City Council

LAKEWOOD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA Monday, May 22, 2017 7:00 P.M. City of Lakewood City Council Chambers 6000 Main Street SW Lakewood, WA 98499 ________________________________________________________________ Page No. CALL TO ORDER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: 1. Adult Family Homes Update. – Mr. John Ficker, Executive Director, Adult Family Home Council of Washington State ( 3) 2. Joint Planning Commission meeting. – (Work Plan) ( 5) 3. 2017 waste collections rates updates. - (Memorandum) ( 8) 4. Review of amendment to Horwath Law public defender services contract. – (Memorandum) REPORTS BY THE CITY MANAGER (11) Puget Sound Regional Council Organizational Structure and Funding Allocations ITEMS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR THE JUNE 5, 2017 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 1. Youth Council recognition and report. 2. Appointing members to serve on the Lakewood’s Promise Advisory Board. – (Motion – Consent Agenda) 3. Appointing a member to serve on the Community Services Advisory Board. – (Motion – Consent Agenda) 4. Appointing a member to serve on the Lakewood Arts Commission. – (Motion – Consent Agenda) 5. Endorsing Pierce Transit’s membership to the AWC Employee Benefit Trust. – (Motion – Consent Agenda) The Council Chambers is accessible to persons with disabilities. Equipment is available for the hearing impaired. Persons requesting special accommodations or language interpreters should contact the City Clerk’s Office, 589-2489, as soon as possible in advance of the Council meeting so that an attempt to provide the special accommodations can be made. http://www.cityoflakewood.us City Hall will be closed 15 minutes after adjournment of the meeting. Lakewood City Council Agenda -2- May 22, 2017 Page No. 6. Awarding a bid for 2017 stormwater pipe repairs. – (Motion – Consent Agenda) 7. Approving an amendment to the agreement with Horwath Law for public defender services. – (Motion – Consent Agenda) 8. Approving a final plat for Megan Court subdivision. – (Resolution – Consent Agenda) 9. Adopting the Six Year (2018-2023) Transportation Improvement Program. – (Resolution – Regular Agenda) 10. Approving the Fiscal Year 2017 Consolidated Annual Action Plan and Fiscal Year 2013, 2014 and 2015 Consolidated Annual Action Plan Amendments for Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Act funding allocations. – (Resolution – Regular Agenda) 11. Approving a custodial services agreement for City Hall facilities. – (Motion – Regular Agenda) COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The Council Chambers is accessible to persons with disabilities. Equipment is available for the hearing impaired. Persons requesting special accommodations or language interpreters should contact the City Clerk’s Office, 589-2489, as soon as possible in advance of the Council meeting so that an attempt to provide the special accommodations can be made. http://www.cityoflakewood.us City Hall will be closed 15 minutes after adjournment of the meeting.  LAKEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN AND SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS Members: Chair: Don Daniels Nancy Hudson-Echols Vice-Chair: Robert Estrada John Paul Wagemann Connie Coleman-Lacadie Christopher Webber James Guerrero Council Liaison: Councilmember Michael Brandstetter City Staff Support: Dave Bugher, Assistant City Manager for Development Services Courtney Casady, Assistant to the City Manager Frank Fiori, Planning Manager Karen Devereaux, Administrative Assistant Meeting Schedule: First & third Wednesdays of every month at 6:30 PM, City Council Chambers Accomplishments: Date Topic(s) 4/21 Reviewed 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). 9/7 Conducted public hearing the 2016 slate of comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance amendments. There were a total of 18 map and text amendments. 9/21 Made recommendations to the City Council on the 2016 comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance amendments. Conducted public hearing and made recommendation to the City Council on proposed amendments to the City’s wireless telecommunications regulations. Received report on Air Corridor issues. 10/19 Amended commission bylaws. 11/16 Reviewed 2016 housing report. Received presentation from the City Attorney on defining “quasi-judicial.” 003 2017 Work Plan: 1. Annual housing report Number of new single family and multifamily units Number of new manufactured housing units Number of residential units demolished MFTE projects in the permit process, under construction and completed Number of affordable housing units in the permit process, under construction and completed Status report on the rental housing program 2. Revised Title 18A regulations; primary objectives are: Update code sections Enhance predictability in permitting Improve readability Increase Accountability 3. JLUS implementation (part of Title 18A amendments) Changes in permitted uses in the Clear Zone zoning district classification Revised nonconforming use standards 4. Review of Lakewood Strategic Plan (follow-up assignment to the City’s Visioning exercise) 5. Review of Six-Year Transportation and Improvement Plan 6. Initiate work on CBD subarea plan Review existing conditions report Public engagement plan Conduct one “kick-off” meeting with