ✓
and other workshops and supported the local adoption process by
Way
participating in meetings with the planning commission and Board of
City of Mill Creek ✓
County Commissioners. The locally adopted SMP includes a unique
City of Issaquah ✓
designation system adapted to the specific shoreline conditions in
City of Mukilteo ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Jefferson County and customized polices and regulations for important
issues such as aquaculture (since commercial shellfish harvest is one of
City of Puyallup ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
the key economic sectors in the County), moorage, and nonconforming
City of Renton ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
uses.
City of Sumner ✓ ✓ ✓
City of Tacoma ✓
City of Tukwila ✓ ✓ ✓
City of ✓ ✓ ✓
Woodinville
• Jefferson County No Net Loss - ESA is currently assisting Jefferson
County with implementation of their updated SMP, focused around an
EPA grant funded framework intended to maximize SMP success and
achieving no net loss of ecological functions. Ongoing efforts include
completing an updated reach -by -reach inventory and characterization
of existing natural and built environmental conditions, which includes
review of critical areas conditions along the County's numerous miles of
marine and freshwater shorelines, as well as assessing initial shoreline
development permit decisions since the SMP became effective in early
2014. Assessment of permit decisions is requiring detailed review and
understanding of integrated critical areas regulations; and for many
shoreline development sites ESA is completing site visits to assess
how permit actions are affecting conditions on the ground. These
efforts, coordinated closely with Planning Department staff, provide
us familiarity with critical areas conditions and management decision
implications across the Jefferson County landscape.
BAS Review - ESA reviewed scientific literature and prepared reports
addressing marine and freshwater habitats in 2007 and 2008. The reports
summarized the state of science and presented literature pertaining
to buffers, mitigation standards, and best management practices. The
BAS review focused on water quality degradation from septic systems,
shoreline and streambank alteration, and loss of connectivity between
nearshore, upland habitats, and freshwater streams.
Island County SMP - ESA assisted with public outreach; a shoreline
inventory and characterization report; updates to designations, policies,
and regulations; development of a restoration plan; and local adoption.
We also led public outreach meetings and developed new policies. ESA
reviewed existing FWHCA regulations and BAS for shoreline habitat areas
and drafted updates; changes incorporated in the locally adopted SMP
received Ecology approval in 2013.
Island County CAO Update - ESA has assembled a team of biologists,
hydrologists, water rights specialists, hydrogeologists, and geologists
to utilize a watershed -based approach to inform review of the County's
Comprehensive Plan and CAO and to identify connections between
land use planning policies and practices and watershed processes
and functions. The County expects to focus on wetland protections,
agricultural activities exemption changes, groundwater protection,
and landslide hazard areas. The project includes a review of BAS,
documentation of existing conditions, and a needs assessment and
gap analysis report that identifies options for polity and regulatory
changes. The ESA team will also support the County with revisions to
the Comprehensive Plan, critical areas regulations, and the legislative
process up to adoption.
Funded through an Ecology SMA grant, ESA assisted Kittitas County and
three of its cities with comprehensive updates to their SMPs; ESA is also
assisting the County with updating its CAO. This work includes preparation of
a comprehensive shoreline inventory and characterization report; shoreline
jurisdiction maps; and a review of BAS for wetlands, fish and wildlife habitats,
critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically
hazardous areas. The updated SMPs were locally adopted in 2014. Work on
the CAO is still occurring; to date, ESA developed a draft updated CAO that
includes regulations specific to agricultural activities in the Naches watershed
(which is not enrolled in the state Voluntary Stewardship Program). Other
key agriculture -related work included developing a definition and regulatory
strategy for "hobby farms"
ESA is assisting these four cities with updates to their CAOs as required
under the GMA for use of BAS and special consideration for salmonids. ESA
is reviewing each CAO for consistency with BAS, providing recommendations
for revising the regulations, and supporting the public communication during
the legislative process. For Renton and Kent, ESA is also supporting achieving
compliance with the National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion
(BiOp) of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Section 3: Similar Past Projects
in
August 13. 2015 Jefferson County Critical Are.&r. Ordinance Uodate
Section 3: Simklar Past Projects
The HCCC ILF is an interlocal agency and non-profit sponsored program for
completing mitigation projects according to the latest federa; requirements.
The HCCC ILF Program is unique in that it proposes to provide compensation
for stream and nearshore habitats in addition to freshwater wetlands. ESA
documented the need for the Program and its potential benefits in the
Program Prospectus that was approved by federal agencies in 2011. We
also helped prepare the instrument which is the legal document governing
operation of the program. Other tasks included: identification of priority
freshwater and nearshore roster sites; mitigation site assessment and design
for both freshwater and nearshore sites; appending the ILF instrument with
roster site documentation that supports the generation of credits; technical
support for reviewing, updating, and implementing county mitigation
programs; supporting county efforts to codify the HCCC ILF Program and
frontline reporting; and spatial mapping of conservation priorities.
