City of SeaTac SAMP ILA AB6794 November 12, 2025 Request for Council Action
machine-generatedMAYOR EGAL: That’s fine with us. Right. Okay. So that is for that. The next item will be an action item agenda bill 6794, an ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a letter of engagement for legal services, authorizing the city manager to execute an interlocal agreement and a 2025-2026 biennial budget total, 20 minutes. And this presentation will be conducted by our community and economic development director, Evan Maxim. This will be 10 minutes, 50 minutes. Okay.
EVAN MAXIM: Thank you, Mayor, city council. I’m Evan Maxim, your community and economic development director. This item I’ll preface was reviewed by the PEED committee meeting a little bit earlier this year back in October. We requested that this item be brought to you as an action item because we were uncertain about whether there will be potential changes to the interlocal agreement between the October PEED meeting and your review this evening.
There have in fact been some changes to the draft interlocal agreement and I’ll call that out in the presentation. Unfortunately, some of those changes occurred after the agenda bill was prepped. So I want to call to your attention in particular the interlocal agreement that we’re bringing forward to you this evening is between the cities of SeaTac, Burien, and Des Moines. The city of Normandy Park has decided not to proceed with their signature on the interlocal agreement. My understanding is that the other two cities are planning on moving forward and that the interlocal agreement you see in your packet this evening is substantially consistent with what we expect the city manager, should you approve, to sign.
So purpose of the presentation tonight: on September 26, the FAA released their final environmental assessment of the sustainable airport master plan use under the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA review process. You’ll see a lot of acronyms in your presentation and a lot of acronyms in your agenda bill. I apologize for that. This is kind of in the weeds. And in particular, what we are commenting on in this NEPA review is that it appears that the FAA’s final environmental assessment has not adequately addressed comments that the city of SeaTac, Burien, Des Moines, and Normandy Park made on behalf of our communities.
The ordinance in front of you this evening would authorize the city to move forward in exploring other options to engage with the FAA and the Port of Seattle and specifically looking at potentially retaining some additional legal counsel, updating our interlocal agreement, and there is a budget amendment included in your packet.
So the council action requested this evening. The first item here and really the source of the ordinance is we are requesting an amendment to the 2025-2026 budget. This is in the ILA fund, the port ILA fund, which is fund 105, so not the general fund that you were discussing a moment ago. And that budget amendment would be for up to $350,000 in expenditures related to legal counsel and anticipating an estimated $253,000 in revenue. And this would be reimbursements by the city of Des Moines and the city of Burien for shared legal service work.
Second component of this ordinance would be to authorize our city manager to sign the interlocal agreement essentially in the form attached to the agenda bill. We are coordinating between three cities and city attorneys for these three cities. So you may see some non-substantive tweaks to the interlocal agreement, but I believe it’s now largely final.
And then the last item that would be authorized through this ordinance would be authorizing the city manager to sign letters of engagement with two outside legal law firms. The first would be Leech Tishman, a gentleman named Steven Taber, and the second law firm being Ogden Murphy Wallace represented by Jennifer Sansgrant. We are recommending that the city council approve this ordinance and the budget amendment after this presentation this evening. I believe PEED committee has also recommended approval. I’ll remind you of course that the PEED committee reviewed this item substantially as presented on October 16th and recommended approval.
So explain what’s going on a little bit further here. As I mentioned a moment ago, the FAA released their record of decision with a finding of no significant impact on September 26 of 2025. That finding of no significant impact included a review of all of the comments received on the draft environmental assessment including the city of SeaTac comment letter and the joint four city comment letter from last December and council you may recall you actually saw copies of both of those letters when they were released in December.
Based upon our staff’s preliminary review of the finding of no significant impact or the FONSI, it appears that the comments offered by the city of SeaTac and other jurisdictions in our interlocal were inadequately addressed. That is still being reviewed by our outside legal counsel. This is only the staff’s preliminary assessment.
Following the completion of the FAA’s NEPA review process and the end of the appeal period on that NEPA review process, we anticipate that the Port of Seattle will complete the SEPA review. I’ll remind you SEPA is Washington State Environmental Policy Act and the way that the Washington State SEPA rules are established, the port may rely on portions of the NEPA review in making their evaluation of environmental impacts under SEPA.
This is important because a NEPA review, the federal review, is primarily procedural, meaning that the federal review identifies the impacts but does not necessarily require mitigation of impacts to surrounding communities. That’s different than the Washington state SEPA review which requires both an evaluation of impacts and potentially requires mitigation and it is of course the city’s position that mitigation is appropriate related to this planned expansion of the airport.
So in the interlocal agreement initially what we presented to the PEED committee was a four-party interlocal agreement. This is now a three-party interlocal agreement. As mentioned a moment ago, city of SeaTac, city of Burien, city of Des Moines. Normandy Park withdrew from the interlocal agreement. That interlocal agreement historically has supported a jointly funded consultant that was informing the city’s comment letter to the FAA related to potential environmental impacts related to the expansion of the airport.