the public Conduct at least one formal public work shop 004 TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Torie Brazitis, Assistant to the City Manager THROUGH: John J. Caulfield, City Manager DATE: May 16, 2017 SUBJECT: 2017 Rate Increases for Solid Waste Collection Services (Informational) This memo reviews annual increases to solid waste collection rates that City franchisee Waste Connections will levy on Lakewood residential and commercial clients, starting June 1, 2017. Additionally, it summarizes other City-negotiated provisions in the Waste Connections franchise agreement that support community facilities, events, and priorities beyond the franchisee’s service to Lakewood residential and commercial customers. Annual Increases Allowed in Franchise Agreement: Section 3.3 of the City’s 2015-2015 franchise agreement with Harold LeMay Enterprises (Contract No. 2015-289; Ordinance 15-631) for solid waste collection services allows for annual adjustments to the contractor’s service charges. These annual rate increases are derived by formula that applies two inputs to the all rates charged for solid waste collection services: 1. Changes in the Consumer Price Index CWURA423SAO for the Seattle-Tacoma- Bremerton Metropolitan Area (CPI), and 2. Increases in Pierce County’s dump fees. The agreement outlines by formula how the contractor will factor the two costs adjustments into their annual rate increases to customers. Generally, CPI increases apply across all containers and services, while dump fee increases apply more to larger containers based on their volume, as larger containers result in more waste going to the County landfill. 1 005 Explanation of 2017 Fee Increases: Effective March 2017, Pierce County’s landfill fees charged to Waste Connections increased 5.2% from $145.84 per ton to $153.48 per ton. The CPI for Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton Metro Area increased by 2.10% in 2016. As per the agreement, these increases will result in increase to their 2017 rates which will go into effect on June 1, 2017. The increases range from 2.1% to 3.3% for most services. Examples of the increases applied to their most popular residential and commercial services are shown below: 2017 Waste Connections Rate Increases Sample Rate Increases (Monthly) Residential - 65-Gallon Container, Weekly Pickup 2016 rate 2017 rate % Increase $34.46 $35.48 3.0% Commercial – 2-Yard Container, Weekly Pickup 2016 rate 2017 rate % Increase $172.17 $177.73 3.2% As per the agreement, all customers were notified of this increase through postcards sent by the contractor in April. Additionally, City staff posted an update on the City’s website with this information. No comments or questions have been received. Change in 2017 Timeframes: The annual increases would normally happen by March 1, 2017 after a notification to customers no later than January 15, 2017. However, key staff turnover at Waste Connections in late 2016 resulted in some internal confusion, and the contractor missed the January 15,, 2017 deadline. Noting this mistake in March, Waste Connections contacted the City to discuss and rebated all rate increases they had previously implemented. After discussion and review of the process, City staff allowed the usual notice to go out in April to permit a June 1st, 2017 effective date to annual increases. Council can expect 2018 increases to proceed through the usual process next spring. As per the franchise agreement, this negotiated annual increase requires only notification to the City before being put into effect. Community Benefit Items in Waste Connections Franchise: There are several other community-facing items included in the franchise agreement: • Free waste collection at City facilities – As per the franchise agreement, City facilities and parks receive free waste collection services. • Free waste collection at City events – Scheduled City events, including large community events, receive free waste collection services through this franchise agreement. 2 006  • Large item community pickup event – The franchise agreement enables the City to request that Waste Connections host one or two community pickup days. This can be either a central drop-off site for one day or weekend (similar to Steilacoom Spring Cleanup) or several smaller-scale curbside pickup days for larger items, scheduled by neighborhood. As these events would involve significant staffing and communication resources from the City, more discussion will take place to determine time of year and scope of any potential events before a final plan is set. Additionally, Waste Connections is undergoing a comprehensive re-routing process this fall to ensure efficiency in their services, and working to ensure they are as prepared as they can be for major weather events in light of the snowstorm earlier this spring. 