2026-11-05 - American Lake LMD Advisory Committee

Mhm.

>> Um oops.

the Chair, are you able to hear us and

unmute?

the Chair, if you are able to hear us,

will you let us know and unmute if you

can um so you can hand the meeting off

to the Vice Chair.

Yes, if the meeting is started, I will

Yes.

Um

the Vice Chair

a board member

>> Here.

>> a board member

>> Present.

>> And the Chair, are you able to um

hear me and can you uh call or can you

say you're here for roll call, please?

Unmute and respond.

Just for uh public knowledge, the Chair

is present through Zoom but is having

issues with her

um with her voice. She's muted, so

>> As As a point of order, you do have a

quorum with or without the Chair. It's

good to have her here. Um if she's not

able to make contact, we can probably

try and communicate with her a phone

number if that's necessary for some of

the discussion. We'll try and work that

out behind the scenes. In the meantime,

my understanding is that the Vice Chair

is willing to serve in the inability of

the Chair to serve tonight. So, that

would be you, the Vice Chair. You're

serving as Chair tonight. Yes. Okay.

>> And then last but not least, Eric

two members have excused

absences. Thank you.

>> Had a chance to look at

the meeting minutes.

>> the Vice Chair, um

Oh, no.

You're good. My apologies.

>> Since Since I wasn't at

>> [clears throat]

>> the last meeting,

I would abstain from

uh

being an approval member for the

minutes.

>> Yeah,

>> believe the chair is waiting for a

motion on the minutes.

>> I would make it a board member.

I would make a motion to approve the

minutes as presented in the agenda

packet.

>> Uh

I'll second.

>> I.

>> I feel I should abstain since I wasn't

there, so.

>> I believe it's public comment time.

>> Again.

I just want to start with thanking uh

this council on their last

couple of meetings where it appears as

though we're moving forward. Albeit

maybe slowly, but it's is definitely a

step in the right direction.

And I kind of want to give you my

personal thinking as I've been uh

sitting for a minute uh knowing that I

started this exactly 1 year ago

trying to work with uh this council and

American Lake.

And

at that point, you know, being from

Eagle Point, uh my concern was our own

little microcosm of the lake.

And

you know, I'm kind of glad that this

didn't work out the way that it had been

proposed because the education I've

gotten in this last year from this

council and from other members around

the lake has been enormous.

There is a big difference in perspective

today compared to a year ago.

This is not about milfoil or algae or

nuisance and noxious weeds or even

cyanobacteria in American Lake.

We have to look and think longer term

and look and think about what's our

phosphorus levels in this lake and

what's it doing to the lake's overall

ecology. Getting that in balance over

the long term is what's going to make

this lake right and we have to start

thinking along that way. It's a slow and

critical correction but it will work.

One thing that still disturbs me though

is the flexibility of our city

government. If we were to have a huge,

let's say cyanobacteria outbreak this

winter and by some of the numbers it

looks like that is possible,

we do not have the flexibility here to

handle that in a in a really reactive of

time and to do anything good about it.

We're just going to have to simply shut

down. So, [snorts]

I know that there seems to be some talk

about liabilities

with the city and and what would happen

if we had

a more open scope and more applicators

and all these sorts of things. But you

know,

liability and responsibility are not

mutually exclusive.

We need to be responsible here for this

lake. We need to do the right thing.

It's kind of like having a police force.

If we think that

having a police force creates too much

liability so therefore we're not going

to have one,

that's the same as as shooing our

responsibility.

You need to sometimes do this to do the

right thing.

Now is the time to do this. It's going

to be a slow process and the sooner we

start, the sooner we get there. It's

really, really important.

So,

I think our biggest liability really is

not in trying to expand what we do or

adding things. The biggest liability

would be to do nothing because if

something does happen that's very, very

bad, people are going to throw up their

arms and say, "Who's at fault? What's

going on here?" Everybody wants a a head

to chop, and it will be the city.

And we need to make sure that that does

not happen, and we don't end up like so

many other lakes in Western Washington.

Thank you.

>> Thank you.

Next up is a speaker.

>> Hi, my name is a speaker, and I

have a cabin on an island.

And we I have been going out there to

the island since 1982.

I'm here to talk about

milfoil.

It's what the Lake Management District

was designed to treat. The Island

Association and a boathouse both

have marinas on the lakeside.

And I feel that we should be treating

that area every year regardless of other

things that are happening on the lake

for milfoil because of the large number

of boats that come in and out of that

marina

on a daily basis. People on the island

don't just go out there in the summer,

they're out there

all summer and all winter.

And the a boathouse, they have

boats coming in and out of their marina

all year round, too.

Because they're working on they're we're

working with the crews that are on the

lake. And so, every time a boat comes in

and out of that marina, they're dragging

milfoil out into the lake, and it just

blows around and

starts

finding a place to live elsewhere.

So, I really think that we should try

and uh

treat that area every year if at all

possible.

>> Thank you, a speaker.

I'd like to call upon a speaker for

public comment.

>> Hello.

Um

I would like to

um

propose that the LMD establish an

American Lake Ecological Monitoring

Volunteer Subcommittee

consisting of community volunteers who

have an interest in the health and the

long-term protection of American Lake. A

monitoring group like this already

exists and has been recording seasonal

and monthly data for many years.

The subcommittee would serve as a

volunteer resource for the LMD.

>> Um

Um

>> I need to call her back.

>> It's been um

Excuse me. For that the LMD could use

and

the subcommittee would serve as a

volunteer resource to the LMD providing

information that the LMD could use in

its

in its deliberations and management

planning. The specific monitoring

activities would be determined in

consultation with the LMD and

appropriate technical advisors.

Potential resources

>> figured it out.

>> may include Hey, the Chair.

volunteer time and individual technical

experience, existing monitoring

equipment where available, training and

guidance from qualified lake monitoring

professionals, assistance from

universities, environmental

organizations, and appropriate

government agencies. Limited LMD funding

for approved monitoring supplies,

equipment, and training if authorized.

The information collected would belong

to or be made available to the LMD for

its official use subject to applicable

city record retentions and public

disclosure requirements. The volunteers

would report measurements and

observations without making official

determinations about lake health,

recommending regulatory actions, or

representing their findings as official.

Its sole function would be to gather

factual information, maintain monitoring

records, and provide data to the LMD.

Under Washington law, a genuinely

advisory or information-gathering

committee that does not exercise actual

or de facto decision-making authority

may fall outside the requirements of the

open public meetings act. And the city

attorney could confirm the appropriate

structure and operating boundaries for

us before implementation. Volunteers

would participate under the city of

Lakewood's applicable established

volunteer procedures.

So, I request American Lake Management

District um approve the establishment of

an American Lake Ecological Monitoring

Volunteer Sub Committee, authorize the

recruitment of interested community

volunteers, designate an LMD liaison to

coordinate with the volunteer group,

direct staff to coordinate with the city

regarding volunteer policies, request

confirmation from the city attorney that

we're okay, receive periodic monitoring

reports, and make use of the collected

information in its ongoing lake

management responsibilities. So, by

separating the collection of scientific

information from the authority to make

management decisions, the LMD can

benefit from volunteer participation and

technical expertise while retaining full

responsibility for its management

decisions. Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> And the Vice Chair, I believe we

have somebody on Zoom who wants to give

public comment as well.

>> Can I make a

uh

comment question on the last speaker?

>> Yes.

>> speaker, it's a lot to

not digest, but it's a lot of words to

incorporate if we are to make a motion

to do that.

