Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flooding Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lakewood council votes down contract for 30% design of Clover Creek flood mitigation
Summary
At its Aug. 4 meeting the Lakewood City Council voted 4–3 not to authorize a contract with Keller Associates to produce a 30% design for Clover Creek floodplain mitigation, with council members citing uncertain partner commitments and funding concerns.
Get email alerts on the Flooding Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the Aug. 4 Lakewood City Council meeting, council members declined to authorize a contract with Keller Associates to prepare a 30% design for Clover Creek floodplain mitigation, a step staff described as necessary to draw in regional partners and federal agencies.
The vote on motion 2025-49 failed 4–3. Council member Bokey, Council member Pearson and Deputy Mayor Moss voted in favor; Council member Bell, Council member Brandstetter, Council member Laura Sella and Mayor Whelan voted against. The motion would have authorized feasibility work, geotechnical studies and a preliminary (30%) design to clarify the extent of modeled flooding and the range of design options.
City staff said the 30% design is intended to provide the detailed engineering and modeling needed to engage regional partners such as Pierce County, the Washington State Department of Transportation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Joint Base Lewis-McChord. "Right now, what we're looking at with the 30% design is, yes, we are in it alone currently," Public Works and Community Development Director Remack said. "The idea with the 30% design, though, is to have more context and... the study to be able to draw in WSDOT, JBLM, as well as Pierce County."
Council members opposing the contract said the city would likely be asked to shoulder most future costs and that other regional priorities may offer greater return for limited public funds. Council member Brandstetter called the step appropriate but asked what commitments other partners had made to pay for later phases. "Anything beyond this is going to take a good bit of money going forward," Brandstetter said. Council member Laura Sella and Mayor Whelan questioned whether the city should spend the money now if state and county partners were unlikely to join without a flood event.
Council member Bokey cautioned that preliminary project estimates can change rapidly; during debate he said, "That's $30,000,000 3 years ago. So it's $4,045,000,000 today as we sit," expressing concern about rising cost estimates and the potential scale of future funding requests. (That figure was raised in floor remarks and does not represent a city cost estimate produced in the staff packet.)
Staff said the alternative to the design work is essentially to take no further pre-construction steps: without a 30% design there would be limited ability to request formal map changes from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or to secure partner funding. "If we don't move forward, they're not gonna participate until an event occurs," Remack said, adding that the 30% design provides more definitive data for partners to evaluate.
The council discussion touched on related policy choices: buyouts of properties in a floodplain, potential setback levees, and the role of the Pierce County Flood Control Zone District, which provides some funds back to jurisdictions. Council members also noted a larger regional flood concern — the Nisqually Reach — that some argued should take priority for limited state and county funding.
Outcome and next steps: Motion 2025-49 failed. Council did not adopt an alternative funding or study plan during the meeting; staff said the 30% design remains the next technical step to attract partners but acknowledged that without partner commitments the city would face significant costs to move beyond design. Councilmembers suggested the city could revisit priorities or seek smaller, more-targeted studies addressing specific tributaries or upstream influences.
Discussion-only points: Council and staff repeatedly distinguished the feasibility work (30% design) from construction, buyouts or a final design. Several council members urged focusing on alternatives that could provide community benefits even if partners do not join.
Actions: Motion 2025-49 (authorize agreement with Keller Associates for Clover Creek floodplain mitigation 30% design) — moved by Council member Pearson, seconded by Council member Bell; outcome: failed (roll call: Bell — Nay; Bokey — Aye; Brandstetter — Nay; Laura Sella — Nay; Pearson — Aye; Deputy Mayor Moss — Aye; Mayor Whelan — Nay).