The interlocal agreement substance really updates the interlocal agreement to reflect a cost sharing approach for outside joint legal counsel. That cost sharing approach is proportionate across the three cities that would be party to the interlocal agreement based upon their population size. We are expecting that the city of SeaTac would administer the financial component of the outside legal counsel. However, each jurisdiction will have a separate letter of engagement with the two firms I mentioned a moment ago. And the reason for that is that allows each city to separately consult with the outside legal counsel without that consultation being subject to open public records.
The interlocal agreement does have a provision requiring unanimous support by all three cities if we jointly appeal the FAA NEPA determination or a future SEPA determination by the Port of Seattle. Any city does have the option to withdraw at any time and as I noted a moment ago, Normandy Park has done so.
The city of SeaTac did take the lead in identifying the outside legal counsel both for the NEPA review and for the SEPA review. Leech Tishman or Steven Taber will be focused primarily on the FAA’s NEPA actions. That firm is based out of the state of California. So we are partnering with an in-state firm as well, Ogden Murphy Wallace, which will support both the FAA NEPA appeal if there were a NEPA appeal filed and any potential challenge to the port’s eventual SEPA review. As mentioned a moment ago, each city will sign a separate letter of engagement. Those letters of engagement are attached to your council packet. They do include an hourly rate and are the basis for the proposed budget amendment.
As I mentioned a moment ago, the budget amendment is focused on the fund 105. We are looking at a potential expenditure of up to $350,000. We are—the city of SeaTac staff is actually coordinating the invoicing and payments on behalf of the other two jurisdictions. It’s our in-kind contribution here. In terms of actual expenditure by the city of SeaTac, when you take into account expected revenues, if the three cities were to expend the full $350,000, the city of SeaTac should expect approximately $253,000 in revenue back from the cities of Burien and the city of Des Moines. We are approximately 28% of the total population between the three cities under 2025 population estimates by the office of financial management.
So with that I am asking you to pass this item this evening or pardon me, the city is asking you to pass this item this evening. If you have any questions I’m happy to answer that. Otherwise I will turn it back to you mayor.
MAYOR EGAL: Any comments, questions? And on this item, can we start with a motion, please?
COUNCILMEMBER VINSON: I move that we amend the budget to reflect the changes.
MAYOR EGAL: Do I have a second?
COUNCILMEMBER (unidentified): I’ll second it.
MAYOR EGAL: All right. Okay. So, now we have the motion and it’s been seconded. So do any question or comments outside?
COUNCILMEMBER VINSON: Mr. Vinson, can I just make a clarification? So you just mentioned the budget amendment, but there’s a lot more. So if we could just say pass agenda bill 6794, that would include everything including the agreements that he has listed in the title.
COUNCILMEMBER VINSON: I retract my previous poorly worded motion and I move that we pass agenda bill 6794.
COUNCILMEMBER (unidentified): And I will second that.
MAYOR EGAL: Okay. So question and comment. I will start Mr. Vinson.
COUNCILMEMBER VINSON: Thank you for clarifying what we’re discussing here. I’m supportive of this just because of the decisions and the implications this will have on our airport communities. I don’t have any concerns with this. Director Maxim, I think you did a great job of explaining what to expect. I’m a little saddened to hear that Normandy Park has made the decision to withdraw, but at the same time I’m happy that SeaTac is taking lead on this. $350,000 in expenditures with an estimated $253,000 in revenues coming back to us I think is a wise investment for this community. So I am happy to support this. Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER KWON: Thank you. Do we know why Normandy Park decided to withdraw?
EVAN MAXIM: I have not heard an official reason, council member Kwon. My understanding anecdotally is that they were uncertain as to the fruitfulness of any potential challenge around either the NEPA review or SEPA review to the city of Normandy Park, but I could be mistaken.
COUNCILMEMBER KWON: Okay. I do know that they are having some budget issues, challenges as well. So maybe that might be related to the decision. So I’ll share my experience with this process. We’ve gone through this in the past and so typically the NEPA process, the NEPA review comes first for a major project with the airport and the authority for the environmental review and all of that stuff is the FAA itself. And in the past there has been some findings of no significant impact as well. The city challenged those and they were back and said oh well okay yeah this has some impact potentially and so that’s what NEPA does.
But then the SEPA process which is the state process is the one that actually determines what is the mitigation that the city will be receiving or the community will be receiving as a result of these impacts. So it’s important that we catch this in the NEPA process in my mind. Also once it get past the NEPA process, the SEPA, the authority for the environmental review process for SEPA, the authority is the airport itself. So they’re basically just going to be reviewing themselves and so at that point it will be a little bit I think a little late in the game.
So I support this. I just want everyone to understand that it’s important to stay on top of this while it is still in the NEPA process and make sure that we take every opportunity that we have available to us to make sure that our community is represented and fairly compensated for any impacts related to the airport operations expansion and all of that stuff. Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER LOVELL: Yeah, I have not yet heard back from some folks who I asked some questions about, not in the city, some colleagues of mine in Normandy Park because I am curious when you do not make your voice heard in this you are effectively saying that we do not object to any of your plans. This is your time to speak up and say you have an objection whether you believe it will be successful or not. This is how you preserve your options for future actions. And so I am surprised. I understand budget constraints. So I’m withholding disappointment until I have enough information to assure that it is in fact disappointment.