Is it possible you could forward us a

written version of what you just

spoke?

>> Yes, for next next meeting. Is that what

you want? Or

>> Forward it anytime.

>> Yeah, it could be considered.

>> I'll just send it to you.

>> I'm unmuted.

>> Okay.

>> Thanks.

>> Okay, let's

>> This is the Chair, and I'm unmuted, so I can

hear everything going on.

>> Thank you, Chair. Um might I ask

that you mute just during the public

comment section so that way it doesn't

interfere with the public speakers.

>> I'd like I'd like to call on a vendor representative

for public comment, please.

>> There we go. Can everyone hear me?

>> Yes.

>> Okay, perfect.

Yeah, good afternoon everyone. I'm

the speaker and I'm with the vendor,

the global leader in nanobubble

technology.

And to prepare, I read your October

minutes, your draft letter to council

and a board member's recommendations.

Um, in October you agreed the next

district should have three priorities

and those are milfoil, filamentous

algae, and phosphorus sequestering and

water quality.

Uh, I want to speak to the third because

it feeds the other two.

a board member's memo says it well,

harmful algal blooms are prevented only

by cutting nutrients, either what flows

in or what's already in the sediment.

When the when the lake bottom loses

oxygen, the sediment releases phosphorus

back into the water and the lake feeds

itself. And so, the vendor nanobubble

technology delivers oxygen to that

bottom layer. Nanobubbles don't rise and

pop like conventional aeration. They

stay suspended and oxygenate the

sediment with no chemicals added. And

the way our systems oxygenate require

nothing but an intake and discharge pipe

to our shore or barge-mounted systems.

So, they're very low

uh in-lake maintenance and ambient air

is the oxygen and source that gets

concentrated down to these systems.

Um, two projects, 1,100 acres, the smaller is Lake

Arrowhead in Wisconsin, about 300 acres,

overseen by a lake management district

much like yours. Uh, they didn't start

lake wide. They ran a 75-day pilot in a

2 and 1/2 acre marina, mapped the

sediment first, and measured oxygen

against an untreated control lake, and

clarity improved by about 3 ft and

roughly a foot of soft muck broke down.

And then the larger lake is Lake

Elsinore in California. It's a 3,300

acre lake with closures and harmful

algal blooms in four of the 7 years

before nanobubble technology. Uh their

plan combined a peroxide algaecide, a

phosphorus binder, and then the vendor

nanobubbles. They started with one

system in 2014, and then after muck was

significantly reduced in the area of

treatment and water clarity reached 16

ft and summer blooms were minimized, uh

they approved uh two additional phases

uh to add in more treatment to the lake.

So, the same process both times. We

measure first, pilot against a control,

and scale only on results.

Um American Lake is is also deep. It's I

believe it's 90 ft at its deepest, so

more than twice Elsinore. Uh so, we'd

start with data. Where does oxygen run

out? When? How much phosphorus comes

from sediment versus groundwater? Does

sediment have enough iron to hold

phosphorus when oxygen returns? And if

not, oxygen still breaks down the

organic muck. It limits ammonia,

prevents hydrogen sulfide, and restores

fish habitat. And it can be paired with

a binder just as Elsinore did, or a

binder may not be needed anymore after

treatment. So, I'll I'll close with if

this technology is of interest to

explore further, please reach out. Uh we

can work together to determine what

impact the vendor would have for American

Lake specifically. Uh we would we can

set up a technical working session with

a senior limnologist from our side and

the appropriate group from yours,

um whether it be at a future meeting in

person or virtual session. Uh we can

walk through how we'd evaluate American

Lake using our volunteer uh I'm sorry,

your volunteers monitoring data and the

city's surveys. And if the data supports

a pilot or full lake treatment, uh we'll

show you what that looks like and what

it costs. And if it doesn't,

>> the speaker, I'm going to have to ask you to

please end. I'm sorry, but um your 3

minutes for public comment is over. So,

we're

>> Okay.

>> Perfect. Thank you.

>> Hey the speaker, who are you with?

>> Uh the vendor.

>> Can you spell that?

>> Yep, it's m o l

e a e r. And uh we're we're based out of

uh just outside of LA.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you for coming, the speaker.

>> Thank you.

>> That

concludes our

public comment section of this meeting.

So, staff, would you uh begin to discuss

the 2027 work plan and available funding

for 2027?

>> Yes. So, um I was asked by board member

a board member to come up with an estimate for the

anticipated revenue for 2027, and it

should be an attachment that you have

printed out. Um I believe I set it on

your desks prior to the meeting. Um I

was not able to get this finalized prior

to the agenda packet being published, so

it is not in there.

But, what the budgetary detail breaks

down is um the current funds we have

available

uh in the ALMD bucket are around 28,600.

From that number, I subtracted the loan

repayment and the billing for the fall

survey and report

um from AquaTechnex.

And then as of this week, we received

confirmation from the

uh Department of Ecology that our

reimbursement request for uh about

$9,588

was accepted.

So, all of that math totals out to an

estimated carryforward budget of around

$34,500.

Below that is the carryforward budget

and the uh

annual assessment revenue. Now,

uh I forgot in making this today to add

an asterisk to that annual assessment

revenue,

which is this is about the full amount

if it was all paid,

which not everybody we have a few liens

every year.

Um so if everybody were to pay their

assessments, you would have about

$23,700

combined with the 26 carry forward would

give you about $58,000

in LMD revenue for 2027.

>> staff, thanks for this. Very helpful.

The one consideration

that I will mention

is that if we were to decide based on

the fall survey any kind of fall

treatment should be applied,

then these costs would be reduced

slightly, but it's not estimated

it's not known if we would do such a

survey, and it's not estimated that

survey would be that or that treatment

effort would be that extensive.

So,

I think we can probably confidently say

we're looking at least 55,000 that might

be available next year.

>> I would agree.

>> Okay, thank you.

>> staff, can we move on to discuss

approval of

algaecide treatment and time frame?

>> Yes, so it was discussed in not only the

last LMD meeting, but the meeting prior

to that, um treating filamentous algae

adding filamentous algae treatment to

the 2027 work plan.

So, the adjustments on the work plan

have been made uh as such. Um

I discuss we discussed the feasibility

of algaecide treatment next year with

Aquatechnics. It was determined that the

best options would be as follows.

In April, Aquatechnics will visit

American Lake and identify areas of

filamentous algae and treat them with

peroxygen. This chemical is not subject

to the fish timing window, so it can be

used earlier in the year.

Then, while mobilized for the milfoil

treatment, if more areas of filamentous

algae are found, they would treat those

as needed with the Hydrathol 191

algaecide.

So, I am seeking board approval to add

these two algaecides to the APM in

preparation for the 2027 treatment.

>> a board member, I would make a motion to add that

to the work plan and the APM A- APM.

>> Okay, it's been uh

>> Can I make some comments?

Um

>> I support modifying

the APM

to be inclusive of this.

I also support modifying the APM

further

for some other potential things that

could come up

in the next 2 years.

Uh so, I support modifying having us

help the city staff modify submit a

modified modifications to the APM that

would support these activities and

potentially more that the DOE would

allow.

Um I think that

in part requires

the potential of specific chemicals to

be listed. And uh as a board member has mentioned,

there's a

uh extensive list the DOE has that could

be listed for multiple purposes if they

were were needed, so.

>> Um Mr. Chair, was there supposed to be a

motion and a second on this, or you're

just

>> We've not gone there yet.

>> Okay.

>> So,

um so, there's been a there's a motion

on the floor to accept the

um

>> There's not a motion yet. There's This

is a comment period on what you what

staff discussed, correct?