ESA is helping the City of Duvall complete a watershed -based land use
planning project to support the Comprehensive Plan, critical areas, and
stormwater/LID updates. The project is integrating watershed assessment
approaches developed by Ecology with locally available subbasin data. ESA
is developing strategies for managing critical areas with an emphasis on
maintaining watershed functions. We have completed a draft watershed plan
with recommendation for updates to the City sensitive area ordinance, their
land use code, clearing and grading standards and stormwater standards.
We have also completed a non -project action SEPA checklist for the plan,
which is being considered for adoption this month.
ESA is assisting Mukilteo with two watershed -based approach projects.
For the GIS Stormwater Project, ESA is using GIS to develop a stormwater
management plan, For the Critical Areas Mitigation Project, ESA is identifying
potential mitigation sites in three subbasins following a watershed -based
approach; assessing hydrologic, soil, and biological conditions on the sites;
developing conceptual plans for the prioritized sites; and developing a buffer
fee -in -lieu program for several sites.
The Whatcom County SMP is the first countywide SMP to be adopted locally
since the shoreline guidelines were updated in 2003. With nearly 150 miles
of marine and 300 miles of freshwater shoreline, the County was in the
forefront of integrating ecosystem -wide concepts, public involvement, and
policy and regulatory development. Known as Adolfson Associates Inc. at the
time (prior to merging with ESA), our staff were responsible for inventory and
analysis of ecological and built environment conditions, and assisted with
development of shoreline policies, environmental designations, regulations,
and a restoration plan, and coordinated with critical areas policies and
regulations. Concurrently, we assisted with an update of the county's critical
areas regulations. We developed a literature review and recommendations
for designations, protection, buffers, mitigation and other performance
standards to document BAS in compliance with GMA requirements.
PSNERP Nearshore Conceptual Designs, WA. Project Coordinator. Scott assisted
with project management responsibilities for this project. PSNERP is a large-scale
ecosystem study of the Puget Sound led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
WDFW with support from other state, local and federal agencies, tribes, industries and
environmental organizations. ESA supported PSNERP on multiple aspects of this
project. We served as the lead contractor responsible for developing conceptual
restoration designs for nearshore sites throughout Puget Sound. This work involved
assessing and characterizing restoration opportunities and constraints on 44 sites
representing a wide range of geomorphic systems. For each site, the ESA team
developed two restoration alternatives: a full restoration option that fully removes
ecosystem stressors and a partial restoration option that recognizes site constraints
such as property ownership. ESA's conceptual design report presents restoration
alternatives in terms of ecological effectiveness and engineering feasibility. The
design report identified all of the major restoration elements, the expected ecological
evolution of each site, the restoration risks and uncertainties, and the response of the
restored site to climate changes such as sea level rise. The goal of this work was to
provide adequate detail to enable PSNERP to evaluate restoration costs and benefits
and select a suite of sites and actions that will comprise a strategic nearshore
restoration strategy for Puget Sound.
Willamette Partnership Stream Assessment Services for EPA Streams Project No.
6565, OR. Project Coordinator. Scott coordinated ESA's efforts to develop a stream
functions assessment methodology (Assessment Methodology) for statewide
application in Oregon to assess the site/reach scale impact of proposed and permitted
actions to functions, as well as the replacement (predicted and actuai) of unavoidable
impacts and compensatory mitigation. The Assessment Methodology will allow users
to calculate baseline stream function and calculate predicted changes in function
resulting from impact or mitigation projects. The Assessment Methodology will
include an instruction manual and datasheets, so that a stream professional with two
days of training can apply the Assessment Methodology. In addition to stream
functions, a separate values assessment that is distinct from the assessment of stream
functions will occur to evaluate the opportunity for a stream to provide a particular
function, and the local significance of that function. This project will support work
conducted by the Project Partners (Willamette Partnership, DSL, USACE, and the
Environmental Protection Agency Region 10) to develop a statewide stream
classification system and function -based stream mitigation framework for Oregon to
effectively implement stream mitigation policy under the Federal Compensatory
Mitigation Rule and the Oregon Removal -Fill Law.
Ecology Puget Sound Watershed Characterization, Phase 2, WA. Ecologist. Scott
supported HCCC's case study and website story map development for this project.