3 007 TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Torie Brazitis, Assistant to the City Manager THROUGH: John J. Caulfield, City Manager DATE: May 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Amendment to Horwath Law PLLC Contract (2015-233) This memo proposes an amendment to the City’s contract with its primary public defense law firm Horwath Law PLLC (2015-233) to raise the contract’s annual baseline level of cases from 1,600 to 2,000 to reflect heavier than expected caseloads in the contracts first year. This would enable the contractor to provide an increased level of stable representation for indigent defenders through this contract. Costs have increased since 2012, reflecting increases in demand and 2014 restrictions on how many cases each public defense attorney can take on each year. The Municipal Court saw slightly lower monthly case data last fall as it launched a new screening process, but cases rose again after that and stabilized. The contract has a three-year term. It went into effect on February 1, 2016 and expires on January 31, 2018. This increased baseline amount of cases would apply to the remainder of the term. Background Information: The City is obligated to provide public defense services for indigent defendants and contracts with three separate law firms to do so. Multiple contracts allow the City to avoid legal or ethical conflicts while providing indigent defense services for all who need them. 1. Primary Public Defense Contract: Horwath Law, LLC (2015-23). This contract’s structure and workload is discussed below. It serves most Court customers who need a public defender. It served 2,057 cases in 2016. 2. Conflict Public Defense Contract: J&S Law, LLC (2015-243). This firm serves clients with whom Horwath Law has a conflict. It serves up to 10 clients per month for $250 per case. This firm served 69 cases in 2016. 1 008  3. Conflict/Conflict Public Defense Contract: John Doherty. This firm serves any cases with whom both J&S Law and Horwath Law have conflicts. This firm served four cases in 2016. The City Council adopted the Washington State Supreme Court’s Standards for Indigent Defense in September 2014 (Resolution 2014-20), which stipulate that public defense attorneys must carry a caseload of no more than 400 cases per year. This caused the City’s public defense expenditures to increase since then, as shown in the table below. Expenditures: Primary Public Public Defense Expenditures: Defense Firm (Primary Contract) Public Defense (Overall) 2012 SMH* $241,000 $254,275 2013 SMH $204,422 $222,522 2014 SMH $337,631 $386,381 2015 SMH $397,722 $432,958 2016 SMH/Horwath $525,323 $554,654 2017 (Proj)** Horwath $561,796 $592,793 *- Stewart McNichols Harmell Inc. P.S. (SMH) was the City’s previous primary public defense firm. Their contract ended in 2016. ** - 2017 projections are based on $140,449 expenditures to Horwath out of $148,198.97 total public defense expenditures in Q1 2017. Changes to Caseloads and Proposed Changes to Contract: The agreement with Horwath Law provided for their public defense services to 1,600 cases per year. To provide this service in compliance with the Standards for Indigent Defense, Horwath Law employed four attorneys that cover these services, supplemented by temporary legal assistance for cases above the 1,600 baseline. Under original projections used to set the 1,600 baseline, the contractor would handle an average of 133 cases per month over the course of a year. However, in the first twelve months of this contract, the contractor served 2,057 cases or 171 per month. Caseloads are projected to exceed the 1,600 baseline again in the second twelve months, which would lead much higher than expected monthly caseloads to continue for Horwath attorneys. # of Cases Avg # of Cases (per year) (per month) 2015 1,657 138 2016 2,057 171 2017 (Proj)* 1,988 166 *-2017 projection is based on 497 cases in Q1 2017. Legal ethics prohibit a law firm from keeping an attorney on temporary status if they handle a steady stream of work. The City’s recent caseload increases required that Horwath hire a fifth attorney to provide appropriate service. This contract amendment would reflect this change in their structure and provide them with secure funding to keep it in place. 2 009 The proposed contract amendment allows Horwath Law assured support for a higher level of 166 cases per month. The City would pay for cases above the 2,000 allowed at the existing rates of $260 per additional case in 2017, and $265 per additional case in 2018. There is concern that the 2,057 caseload from the first 12 months of the contract may be lower than true demand because the Lakewood Municipal Court implemented a new screening process in the fall of 2016. At that time, the Court requiring applicants for public defense services to sign a $250 promissory note to cover court costs if they are unable to produce documentation confirming their indigent status. The program evolved after its launch, and Horwath Law believes caseloads now are stable. Section 2.4.1 of the City’s current contract enables renegotiation in cases of significant changes in caseloads (“Review and Renegotiation – Due to Increases or Decreases in Case Loads”). This allows both this proposal and additional renegotiation of the contract later if caseloads change again. Fiscal Impact: The base City annual expenditures with this contract amendment would rise from $416,000 to $520,000. However, the amount is still within to the current 2017 budget of $570,000 for this contract. This proposal reflects a different structure to those costs, and not an increase. The value in this change is a more secure way for the City to offer primary public defense services. Alternatives: The City Council could choose to keep the existing structure and pay for cases over 1,600 on a per-case basis. Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with Horwath Law PLLC for an annual contract totaling $520,000 as part of the June 5, 2017 regular City Council meeting. 