>> Typically, you would have a motion,

second, and then discussion. The city

attorney can clarify that, but right now

the motion I made failed or at least has

not been seconded.

>> That's true. There's There's not a

motion if there hasn't been a second. Um

I I want to be clear about something. My

background in parliamentary procedure is

that to the degree that things are

working well with the board, I don't

like to get too stickly about it. So, as

long as we can clearly see what the

intent of the board is and whether or

not we understand what the motion is,

whether the motion had support, whether

it got amended, I'm I'm pretty loose on

that stuff because it can inhibit the

free flow for the for the body. But, um

I do think we need to be clear about

what's before and whether or not the

comments then change what the body is

actually going to

>> approve.

>> So, with that, a board member,

would you like to um restate your

motion?

>> My suggested motion to our to the board

is

as proposed in our packet, the April and

July treatment of filamentous algae be

added to both the work plan and to the

APM as described here with the estimated

uh quantities and costs.

>> Is there a second on that?

I would second it myself.

>> So,

uh

a board member, you said

I think you said quantity, correct?

>> Correct. Quantity, the estimate right

now would be

>> [clears throat]

>> approximately 5 acres, which would uh

adequately treat the Eagle Point

portion of the lake and then

have some availability

where filamentous algae is in other

parts of the lake.

>> Is there any other discussion on that?

>> Could this also

would this description

also fit treating naiad if it if it was

a problem next year?

>> I'm not sure about that.

myself

I can't speak to naiad. So so my motion

on the floor right now is just to

treat the filamentous algae that we

heard in the listening sessions was a

concern

and it's within our

most likely within our budget and then

it's in our ability to add to our work

plan

for 2027.

>> Um

I support that.

And what I presented last

or provided the the LMD board last

meeting when I wasn't here

was an was even an expansion on that and

potentially other

other plants such as naiad that that

appear to be a nuisance south of Little

Islands at least this year.

So I would

I would like to expand the motion

that it include that has it has the

possibility of including

other um

not out of control but whatever you

describe it other

plants that have become a problem in

limited areas.

>> Those would be other nuisance

>> nuisance

>> plants.

>> So if the wording could be

if it's possible to

to have this wording

expanded in the work plan to do that

I I think that would be our best

situation.

>> So

a board member if we look at the work

plan on page four of the packet,

if I hear you correctly, are you

proposing that

between items four and five,

we add an additional row

with naiad, and then

we could put a dollar amount to it for

the work plan, and then city staff could

follow up on

on the cost. The challenges I don't know

what

quantity

we're looking

looking at. An acre? Are we looking at

several acres?

That would be the only challenge we'd

have there. But we could at least put a

placeholder for it with a

>> I I think that would be a

I think it'd be a good way to go and put

maybe $3,000 in there.

I wouldn't put a large amount. I don't

think it's a huge area. And we don't

know year to year, we don't know if it's

the same

intensity.

So, without it without knowing what it

looks like in the spring, it's hard to

know any kind of cost. So, I think a I

think a placeholder for that would be

excellent. That would be my

recommendation.

>> So, it was my recollection that

on the last meeting, we had included

uh

uh

other

nuisance weeds

around the lake is not specifically

naiad, but we were going to add that uh

for some areas

um where we had some docks that had

we suggested we needed to take care of

as well. So,

um I remember some conversations with

some uh

landowners after that meeting, and they

said, "Well, that wasn't mentioned." I

said, "Well, I remember it being

mentioned." So, I'm not sure where we

are on that. Uh but I would support

adding um other nuisance uh plants,

either native or uh invasive, uh to this

work plan.

>> I Yeah, I'm not I'm not particular

Remember out naiad. I I would prefer to

do it more generally

and put a small placeholder of money in

there for it. Yes.

>> So maybe to summarize to help the motion

move forward

it would be other native and non-native

would it be noxious

>> noxious

>> aquatic or nuisance aquatic plants?

>> aquatic plants

>> And we would work within a $3,000

budget.

>> We would target a $3,000 budget. Same.

>> We'll need to modify the APAM depending

on the treatment type for that

plan.

>> Correct.

>> I I would support it because as

staff had shared, there

the total estimate for this work plan is

50,000.

Our estimate is 58,000.

Right off the top of that 58,000, you

have to spend about 20

or about 2,000

700 Oh, I guess we already have that in

there, the loan repayment

and the staff. So yeah, that would

definitely fit within that budget and

allow some anticipated carry forward to

move into 2028 as we wrap this up.

Will 3,000 be enough I guess would be my

question.

>> You know, we don't we want no on we want

no on milfoil, we want no on

other noxious weeds, we want no on

filamentous algae.

Whether that's enough for many of those

as we never know going into the next

year because fall surveys give us a

sense of it, but the winter but the

spring surveys give us the true sense.

So every year it's a all these numbers

are a placeholder and we can't exceed

the overall budget

but we know that there's got to be some

flexibility and and has been in the past

and what the full treatment costs or

what the treatment costs might be within

within the total package of money that

is available. So

>> Definitely agree with that those

comments.

Maybe one

uh suggested edit would be for the line

four in the work plan.

We could either make that 6,000 or 6,500

dollars.

And then the additional line, you know,

it could either be 3,000 or 3,500

dollars. But maybe make those numbers a

little more

>> I'd agree with that.

>> generic, yeah. But I I do believe we

should call out in the work plan

specifically filamentous algae and that

we're going to address it both spring

and summer.

>> Agreed.

I'll make a motion that through the

edits that a board member put forward

that we

approve those as a board.

And my second?

>> I second that.

>> Okay, I would agree with that. So just

nail down brass tacks.

For line four, what dollar amount were

we thinking? 6,000 or 6,500?

>> 6,500.

>> Okay.

And then for our line 4A, which will be

a catch all,

was that 3,000 or 3,500?

>> 3,500.

>> Okay, 3,500.

So we're going to increase

that total estimated cost by

>> roughly 700 and 60

>> 66, yeah.

>> Roughly?

>> Yeah.

So that will go up slightly, but still

be within our anticipated budget.

And then it's just a matter now of what

language would we put in

for that line 4A or we can renumber

this.

Um maybe we can help staff out with what

we're looking to put in there so she can

edit this.

>> a board member, I think you have the best wording

for that.

>> With the description for line

>> give staff a heads-up that we're going

to

>> Yeah, so that would be for treating um

invasive

uh native nuisance

uh plants or weeds.

>> Aquatic plants.

>> Native or non-native, is that what you

said?

>> No, we just say uh

invasive or native nuisance.

>> I see. Okay.

Then one thing so we don't forget is

the Chair is on the call muted right

now. Maybe we should ask her input as

well.

>> Good idea.

>> Hi, this is the Chair and I definitely agree

with the

changes or additions to the work plan

and related costs. I think it's a good

idea to expand our program like this.

>> Okay, so we have need to vote on this

amended motion.

>> I think you guys have already done that.

It was uh motioned and seconded by Mr.

the maker of the motion.

>> All right, that's fine.

>> And everybody uh agreed. So I think I

think we're good on that.

>> I approve.

>> Yeah, that's what I was going to do.

>> You guys can do

>> I'm going to ask for uh all in favor of

the amended motion, say I.

>> I.

>> I.

>> Any opposed?

Motion passed.

So the next uh

um

item here is the

>> So can I ask one question?

>> Go ahead.

>> Um

to do this, it's a given that we have to

modify the APM, correct?

Do we need to list modification of the

APM in the work plan?