I know this was brought up in a couple of other cities and the other cities that have this on their city council agendas have made note. One of them even—I think the meeting occurred between the time when Normandy Park had made their decision and when that meeting—and the meeting still proceeded as though it was a four city agreement, right? The conversation was still, was that fresh?
The nature of our complaints, you maybe you can correct me if I’m wrong director Maxim, the nature of our complaints are not, you know, we think there will be this really bad impact at International Boulevard in 200 or that we think there will be some really funky impact to McMicken Heights. It’s of a much larger scale than that, right? We are, we say that there were issues that will affect the entire region and that we, the previously four now three cities, are willing to bear the burden of this cost to ensure that the entire region, right, which has a diffuse impact as opposed to a specific precise impact on one neighborhood and one city. We’re willing to bear the burden of this to preserve the rights of our citizens, of our residents, to get the best shake out of this incredible expansion from a very, very well-funded operation at the Port of Seattle.
So, you know, barring information that says, you know, this is just tough times and Normandy Park is doing their best to serve the residents in a tight situation, I will be very disappointed that they’re going to get the benefit of the other three cities taking this burden and our residents paying for that when in fact it wasn’t a budgetary decision.
I do think sometimes cities have to take on regional expenses or we have to take on expenses as a city that benefit the entire region. I’ve always believed that. And I’ve been vocal about that since I ran for office, since I started in office. And so I don’t think it’s anything, you know, especially in South King County, our cities are so interwoven, so interlocked. We share a police force to a certain degree with our contract with the KCSO, we share so many things. A school district, right, with Normandy Park, Burien, and Des Moines. You know, there are things that we have to do sometimes that we know our residents are going to pay and we know on the other side it’s going to come back in our favor.
So, I am kind of annoyed or prepared to be annoyed, but it’s probably coming across as annoyed. And I will withhold any further comment on that till I have more information. Overall, even if we had to foot this entire bill, I don’t know how we’d afford it, but I still think it’s the right thing to do because we need to hold folks accountable. We need to use every tool we can.
This is also one of the reasons why I was—I’ve spoken with some colleagues about why I think it’s so important that city council is talking to folks in DC so regularly to make sure folks know that this is a major economic driver for our entire region. The city of SeaTac isn’t going to stand by and let our residents get walked over by any, whether it’s just a NEPA we disagree with from the feds or whether it’s the port action or any of our partner cities or regions, right? This is why we’re asking more of everyone.
So, happy that we’re proceeding with it. It doesn’t increase—I mean they were 1/12th more or less of the cost I think. So it’s not, you know, it would be a bigger impact if either of the other partner cities, one of which is at our size, you know, Des Moines and SeaTac are roughly the same size. Burien is a little bigger. So they would have had 5/12ths, we would have each had 3/12ths and Normandy Park would have been handling the last 12th of the cost. We’re dividing that cost across three cities in a way that follows the original formula, I presume. And so I think I’m okay moving this forward.
I just would like a little more information to make sure that all of our partner cities are recognizing we are a region of partnerships. None of this happens in Highline without all four cities and King County with White Center. None of this happens with the port, without the joint advisory committee and these other partnerships. So, there’s going to be a little bit of follow-up, I hope, from—we have the power to follow up a little bit as electeds and I think we can also hope that staff will inform us if we hear anything that clarifies the questions that I raised in my earlier comments. Other than that, fully support it. Let’s make sure we’re getting the best for our residents. Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER GUZMAN: I say approve it as well. I think it just makes a lot of sense. I am with council member Lovell on that these interlocal agreements need to happen. South King County often gets overlooked for a lot of things and so it’s really great when we band together. I really don’t—I mean I’d like to know what happened with Normandy Park but at the same time I don’t think it matters at this point. We just need to move forward with or without them.
The airport is a huge part of all of our communities even though they’re located smack in the middle of our city and we need to just really push and benefit a lot more. I was just having this discussion yesterday about that. How we’re not—I don’t feel like we’re getting what we could be that could benefit our residents because of the, not just because of the noise and the air pollution and all of that stuff, but just in general. I think there’s so much funding that could be made available. And I think it also just goes to what we were discussing earlier that we have a lot of expenditures but we don’t have a lot of money or we don’t have a solid—I don’t want to misstate it but this could be another way that we can bring funding into our city that we might not be getting currently. That’s what I’m going to say. Thank you. I will support 110%.
MAYOR EGAL: So that will be the end of this discussion and comment. Council members will you unmute your mic while I’m reading agenda bill 6794, an ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a letter of engagement for legal services, authorizing city manager to execute an interlocal agreement and amending the 2025-2026 biennial budget. For those who are in favor say I.
COUNCIL: I. I.
MAYOR EGAL: Those who are against say nay. [silence] Five to zero. Thank you director.
EVAN MAXIM: Thank you mayor.
1This is a machine-generated transcript generated on the fly by Google/Youtube/AI. Accuracy totally not guaranteed. Provided only as a convenience and to help people with disabilities. Caveat lector!