3 010 TO: Mayor and City Council members FROM: Courtney Casady, Assistant to the City Manager THROUGH: John Caulfield, City Manager DATE: May 22, 2017 SUBJECT: Puget Sound Regional Council Organizational Structure and Funding Allocations Purpose: The purpose of this memorandum is to: 1) provide the City Council with an overview of the research completed by BERK Consulting evaluating the Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) organizational structure and funding allocations; and 2) submit to the Council recommendations for review and consideration. Both reports provide valuable information and should be read in total. Background: The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is the municipal planning organization (MPO) and regional transportation planning organization (RTPO) representing Snohomish, King, Kitsap and Pierce counties. The mission of PSRC is to preserve and enhance the quality of life in the central Puget Sound. PSRC serves as a regional transportation planning agency, which means it develops a long-range plan, coordinates transportation planning within the region and prepares a transportation improvement program. Historically, PSRC’s role has been to allocate funding and create regional planning documents. More recently, PSRC has taken a more proactive approach in regulating local planning, including certifying and evaluating local comprehensive plans for compliance and consistency with Vision 2040 in 2015. Following the recent comprehensive plan certification process, the City of Lakewood sought to become more engaged with PSRC in order to better understand their role within the region. Through the city’s increased involvement, Lakewood became concerned with several of PSRC’s actions including: population estimates; Military Center recognition; the comprehensive plan certification process; and, most recently, the Draft Regional Centers Framework Update released in early 2016. In early 2017 City of Lakewood hired BERK Consulting to gain a better understanding of PSRC’s funding allocations and overall role within the region. The report BERK provided 011 is separated into two white papers: (1) Regional Planning Organization Options, examines PSRC’s history and Pierce County’s options regarding regional planning, and (2) Regional Resource Distribution evaluates PSRC’s funding mechanisms and provides historical funding data. Regional Planning Organization Options: The first of the two reports takes a bird’s-eye view of PSRC’s organizational structure and the potential for Pierce County to form its own MPO and RTPO. Highlights from this report include: History and Structure: 1. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) operates as Pierce County’s regional transportation planning organization (RTPO) created under the Growth Management Act, and municipal planning organization (MPO), created under federal transportation law. PSRC was granted authority over the four-county region via an Interlocal Agreement originally signed in 1991 and amended in 1993 (p. 2). 2. PSRC regional governance structure consists of General Assembly, made up of elected officials from each PSRC member jurisdiction and statutory members. The General Assembly votes to approve regional plans, establishes the two year budget and elects new officers (p. 10). 3. Weighted voting based on population and its cities gives King County a near majority of overall votes possible at the General Assembly (p. 13). 4. In 2015 and 2016, Pierce County had the lowest number of attendees and of possible votes at General Assembly (p. 14). Recent Changes in Authority 1. In the 24-year history since the ILA was last amended, PSRC’s responsibility has expanded beyond its original mission. The additional duties have been authorized sequentially by either the General Assembly or Executive Board through the adoption of Vision 2040 and Vision 2040’s implementation strategy (p. 15-16). There have been no amendments to the ILA. PSRC’s expanding responsibilities include: a. Multi-County Planning Policies b. Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) and Growth Shares c. Implementation Activities including Vision 2040 Interpretation 2. In 2009, as part of an implementation activity, the Executive Board voted to approve Appendix II-B which included language on “bending the trend” in order to align local growth targets to the regional growth strategy. Compared to the previous standard of aligning the regional plan with local plans, this is an example of a top-down versus bottom-up approach. A bottom-up approach is highlighted in the ILA, but adoption and interpretation of VISION 2040 have changed the relationship of the regional and local 012  plans compared to the ILA. Its use in 2015 comprehensive plan certification review process gave the appendix more weight than intended or authorized. (p. 16) According to PSRC, Appendix II-B was considered informational, but was used a guidepost in PSRC’s certification process and referenced frequently in their Plan Review manual. 3. About 25 percent, or twenty (20) of PSRC’s eighty (80) member communities received a conditional certification of their comprehensive plan (p. 16). This indicates a clear lack of communication and understanding between PSRC and member jurisdictions. 