>> I do not believe so. It was something I

was going to follow up up with in this

month. So,

>> that shouldn't be on the 2027 work plan.

I just need needed approval from the

board to add them to the APM prior to

the 2027 work year.

>> So, I

Um staff, I think it would be good if

you worked with one of the board

members.

Um probably a board member

to fill out the modification form for

the APM.

>> Yeah. So, that's that's on the next item

on the agenda here talk about what

products need to be added to the to the

permit

that are available on the APM. So, in

order to be able to do an expanded

um

uh

weed or algae list uh treatment, we

would have to add specific products to

the to the permit.

Um in talking with uh a state Ecology contact and we

only have two products on on the on our

label right now or our permit right now.

So, I have proposed a list that I sent

to staff today of those that need to be

added. Um I had thought about doing a

any and all, but um

I'm not sure if that would be

uh acceptable.

I know it's acceptable as far as what

a state Ecology contact told me would be. They would

accept that as as an an amendment. But

uh I I'm open to hear what the city

uh would say

on on the any and all versus specific uh

products.

>> All I was going to say is I would be

happy to um definitely work with board

the Vice Chair on that. Um I I do just

want to say that uh any uh herbicides or

algicides uh added to the APM, I believe

need board approval and um or yeah, so

we can discuss and then maybe at the

December meeting propose a list of full

herbicides to be and algicides to be

added to the APM.

>> That'd be acceptable to me.

>> Okay.

>> So, in talking to a state Ecology contact, there

are a

more than one locations in the

modification form that need to be

modified. One of which is also project

type.

There's four project types listed there

and I think all four should be

Uh there's only one checked. They all

four should be checked.

Um there's also a

section for

applicators approved under the

under the permit.

And I I propose that additional

applicators be contacted and those

interested added to the permit that are

part of the WD list of approved

applicators so that

if the city decides there can be

competition in the bidding on the

projects as well as if the city wants to

further vet them, I propose that the

city do a solicitation of qualifications

to be able to to more formally vet those

those contractors. But, I think we need

to open up

our ability to use contractors with

different expertise

different experience

and provide better cost-effectiveness

in terms of bidding process in the

future for both

this

probably for the next 2 years.

And I would see that as part of the

modification effort as part of the APM.

>> So, I can definitely reach out to a state Ecology contact

and ask him about the

project type and then of course the

herbicides and algicides to the APM.

But, as far as the additional

contractors and

board member can correct me if I'm

wrong, for any contractors we add, we

have to go out to an RFP process.

Um if we are selecting a

different contractor than the one we

currently have.

>> Normally you can do that through a

solicitation of qualifications without

because an RFP normally puts forward a

specific work effort to be bid on. So to

qualify people that you have on a

qualified list

for submitting

requests for proposals, um solicitation

of qualifications is normally what the

what the industry does. Which is a much

simpler project or process and there

you're looking at expertise, experience,

references,

insurance coverages and everything that

you'd want to see

to make sure that person is a an

approved licensed contractor.

And that's the process I would

recommend.

>> a board member, I don't believe that

aligns with the city's purchasing

policy.

I think a cleaner process if that's what

you're proposing is to rebid all work in

2027.

>> I'd be open to that.

If if so, we would want to add that to

the work plan and add about a $5,000

cost to do that.

>> Are we are we um

a sole source

uh contractor situation here or do we

have ability to do different

parts of the project with different

contractors depending on what we need to

get done?

>> City attorney has covered this ground

this summer about multiple contractors.

I believe she's coming to that podium to

speak on that right now.

>> Yeah, uh

the Vice Chair and members of

the committee, um

sole source is a term of art and it

typically means there is truly only one

provider that can provide the item. It's

I wouldn't say it's exceedingly rare,

but it's fairly rare and unusual. And at

least I I've been at these meetings for

a few months now and I doubt that you

are in a situation of a sole source for

the kind of services you're looking for.

Um the bigger question I think and I

haven't done a lot of research on this

is whether at the point of the end of

your tenure as a lake management

district, if you've been using one

provider all along and it seemed to be

sort of an agreement from the inception

uh whether changing now is an option and

I need to delve a little bit into the

original agreements, but I think bidding

law does apply. I don't think you have a

sole source and so it may become more of

a question with the new LMD than it is

with this one, but I'd have to do a

little bit of research on that.

>> I think the question I I don't want to

put words in your mouth. I think the

question is more does the city have a

contract with Aquatechnics

that lasts that is a multi-year contract

and is only therefore doesn't allow the

city to consider other contractors?

>> I will have to pull that contract to

answer your question and I think

particularly given the action of the

committee tonight to add different kinds

of treatment that in turn begs the

question of whether the current

treatment provider can do that service,

right? Because all along you've had one

type of service, one type of provider.

If the service changes, it might in turn

change what the city's going to do in

terms of service providers, but I'd be

happy to pull the contract and give you

a more in-depth

answer at the next meeting.

>> I think that'd be good.

Um

I think the city needs to be in a

position

to be able to use

multiple contractors that have expertise

on different aspects of lake treatment

because I think it's going to get more

complex in the future.

And whether [clears throat] we do it

this next year or whether it happens say

in 2 to 3 years,

um

I think we're going to need

more contractors with more expertise in

different areas

that would best benefit. And that's why

I recommend, whether it be this year or

maybe next,

developing a list of through a

solicitation of qualifications, a

pre-approved list of contractors that

you could

you could select which ones were the

best for a particular effort, or you

could put a bid package out saying, you

know, bid on these different pieces.

a board member, I would defer to you as to

whether

what would be the best way forward for

2027.

>> Let me just ask clarifying question. Is

your goal for 2027 a different

contractor?

>> My goal for 2027 is to see that these

additional treatments,

as needed,

occur within the budget we have.

I do believe in the future we're going

to need more flexibility with who the

contractors are

to handle the variety of things that the

lake faces.

And so, if one contractor could handle

this for next year, and we position the

city

with better resources with contractors

going forward, that'd be fine. But

to me, the most important thing is to be

able to perform

these additional treatments as needed uh

next year.

>> Well, for a point of clarity, the

estimated costs that were presented on

page six of the packet,

that was in discussion with

Aquatechniques, and those numbers are

anticipated

unit bid prices that would be part of

the addendum to their current contract.

So, there was a competitive bid that

selected Aquatechniques at formation,

and then since then we've continued to

use Aquatechniques through an addendum.

Uh

If we were to rebid or to do a a

solicitation of qualifications, it would

still be a similar cost through

advertising and staff time to prepare

all those documents.

>> I understand.

>> It's not a trivial undertaking.

So,

it really

I'm trying to think of the best words to

frame it.

It just depends on

how much the board would like to ex-

expend.

And because the board has been

flat on the

per foot price of $0.66 a foot

for the entire 10 years,

the time value money has eroded

the $23,700

if all assessments are paid.

Um

And I think what you're asking for is

beyond that current budget,

which lends itself to the comment that

Madam City Attorney had just made that

maybe it's better to look at this in the

next LMD.

Cuz there's already been discussion of

uh you know, a 100% Well, not 100%

10-fold increase in the assessment fees

is

um or even more is 10-fold.

>> 10-fold?

>> I've heard numbers between

suggested between $5 a foot and $60 a

foot. So,

>> [laughter]

>> I don't think the 60 would work, but uh

>> Well, I haven't heard those, but

>> Yes. So, anyways,

getting back trying to wrap this back

up. The numbers shown on page six,

those we could easily do by addendum

with current contract. Your

placeholder

additional row for

possible

aquatic treatment yet to be determined,

I can't say whether or not

Aqua techniques could cover that cuz we

just don't know. So I think if you're

going to rebid this in 27, we would need

to know what we're bidding on.