ESA worked with Ecology, the Partnership, and the Ecology Watershed Technical
Assistance Team to assist in the completion of Phase 11 of the Puget Sound
Characterization Project. This work includes identifying priority areas for stormwater
retrofits thorough Puget Sound. FSA will also be developing a decision support tool
that shows planners and citizens how to integrate, interpret and apply the results of
the Puget Sound Characterization to planning actions. ESA will create an integrated
set of solutions to water quality, hydrology and habitat problems linked to distinct
geographic areas. We are also creating a website that displays the assessment
information in a manner that is easy to assess, interpret, and apply.
Consent Agenda Request
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
FROM: David Goldsmith, Interim DCD Director
Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner/Wetland Specialist
04��
DATE: June 27, 2016
SUBJECT: Contract extension for professional services to support the Growth
Management Act (GMA) requirement to update critical areas
regulations that apply to agricultural lands
ATTACHMENT: Contract for professional services with Environmental Science
Associates (ESA)
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The Department of Community Development (DCD) Interim Director, David Goldsmith, briefed the
Board of County Commissions (BoCC) on Monday, June 13, 2016. One item discussed during the
afternoon meeting was the critical areas update to include agriculture. It was noted that the contract
with ESA ends on June 30, 2016, and DCD asked if the BoCC was interested in meeting with the
consultant prior to the end of the contract. Since DCD was in the process of receiving the third and
final report from ESA, the BoCC was not able to review the reports to determine if a meeting with the
consultant was needed. Based on this, the BoCC asked if the contract could be extended until
December 31, 2016.
ANALYSIS:
Approximately 10 percent of the original $99,945 budget in the contract is remaining, and could be
used for tasks not yet completed (i.e., one meeting with the BoCC and one more meeting with the
Planning Commission) and for providing other assistance as DCD drafts code revisions.
FISCAL IMPACT
The maximum contract amount of $99,945 would remain the same, but the funds not yet spent in the
budget (approximately 10 percent of the total) could be used by ESA until December 31, 2016. This
amount has been identified for allocation from the general fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
DCD recommends the BoCC approve an extension to the attached contract for professional services
with ESA, which would be used in support of the GMA comprehensive plan update and CAO update.
REVIEWED BY:
Phil"orley; Cou6ty Administrator
, a, 0 ' /14: e A �-
Date
CONTRACT REVIEW FORM
CONTRACT WITH: Environmental Sciences Associates
(Contractor/Consultant) ,,?"s #—, 1�— Ms ff FW —*
CONTRACT FOR: TERM: 9/21/2015 to'December
CAO Update — Consultant Assistance 31, 2016
COUNTY DEPARTMENT: Community Development
For More Information Contact: Donna Frostholm " I F F F E R S O KJ P (NI O R
48
Contact Phone #: 360-379-4466
RETURN TO: Donna Frostholm RETURN BY: June 29, 2016
(Person in Department) (Date)
AMOUNT: $99,945 PROCESS:
Revenue:
Expenditure:
Matching Funds Required:
Sources(s) of Matching Funds
Comments
0
$99,945
N/A
N/A
Step 1: REVIEW
Review by:
Date Reviewed:
APPROVED FORM
Vc
Exempt from Bid Process
Consultant Selection Process
Cooperative Purchase
Competitive Sealed Bid
Small Works Roster
Vendor List Bid
X RFP or RFQ
Other
MA
Returned for revision (See Comments)
Step 2: REVIEW BY PR SECUTI Q ATTORr
Review by: 4---t
Date Reviewed:
APPROVED AS TO FORM Returned for revision (See
Comments
ts)
Step 3: (If required) DEPARTMENT MAKES REVISIONS & RESUBMITS TO
RISK MANAGEMENT AND PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Step 4: CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT SIGNS APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF
ORIGINALS
Step 5: SUBMIT TO BOCC FOR APPROVAL
Submit originals and 9 copies of Contract, Review Form, and Agenda Bill to BOCC Office.
Place "Sign Here" markers on all places the BOCC needs to sign.
MUST be in BOCC Office by 4:30 p.m. TUESDAY for the following Monday's agenda.
(This form to stay with contract throughout the contract review process.)
Consent Agenda Request
ATTACHMENT A
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
WITH ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES
ESA 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW
Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98107
206.789.9658 phone
206.789.9684 fax
transmittal
date July 13, 2016 x attached
via messenger
to Attn: Donna Frostholm
Jefferson County
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
project Jefferson County
items Contract Amendment # 1
comments Hello Donna,
Please find attached executed Contract Amendment #1 from ESA.
Thank you.
sent by Cynthia Pham
www_esassoc.c..om
x via regular mail
D
Jilt 18 2016
JEFFERSON COUNTY
via overnight mail
contact telephone number