4. Some of the guidance PSRC provided in conditional certification requirements appeared controversial, such as growth metering or downzoning fast growing jurisdictions and requiring additional analysis for employment capacity (p. 18). PSRC’s targets went beyond the requirements of GMA. To clarify, PSRC’s authority to conduct local plan review and “bend the trend” towards the regional growth strategy was a result of a technical revision in Appendix II-B and approved by the Executive Board. It was NOT voted on by the General Assembly and the impacts affected every jurisdiction within the region. 5. PSRC has increased authorities beyond the minimum standard of GMA and has assumed roles given to counties and cities under GMA (p. 17-18) including: a. Population growth estimates; b. Land capacity and buildable land methodologies; and c. Management of the Region’s Urban Growth Areas (UGA’s). Alternatives Assessment: 1. There are two identified regional governance alternatives (1) forming alliances and seeking amendments to PSRC bylaws and plans or (2) forming a county-specific agency (p. 23). 2. It currently takes votes from more than two counties and their cities to successfully change PSRC bylaws, regional plans and budget. To influence change, Lakewood and other Pierce County communities must seek alliances with Kitsap and Snohomish Counties, as well as other voting agencies. Areas of similar concerns are found in Kitsap and Snohomish Counties and include: military centers, selection of transportation projects for funding, revising funding criteria and ensuring that the Vision 2040 update is consistent with the ILA (pg. 23-24). 3. An alternative to participating in PSRC would be to form a Pierce County-specific RTPO and MPO. This would require consensus from 60 percent of cities (~14 in addition to Tacoma). Forming a county-specific agency would maximize the local autonomy of Pierce County (9. 24). 4. Some discretionary funding streams could potentially increase or decrease depending on whether Pierce County were competitive on its own compared to PSRC. Washington state distributes funds to RTPOs through three base formulas: a. A base amount regardless of size; 013  b. A per capita amount; c. A discretionary competitive grant amount for special regional planning projects (RCW 47.80.050). 5. The money awarded through the base amount and per capita formulas would not be foreseeably different, since PSRC operates a similar funding allocation process. It is possible that there could be a potential increase or decrease in amount awarded through discretionary grant programs for special regional planning projects since the Pierce County MPO would be competing against other MPO’s, including PSRC (p.25). 6. Additional analysis would need to determine all of the short- and long-term costs and potential benefits to having Pierce County form a separate MPO (p. 24). Based on these reports we know that forming a county-specific MPO provides more autonomy, but it may also impact state and federal level because Pierce County would lose the regional voice associated with PSRC. Additionally, a county-centric MPO would need to carry out the process of developing an organization that is competitive with PSRC and other regional planning entities to ensure that Pierce County does not lose funding. This report does not project the start up or ongoing costs associated with forming a Pierce County MPO, but does glean future funding implications and the potential to form Pierce County’s own regional voice. 7. Alternatively, forming alliances and advocating at PSRC could be considered a first phase in trying to improve local county outcomes. Pierce County’s participation level at PSRC can be improved. Maintaining and enhancing the current relationship with PSRC maximizes the county’s collective regional voice at the state and federal level (p. 26). Regional Resource Distribution: The Regional Resource Distribution report explores the distribution of regional resources under PSRC and the Vision 2040 framework as well as alternative approaches. The report also evaluates the potential impacts of the Draft Regional Centers Framework Update. Highlights from this report include: Funding Mechanisms 1. PSRC primarily distributes funds in one of two ways: countywide and regional. 2. Countywide funds are assigned based on population and projects are prioritized by each county using a body of PSRC member jurisdictions and agencies. Recommendations are forwarded to PSRC for review, approval and funding. 3. Regional projects are submitted to a competitive review process. Projects are processed by PSRC staff and reviewed by a committee and policy board prior to selection. 014 4. Only 36 projects may be entered into the regional selection process. In total, 12 projects from King County and six projects each from Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties. In addition, two projects each may be submitted by WSDOT, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, and Sound Transit. This process was established in 1995 (p. 5-6) Funding Allocation 1. The countywide funding process appears to be equitable, based on population, amongst the four-county region (p. 12). 2. When the four counties are compared on the basis of per capita and percent of population, Kitsap County rates the highest for overall funding in the region (p. 14). 3. For the competitive regional funding process, King County receives the highest percentage of funds compared to its population (p. 14). 