>> [clears throat]

>> A solicitation of qualifications

wouldn't then turn into something we

could contract through city bidding

policy.

>> So what would be

To to better understand this, what would

be the time frame would be necessary

to

do a solicitation of qualifications and

for those

for those contractors that were

interested and passed that level of

scrutiny

uh

then turn around and have them bid on

pieces of or the entire work package.

>> I think you're confusing two items,

qualifications and bidding on something.

Bidding on something means the

contractor

you have a specified item, so therefore

you can pick the lowest

responsible contractor. Qualifications

are just that, qualifications. Anyone

can be that.

>> Correct. Would it be better to do the

qualifications first?

>> I I don't think the qualifications Yeah,

at some point you're going to have to

turn it into bidding on

a quantity to provide a unit price, to

provide a total.

>> Well, I guess what I'm saying is if

I suspect for next year it's not

practical.

But is it more like a 3-month process,

4-month process if we wanted to consider

competitive bidding on next year's

program.

And whatever lead time is necessary for

the staff to prepare that or to get the

approval of the council to do that or

whatever.

>> I think the the time [clears throat]

frame to bid something is

3 months is acceptable. I think the

bigger issue is preparing that bid

package.

>> Well, that's what I meant from

From the decision to do it

through when you could actually get

returns in and decide on a contractor,

you're looking 4 months minimum.

>> Right, but to prepare the bid package is

typically done

by an expert in that field that creates

the the bidding documents.

So, we would have to develop those

documents.

And it it appears that

you're

alluding to the city staff would prepare

those documents to bid.

>> Oh, I thought you said the city staff

would prepare.

>> Well, if we would, there were

like anything else, there's a cost to do

that work.

>> Correct.

>> Yeah.

But, at the same time, we would also

want to evaluate

if we are the best

group to prepare those. I can't remember

if in 2017

if that consultant prepared the bid

package that was then used in 2019. I

would have to go

>> Okay.

>> look at that. That was pre

>> So, for for time issues, because I think

we need to be in position for spring

treatment, and for money issues, I would

say, let's stay with the existing

contractor for treatment that is

proposed for next year.

>> That'd be the easiest and most efficient

use of the funds. I would agree with

that.

>> Okay.

>> Any discussion on these items?

discovered, if not, then we move on to

um

uh the city attorney, you you can present

Please represent to us a revised letter

for final approval.

>> the Vice Chair, and members of the

committee, I was asked to prepare what

would amount to a cover letter that

basically prepares the City Council for

a deeper discussion than they would

normally have at the beginning of the

year. As you know, at the beginning of

each year your work plan goes to the

City Council for approval

and um

it's been pretty pro forma for the

duration of this um

Lake Management District. What we're

doing with the letter and an attachment

from the committee is to kind of flag it

for the City Council so that they're not

just preparing to do what they've always

done, which is look at your work plan

and they're happy with it and they move

on. We're going to try to bring them

along. Um they'll approve your work plan

at the regular meeting that they do

that. Um this would be a separate City

Council meeting, probably a study

session with them to go through and

explain um basically what I've put in

the letter. The letter

almost any level of detail that you want

to take. I don't like it to be too long

because really it should be coming

um

from the work that you all have done.

But it basically I've just sort of

outlined that you've had time to work on

the original problem that we

contemplated.

Things evolve. You're ready to um

suggest that Lake Management District is

a good option for the city, but this one

is ending and then give them some

thoughts going forward on what they

might want to do as far as adopting of

intent. I believe um

and I don't want to put words in their

mouth. There's seven of them and they

all have their own personalities and

perspectives, but I really believe that

they um if they don't already, this

meeting will help them appreciate that

they have expertise in their community

on these kinds of issues and that it's

beneficial to capitalize on the

expertise that's been developed by the

first ever Lake Management District that

we've had. I'd be happy to try and

answer any questions that you might have

and um this is more art than science. Uh

I think it kind of presents where you're

coming from though.

>> And what meaning would this likely be

presented to the city council?

>> Well, it would be presented to the city

council within the next month or so. It

would go to the city manager and he

would communicate it further to the city

council so they would have a chance to

look at it and know that you're coming.

What I'm trying to avoid is a cold

intro of the topic where you go in in

February, you've been scheduled for your

time with the council and yeah, your

stuff's in the materials, but they

haven't really had time to digest or

think about this at all and as you know,

they deal with all manner of things in

the city. So, it's a gamble on any given

day what their top priority is going to

be. So, what this would do is it would

sort of give them an introduction to

expect it and then in turn when it's

time to go to the study session, we

would provide packet materials and we

would want kind of presentation to them

in the study session format where we

would go through why we can't just roll

it over and why we might not even want

to just roll it over. I think if I'm

tracking with what I've been hearing at

these meetings, if for example, we

decided to pursue control of

cyanobacteria

that is pricey. That's not always a

deterrent to people to vote for it

though as we know in one of the other

lakes, it was a 136% increase in the

amount of

assessments, but it was a 96% vote to do

it because people were concerned about

the impacts of the cyanobacteria,

but I think it will help the council to

understand that that's why they might

want to really know what what the issues

are at the lake and what you're looking

at doing.

>> So, could we make the presentation to

the council?

>> Absolutely. You should make the

presentation to the council and be

prepared at a study session setting.

That's where they do more of the back

and forth. They wouldn't take action at

that meeting. They would

want to do a deep dive. If you needed

help with any kind of PowerPoint,

preparation of memos, whatever you would

want to put into it. And um

I know your packets aren't always super

thick. They get packets that include an

entire 900 page budget. They get packets

sometimes that include the whole comp

plan. So we could put whatever we felt

was going [clears throat] to be most

helpful to them in that.

>> So as part of this letter

and um

outline

I wrote up and a board member's reviewed and and

edited

an explanation and basis

for recommendations.

It is targeted not only

presently to the some of next year's

work plan, but it's also targeted to the

renewal of the LMD.

Could that

page be added to this package

to be sent on or would that delay the

the submission of the

>> to the letter?

Um the only thing I would say would hold

you back from putting it in the letter

is I would want to make sure that your

whole board agrees.

>> No no no no. I mean um

I wouldn't

Given the letter

if we approve the letter as is and

there's already an outline

>> Mhm.

>> attached to it could an additional

explanation be also attached to it if

the board agreed?

>> Absolutely. And and

>> Would it delay the submission of that?

>> Um

>> staff says yes.

>> I

>> [sighs]

>> We are not in a highly regulated area

when we're talking about a letter to the

city council. The only boundaries I

would put on it is I would not want

anything going forward under the

committee's

signature or the committee's authority.

That's not something the committee has

said that they want to communicate,

right? You want to make sure that it's

actually coming from you as a committee.

Um

barring that, I think you're good to go.

If we didn't put something in this

letter,

you could do another letter later. You

can do a submission when you're closer

to the time of the meeting with the

council. It's really up to this body

what they want to submit. I would expect

that there would be some part of your

presentation where you're going to want

probably me to walk the city council

through what the process is going to

look like because as much as they've

been through it once before, that was 10

years ago and the council's changed.

>> Sure.

>> So, they would want to understand

exactly what they're adopting, but that

would be a part of it as well.

>> But, I would suggest that um

if

we as a

um

board review the document that a board member

I have put together before that goes

forward.

>> Okay.

>> So, that uh

>> So, the letter goes forward?

>> Uh no, the letter she's I think we need

to send that letter

with the outline

as as we approve it today, but the rest

of the board has not had a chance really

to

>> No, they haven't seen what what you've

done.

>> Right. What we've done. So, that would

be

that would be um

>> I agree.

It's The intent is to have board

approval.

Of of

>> The intent is to speak with one voice.

>> Yeah, correct. I I was not in any way

implicating that I was think something

should be sent forward only two of us

looked at. Um

what I would want to do is

I think it would be helpful to the city

council and and being brought up to

speed with this is if we could provide

them

with when the whole board has approved

it, some additional information even in

advance of getting to a study session.

>> Absolutely. There's no reason that you

wouldn't be able to do that. And it like

I said, in a lot of ways, you don't want

to give them so much stuff that they're

not really paying attention anymore by

the time you get to the meeting, but it

really does help to number one,

demonstrate that you are their subject

matter experts, which is I think how

they view you, and number two, um you're

giving them time to think about it. So

that it's not as simple as well, we had

a study session last week and this week

we're being asked to pass a resolution.

It'll be more like they've been working

on this for a while. They're my subject

matter experts. They clearly put in the

time and effort to to give me a product

that tells me why we're wanting to go in

this direction. And I

would be surprised if any city council

hearing that would say, "Oh, no, we need

to go in our own direction and

put a an ad hoc committee together to go

look at that." I I can't speak for the

council, but I I think what you're doing

is you're making it

easy for them

and adding information without adding

too much, but adding the right amount of

information can only be helpful.

>> Quick question, Madam City Attorney.

Just timing-wise,

this letter, if this evening we we

approve it with whatever edits,

it could be signed as early as tomorrow.

>> Yep.

>> And it would be transmitted to the city

manager.

>> Correct.

>> And then at what point would the city

manager transmit it to the council? Is

that through like an email or at a city

manager update or how does that?

>> Uh he is in regular contact with

different members of the city council

and it would probably be in fairly short

order um that this would be provided to

them and he would certainly he's been

kept up-to-date on what we're doing and

he would certainly give them a little

bit of context as to what's going on. Um

department heads meet with the city

manager monthly. My meeting with the

city manager is on Thursday and if this

is ready at that time, I'll run it by

him. If it's not quite ready, I'll tell

him it's coming and then um

he'll figure out the right way to

disseminate it, but he wouldn't hold a

letter for some amount of time that's

supposed to be sent to the city council.

He likes, to be, as would any manager,

um, informed to the point where if this

letter goes to the city council, he

knows how to field some of the most

basic questions about it.

>> And then, when the council gets this

letter, what would the subsequent

actions look like to get us to a study

session?

>> Um, well, I've already advised that

there is interest in being on the 2027

agenda in January, February-ish time

frame. You're going to be on there for

your work plan anyway, and that's true

every single year. It sounds like you're

getting a separate time on a study

session, um, for this, the idea of of

recommending a a new lake management

district. And, um,

my hope would be that it's no later than

the end of February, because I know that

there's work to be done.

>> Well, then that gives the board two

months, but with holidays in there, to

prepare the agenda packet for that

meeting.

>> Correct.

>> Which would include things like

what

a board member was talking about.

>> Correct. And it sounds like you wanted

to send something in between, like maybe

a follow-up letter saying, "Here's some

of the detail, and you can expect more

when we meet with you." And I will tell

you this, if we get to a point where

we're three weeks out or something like

that, and it's not coming together, and

you need more time,

um, things are occasionally rescheduled

on the council's agenda, as long as it's

far enough in advance and we say we need

more time, we could, um, move that

target, but I'm trying to be,

uh, mindful of the fact that once we get

everything sort of pulled together,

that's when the work begins, and we have

timelines and things that have to be met

in terms of that, uh, resolution of

intent.

>> Um,

a board member, you're correct

that what I would

like to do,

or what I would support, is approving

this letter with this outline, so it can

move forward now.

At our December meeting,

presenting to this board for approval a

more detailed explanation of what we're

thinking. And if we approve that, send

that on to the city manager to send to

the city council for additional

information

that would better prepare them for a

study session. And then prepare

additional materials, obviously, for

that study session in the

schedule I have envisioned, we would

have by either

we'd have a draft of sections of the

actual LMD plan

in January at to review at our LMD

meeting, and we would have essentially a

draft of a near complete plan to present

at a study session to the city council

in late January or February

for their feedback, which then gives us

a month

to hopefully,

uh, month or two to finalize it. Because

I would imagine we would have to have it

pretty well finalized by next June for

it to go through the whole voting

process.

If that I could be wrong on the voting

process, but I mean

I don't know.

>> [clears throat]

>> I'm imagining by next by bef- by next

June we're going to have to have this

not only flushed out, but with,

uh, council backing

as to how they then proceed to the vote.

>> Yeah, the only point of clarity I would

add is my understanding with ALMD is it

sunsets on June 2nd, 2028.

>> Correct.

>> But the funds that are available

can be used after that date because of

the fish timing window and everything.

So then that really gets us

till the earliest you would need to

treat let's just say is April of 29.

So So I I hear what you're saying and we

shouldn't let off the gas.

But I I think we have all of 27

28 to get this ready to go for 29.

>> Could be um

Right now my thinking is that we would

hopefully have the vote conducted and an

approval in early

28

so that new LMD council

could come into place in July of 2028 to

carry forward any decisions that need to

be made.

>> I would have agree and support that. I

think that's a good plan.

>> Yeah.

I and part of what I wrote

this for this group to hopefully approve

is is a schedule of that nature. But

since we verbally discussed it

um I don't want to hold these documents

up. And I think we can forward something

out of our next meeting that then

further informs the council of the time

frame we think of and and more of the

details that we're trying to flesh out

and then go to them in that study

session with

with the packet that really is defining

as many pieces of that

future LMD plan as we can.

With that I would make a motion to

accept this letter

and the uh outline that's attached to it

to forward to the to the city manager.

>> I I would second that. I would like to

make one edit to the

um proposed areas for consideration on

page nine.

>> Under the outline?

>> Correct. I see

per what we just discussed on the work

plan, it's got milfoil, filamentous

algae, and phosphorus, but I think D is

that or I think we would add D, which

are naiad or other I think we should add

those other

um or definitely plants that we'd want

to target.

>> What's the wording, a board member?

>> Nuisance.

Nuisance weeds or plants.

>> Keep it that generic?

>> Yeah. Nuisance aquatic plants.

>> Yes.

>> Like, you know, it doesn't have to be it

could be emergent or it could be

submerged as well, so

>> Yeah.

>> Just

associated with aquatic.

>> I think I think it would be good to add

something like that because the current

board sometimes is criticized that we're

only targeting milfoil cuz that was what

it was at its inception. That section I

for treatment definitely expands that.

>> I agree with that.

>> So, one of the one of the things that

the

RCW lines out for us is a pretty good

list of what an LMD can do,

and I would suggest that we eventually

for that

get to that type of wording

that would have water quality in there.

There's a bunch of things that are very

specific to what the RCW says that we

need to um

adhere to.

Um this is good as a general outline, uh

but when we get more specific, you know,

phosphorus sequestering

uh kind of falls under water quality.

>> So, as an item under water quality.

>> So, that follows that in item C, would

you want to make that a separate bullet?

>> In which item?

>> Um

under on page nine I see

you want to put a return there and make

water quality a stand-in stand-alone

bullet, so you that would be

B,

>> and then nuisance could be E. Anyhow,

that would keep it on one page.