4. Per population count, the City of Tacoma receives 12.82 percent more funding than the rest of Pierce County, accounting for 37.23 percent of the total funds awarded to Pierce County (p. 16). 5. The City of Lakewood also reviewed primary and secondary beneficiaries (p. 12-15). Secondary beneficiaries are commuters from other PSRC counties. Several of the charts show Pierce, Kitsap and Snohomish receiving a higher ranking benefit because of secondary beneficiary status. It is important to note that as more jobs move to King County and outside communities become “bedroom” communities, their rankings as secondary beneficiaries will continue to go up. Being highly rated as a secondary beneficiary means that more of your population has to commute; this is not positive. Pierce County’s goal is to continue to build employment and housing opportunities for Pierce County residents, not to only provide housing for King County employees. Draft Regional Centers Framework Update 1. The Draft Regional Centers Framework may change the criteria for the designation of centers. The practical implications of the tiered system are unknown. In Pierce County, downtown Tacoma is the only existing regional center that would have Tier 1 status (p. 10). If the proposed tiered system is attached to transportation funding, this could continue to exacerbate regional inequity by providing more funding to those cities with existing transportation infrastructure. Conclusions: After reading the reports it is our opinion that the primary concern regarding PSRC and its regional role is not the distribution of funds. The larger issue is the overreach in authority, 015 which has happened incrementally with no amendment to the ILA or clear communication to member cities. For example, the 2015 certification process, which only exists following a technical amendment to Vision 2040, was tucked away in an appendix and not shared clearly at General Assembly or with local planning staff. It is still unclear if a technical amendment, which impacted every jurisdiction, can truly be considered technical versus a policy amendment. Per the Vision 2040 adoption resolution and the ILA, a policy amendment should have been reviewed by the General Assembly. Additionally, through incremental change, PSRC’s growth targets have superseded what is required by GMA. PSRC is now involved in urban growth boundaries and buildable land methodologies, clearly a Pierce County responsibility. PSRC is continuing to gain authority over roles previously belonging to cities and counties. It is understandable, and outlined in GMA, that PSRC needs to review local plans in order to ensure consistency on a regional level. However, cities and counties in the region should ask: “To what end?” So long as they are our MPO and RTPO, Pierce County and its cities must take responsibility to become more active with PSRC. In exchange, as a member driven organization PSRC should work with jurisdictions to ensure all its stakeholders are equally represented and engaged. It does not seem equitable that all of PSRC’s meetings are held in King County, despite representing four counties. It also seems imperative that PSRC diligently recruit members from a variety of jurisdictions to be on future Stakeholder Committees and seek to engage with its member municipalities. Ensuring active involvement and clear communication between PSRC and its members would benefit all parties. Recommendations: 1) The City of Lakewood, in partnership with Pierce County, should seek to become more involved with PSRC and work to form alliances with other jurisdictions. As part of the Vision 2040 update, the City of Lakewood should work to amend the ILA to have it more clearly reflect PSRC’s v. cities’ and counties’ roles and responsibilities. Increased involvement with PSRC will also allow for us to continue to question new policies and procedures – for example the Draft Regional Center Framework update – and encourage PSRC to become more transparent and to prioritize stakeholder participation in the decision making process. 2) Through increased involvement and advocacy, the City of Lakewood should motivate PSRC to hold more meetings throughout the region. PSRC is based in King County, which gives the member jurisdictions of King County a benefit to easily attend meetings. To ensure equitable opportunities for each of 016  the four counties, meetings should be rotated and/or PSRC should consider forming satellite offices which would make it a more accessible agency for all stakeholders, not just those in close proximity. Alternative: Form partnerships in Pierce County, which can consider forming a county- centric MPO. Forming a new MPO and RTPO will require additional analysis to determine the short- and long-term costs for administration and to develop and maintain a regional growth and transportation plan. A well thought out organization is imperative and will help ensure competitiveness for future funding. The City of Lakewood may not be the most appropriate sponsor for this discussion and analysis. Using the information found in the attached reports, members of the Lakewood City Council should encourage PCRC to evaluate the potential of having Pierce County form its own MPO and RTPO. Attachments: 1) Regional Planning Organization Options 2) Regional Resource Distribution 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091