>> Yeah.

>> the Chair did you have a comment?

>> I totally concur with the last comment

that a board member made

made

if we start combining some of the topics

that

puts it on a higher level that

the council will understand that we know

how to group the work that needs to be

done.

I concur.

>> I'll make a motion to accept

a board member edits to the outline.

>> With those edits to summarize would be

item D would be water quality, item E

would be

nuisance aquatic plants.

That match?

>> Yes, and we can make those edits

>> general with you.

>> Okay.

>> Okay, so um

do we have a second on the motion?

>> I'll second.

>> I made the motion, you got a second.

>> [laughter]

>> All right. The motion before us I'll

second it.

All right.

>> I made the motion to accept his edits.

>> Okay, we got it.

We're being crossed with here. So,

all right. Um

All in favor of of those edit the of the

motion and the edits

as stated say I.

>> I.

>> I.

>> And any opposed?

Motion passes.

>> So, we can make those edits to the

outline tomorrow and send it off to the Chair

the Chair for signature. So.

>> Thank you.

>> One one more thing, sorry before we move

on to the next topic. I did just want to

address I think we skipped over

item 1D.

I just wanted to do a little sentence

update on that. At the last meeting it

was suggested that the annual ALIC

improvement annual ALIC meeting be added

to the board calendar the ALMD board

calendar.

Um as a scheduled

either board meeting or planned board

attendance. So that has been added to

the 2027 work plan.

>> Sorry, I skipped that one, didn't I?

>> It's all right.

>> Thank you.

>> It's just a small thing and we already

went over the

um

>> Do you have that meeting date?

>> outline

Sorry, what was that?

>> Do you know that date date, staff?

>> I do not. We put it as block May because

I'm not sure do you guys does the ALIC

have a date set for that meeting yet?

>> No, we do not.

>> Okay, thank you.

>> So um

let's see where are we here.

>> interlocal agreement template

>> interlocal agreement template

um

staff, could you give us an update on

that?

>> Yes.

So

the JBLM representative and the JBLM agreement

officer a JBLM officer are reviewing the

draft interlocal agreement. Um I have

had correspondence with them but

received no future or further updates

since October.

I am going to continue to work with JBLM

to refine this agreement.

Uh additionally, I have attempted to

reach out to the VA but have had no luck

establishing a contact. I will continue

to work towards this as well.

>> Is this a agreement that's in place

you're hoping to extend or would this be

a brand new agreement?

>> This would be a brand new agreement. I

believe the board wanted to establish

interlocal agreements with the the JBLM

and VA specifically in preparation for

the LMD reformation.

>> Right. And

is it your current

understanding

if you'd have to have a agreement with

JBLM and a separate agreement with the

Veterans Administration?

>> I believe so as they are separate

entities.

>> And

is it your understanding

or have you received indications

that they're

um

favorable to signing such agreements?

>> JBLM, yes. The VA, no. I've had no

contact with the VA.

>> Okay.

>> As of yet.

>> And is there

any specific feedback you'd like from us

on the document in front of us?

>> Uh I don't think so as the agreement is

really between the city and JBLM. I was

just more providing an update uh

>> Sure.

>> to give you guys a status.

>> Thanks.

We wish you success.

I I will mention my one concern.

The military, both JBLM, the state at

Camp Murray, and all have been

tremendous partners.

We don't have any idea yet

what we might propose as a funding level

for the

for the LMD.

And we don't necessarily have an idea if

there's a funding level

where the military decides

they don't want to agree to match that

necessarily. They might agree to say

we'll treat as we need to on our

property or some such thing.

But to get an [clears throat]

understanding of

if the LMD

gets set at some kind of cost

for shoreline owners or the tax base

that the LMD in the future gets

generated by

if the base

is supportive of

a comparable

level of funding on their end.

That discussion

uh

maybe useful to understand if there's a

limit

to their interest in the participation.

>> I agree and uh from from what I know,

JBLM cannot be assessed like the federal

property cannot be assessed and so it

has to come through a they just agree to

treat

>> Right.

>> Um whatever is on their portion of

property. Um I mean, through talks with

the JBLM representative, they seem amenable to um

continuing to be a part of the LMD, but

I don't have any more information or

specifics

>> Yeah.

>> than that. So.

>> Is is there any portion of that

agreement that mentions funding uh what

We're thinking of what they may

have to agree need to agree to.

Where are we on that?

>> So, the way that the agreement is

written and we don't I don't Do we have

Oh, she has it up. Sorry.

Um

the way it's written is we're not

placing any numbers. It's written in a

way that

the city conducts the work and JBLM

reimburses.

There is no minimum or maximum limits

established in this agreement. It is

just simply

you reimburse us for the full amount of

work that was provided.

>> I like blank checks.

>> I think it's not quite a blank check.

>> No, I know.

>> [laughter]

>> I think we would have to have their

approval

before

>> Yeah, that's my concern is that um

there's been discussion before from

from JBLM that they may not have the the

budget

even for the 20,000 that we had for this

year, but

apparently that that kind of

brings up an antenna in my mind that

says, you know,

there may be some problems down the road

if they don't have

go from 60 cents an inch a foot to

dollars a foot. There's a quite a jump

there. They may not

reimburse that full amount.

>> And I think there's also

what is going to be treated cuz

currently it's milfoil primarily.

Read something else, we would have to

have their buy off

because it's basically pass pass through

money. Whatever's treated

then they just reimburse that amount.

That may be

something that we can work on in the

next year's time.

>> You're probably going to need some kind

of pre-approval process.

>> Can I

>> [clears throat]

>> Can I ask you a clarification of

something I should ask a long time ago?

Sorry.

On your um estimate of the funds going

forward 80 the DOE re-

reimbursement of 9588

is that for 2026 this treatment program?

>> Correct. So, we did a reimbursement and

cra-

sorry, request for the

the APM and then also we maxed out the

task two budget for treatment.

So, it's a reimbursement for treatment

as well as our APM.

>> Yeah, okay. Thanks.

>> Quick staff for a point of clarity.

This expends the

grant or nearly so, is that correct?

>> Almost nearly so, yes.

>> What was that? Do you remember the total

off top of your head?

>> The total combined reimbursement or the

total

uh was

I think 75,000.

>> So, we asked for

a lot of the grant in the first year

because we had a bigger treatment area

in that first year.

So, this is all that was remaining in

the grant that could be billed. It's not

necessarily reflective of what was spent

in 2020.

>> Oh, the DOE reimbursement is from the

grant.

>> Correct.

>> I'm sorry.

I misunderstood that.

Have you been reimbursed by JBLM for

2026 treatments?

>> Yes.

>> Of this year, yes.

>> Great. Thanks.

>> Apologies. I should have put grant in

between DOE and reimbursement. That's my

apologies.

>> No, that's fine. I just

wasn't paying close enough attention.

>> Okay, before we move on to a new

business, I wanted to

circle back on

one of our um

our

public comment recommendations was for

establishing a

a volunteer subcommittee.

At this point, I'd like to move that the

LMD establish an American Lake

ecological monitoring volunteer

subcommittee consisting of community

advisors. The subcommittee would be for

information gathering purposes only and

be formed

uh would be formed in compliance with

city regulations concerning

volunteer policy and open public

meetings act.

Discussion on that or

>> I would like

personally to hold off

>> [sighs]

>> until I see the written

the write-up of that that the speaker submits.

So, can

Personally, I'd like to consider that at

the next meeting.

Um

I'd like to understand better or think

through better how that would be

implemented.

So, I'm not in favor of approving that

at this meeting, but I'm not necessarily

against approving it at a future one

when we have

when we've seen a better

write up and and have a better

understanding of it.

>> Approach him, chair. You don't have a

second at this point, but we can

certainly put it on the agenda.

Absolutely.

>> That works for me.

>> One follow-up question on that cuz we're

having discussion even though there was

no second.

This volunteer group could exist outside

of being tied to the ALMD.

>> It currently is.

>> 100% correct. So, I guess what is the

impetus to tie it to the ALMD? Is there

a funding that you're looking at?

Because you're talking about city

volunteer forms, etc. etc. I'm just

curious

why

the group would now want to be tied to

the ALMD.

>> [clears throat]

>> I guess to make it a more of a um

uh

an official tie

for the transfer of information that

that that group is is gathering

to be able to have to be able to inform

the LMD of what's going on.

Otherwise, it's it could be

I'm looking at it from the point of view

of a subcommittee to help spread some of

the work out

that we as a board

uh

have.

And so, those kinds of subcommittees

in my mind, we could come up with other

subcommittees as well to be able to

study some of these other issues

that are in front of us.

So,

>> There's certainly been public comment

that they want more inclusions

on a working basis and uh

in the planning going forward and that'd

be one way to do it.

So, there's

it certainly would be a way

to reach out for more public involvement

in the process. But

exactly how to do that or exactly the

details of implementing something like

that I'd like to think through a bit.

That's my

That's my thoughts.

>> Let's wait till we get the the document

from

>> I do.

>> You do?

>> I would agree to have it on the next

agenda where it's fleshed out and clear

clarified roles and responsibilities.

>> Okay, moving on to new business. Um

Hey, would you like to present the

aquatic vegetation survey for us,

please?

>> Absolutely.

So, last week Aquatechnics provided us

with the year or the end of the year

report um

that reviews this year's treatment and

its effects.

To summarize, the survey showed reduced

milfoil densities in treated areas while

untreated areas continue to expand. For

2027, Aquatechnics recommends spring and

fall surveys with treatment occurring

before July 4th to limit further spread.

They also recommend DNA testing to

determine whether hybrid milfoil is

present as it can be more difficult to

control and pursuing additional funding

opportunities to support future lake

management efforts.

>> Could you scroll the

figure down a little

um to page so I can see the map on page

23? It's cuz it's black and white and

what I have.

Can you Is there a way to have better

describe

the colors on this or is this This is

bio-based, correct? This is total

Is there a similar one of these that

shows

what they found from the survey for the

milfoil existence around the lake. Yes.

>> So, this is the uh map that really um

represents the amount of milfoil in

American Lake when they performed the

fall survey.

So,

the red dots are

Excuse me, the green dots are one, the

yellow dots are two, and the red dots

are three.

And those correspond to uh the green

dots is one to five plants. The yellow

dots are

are two to uh

excuse me,

the yellow is five to 10 plants, and the

red is over 10 plants.

>> Well, I think, a board member, the difference is

this is done from the boat wearing

polarized glasses, and the surveyor has a data

logger, and he pushes the button when he

sees the plants in the boat.

Where that bio, I don't know how it was

pronounced, bio

>> biobasin

>> biobasin is done

with a piece of equipment to get that

density of aquatic plants cuz you can't

separate between milfoil and other

plants.

>> What's most useful to me is to compare

maps of before and after with the same

technique.

So, this fall survey with the dots for

the milfoil is, my understanding, the

same technique as what they do in the

spring, correct?

>> I believe so, yes. I do not know.

>> and we can always send a clarifying

question to AquaTechniques.

>> So,

the

I I

staff, have you Did you send this

document out?

>> I did, but I sent it Monday as part of

the agenda packet.

We only received it Thursday of last

week.

>> Yeah, okay. So,

um

I need to study this a little bit later,

but

obviously this is showing that

we may have a more significant milfoil

problem going into the next year than we

had

estimated given what was

the treatment areas for this year, so.

Good info.

>> [clears throat]

>> Thanks.

>> And I believe that moves us on to the

next item if there are no more

discussions on the

spring fall survey.

>> Well, as

as a result of this fall survey,

is do we want to consider any additional

treatment this fall?

>> [clears throat]

>> Or or the other question to the fort,

since the highest density is in Little

American Lake, does the fort want to

consider

funding any additional

treatment in Little American Lake this

year, this fall?

And that would be a question that the

city would have to ask JBLM.

>> I can certainly follow up offline and

ask the JBLM representative if they're interested in that.

>> I do know that the JBLM representative, one request he made

to us was to get him the invoice for

this year's treatment as soon as

possible to make sure he got paid. So,

I'm hoping that's not an indication of

funding available, so.

Definitely put that request on

cuz there's no reason they couldn't

contract for that work.

Uh I'm going to have to think about that

a little bit, but

so

I just

what you just said I think conflicts

with what staff said earlier.

I thought staff said JBLM has already

reimbursed you for

JBLM's costs for 2026, and you're saying

they have not.

>> No, they have. I'm just saying that uh

the JBLM representative asked us to submit the invoice as

soon as possible

so that he could have it paid.

>> Oh, that's already been done.

>> It's all already in the bank.

>> I took that as meaning you're still

trying to do that. Sorry about that.

>> I think what a board member was trying

to convey was from JBLM there was a

sense of urgency and that at this point

in the year whether further funding

would be available if they would

you know want to contribute for the

funding. That's the question.

>> That I understand. I just misinterpreted

how

a board member was saying it.

>> And I'm not sure we would have to look

further if they a treatment can be done

now or if you're waiting till next year,

so.

I highly doubt

that treatment in the this late in the

in the fall would be of any value.

But that doesn't stop us from at least

contacting the JBLM representative

and asking if Little American Lake

>> I think it's worth asking and then it's

also probably worth asking Aquatechnics

if a treatment this late would be

effective or not, but um

I understand your reasoning that they

thought they were short of money and

they may not have any interest, so.

>> Any uh other discussion?

>> Well, unless we have any interest in any

of the other portion of the LMD doing in

any additional treatment, but I suspect

it might be better to save our funding

for next year.

>> So, um

staff, can we move on to board member

expiration dates?

[discussion of board member term dates and a term-limit question omitted; personnel matter]

>> We're going to have to define in the

plan for the new L&D

what the board should be like. So, um I

don't want to presuppose that at this

time, but if

but I have asked if it's possible

to provide continuity that I could be

extended or appointed for one additional

year through the end of this one. So,

we'll see where it goes.

I don't want to make sure everybody knew

about it.

>> So, are there any other um

comments or concerns

about

I mean mean or something

that hasn't been brought up yet.

>> I'm I'm just encouraged that the letter

is going forward to council maybe

tomorrow if not next week.

>> And again, and and all of you on the

city staff, thanks for your efforts

because I know it's taking way more time

and energy and probably city funding

than has been built into the current

budget. And I very much appreciate it

and I appreciate the continuity on the

city's staff side.

>> Well, thank you for that. We appreciate

it. It's a pleasure to serve the sport.

>> I have nothing further.

>> If there are no other comments, go ahead

and

the next meeting

>> The next meeting would be held at

December 3rd or on December 3rd at 4:00

p.m. here in the council chambers.

>> Okay.

Are there further business? I like to

state that

we turn now at uh

5:49

49 39

>> 5:38

p.m.

>> Okay.

>> [laughter]

>> Well, I'm looking at a clock.

Close enough.

>> And the meeting went longer.

>> [laughter]

>> All right.