HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-08-2012 Agenda Packet
Planning and Community Development
March 8, 2012 - 4:00 PM
Annex Conference Room 2
AGENDA
I.CALL TO ORDER
A.Roll Call
B.Announcements
C.Agenda Modifications
II.CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes - February 27, 2012* (Snyder)
III.ACTION
A. Resolution No. 4805 - Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report
(CAPER)* (Hursh)
Committee to review and move forward Resolution No. 4805 accepting the 2011
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER).
IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Ordinance No. 6400* (Coleman)
Committee to review and discuss draft Ordinance No. 6400, amending Ordinance No.
6339, the 2011-2012 Biennial Budget Ordinance as amended by Ordinance No. 6351,
Ordinance No. 6352, Ordinance No. 6362, Ordinance No. 6370, Ordinance No. 6378 and
Ordinance No. 6379 authorizing amendment to the City of Auburn 2011-2012 Budget as
set forth in Schedule "A"
B. Resolution No. 4796* (Carlaw/Thorn)
Committee to review Resolution No. 4796 regarding the 2012 Stormwater Management
Program.
C. Phase II Zoning Code Updates - Group 2* (Wagner)
Committee to review policy questions related to the Phase II, Group 2 Zoning Code
Updates inclusive of non-residential zoning districts.
D. Director's Report (Snyder)
E. PCDC Status Matrix* (Snyder)
V.ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website
(http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail. Complete agenda packets are available for review at the
City Clerk's Office.
*Denotes attachments included in the agenda packet.
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Minutes - February 27, 2012
Date:
March 5, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
PCDC Draft Minutes
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
See attached draft minutes.
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Snyder
Meeting Date:March 8, 2012 Item Number:CA.0
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.0
Planning and Community
Development
February 27, 2012 - 5:00 PM
Annex Conference Room 2
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Nancy Backus called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in Annexation
Conference Room No. 2, located on the second floor of Auburn City Hall, One
East Main Street, Auburn, Washington.
A. Roll Call
Chairman Backus, Vice-Chair Partridge, and Member Holman were present. Also
present during the meeting were: Planning and Development Director Kevin
Snyder, Planning and Development Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain,
Development Services Manager Jeff Tate, Principal Planner Jeff Dixon, Contract
Economic Development Planner, Contract Economic Manager Doug Lein.
Members of the public in attendance included: Councilmember Osborne,
Joannne Martin, Kurt Vogel, Gloria Taylor, Patrick Taylor, Melissa Baeth, Mickey
Marquez, and Kathy Vogel.
B. Announcements
There were no announcements.
C. Agenda Modifications
There were no agenda modifications.
II. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes - February 13, 2012 (Snyder)
Councilmember Partridge moved and Councilmember
Partridge seconded to approve the Planning and Community Development
Committee minutes for February 13, 2012, as written.
Motion Carried Unanimously. 3-0.
III. ACTION
There were no action items.
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Amendment to Section Zoning Code 18.31.200 (Dixon)
Review amendment to Section Zoning Code 18.31.200 to recognize and
address within a single code section the various architectural and site
Page 1 of 24
CA.0
design review standards and regulations.
Principal Planner Jeff Dixon reviewed the purpose and intent to amend the
existing zoning code section ACC 18.31.200.
Staff explained the intent is to bring uniformity in the administrative process
applied to design review processing. and provide a single code section
addressing the city's different provisions for architectural and site design
standards for ease of locating and use by perspective applicants.
Mr. Dixon stated this item will go before Planning Commission for
recommendation and then staff will bring this back before Committee.
Committee was supportive of these code amendments to section
18.31.200.
B. Resolution No. 4770 - Physical Address Change Recommendations (Tate)
Review proposed changes to physical addresses recommended by the City of
Auburn Addressing Committee and reviewed and approved by City Directors and
the VRFA Administrator.
Planning and Development Director Kevin Snyder: First of all I want to hand out
for the Committee a letter that we received which was dated yesterday and
officially came in to us today (stamped as received today) and let the Committee
read [pause for Committee to review the letter].
Chair Backus (speaking to the audience): I’ve already read it and I don’t want you
to think I am ignoring you, I have already read it.
Director Snyder: Jeff Tate, Development Services Manager, has put together a
briefing memorandum but I am going to speak more broadly. First and foremost
one of the more important duties that the City has is addressing. It is an important
duty for a variety of reasons but perhaps the most important being the provision of
public safety services or emergency services for police and fire to be
specific. Addressing is a key component of that. We have an interesting challenge
in our addressing situation because, as the Mayor said, we are a 120 year old city
so we have had addressing that has occurred for 120 years in our
community. We’ve had street names have changed, grown and extended. More
recently since 2008 we have newly annexed areas that were addressed under a
different set of provisions administered by King County.
It is a task that we take very seriously. The City has an addressing committee
made up from staff from all departments and includes staff from Valley Regional
Fire Authority (VRFA). When address changes come through they are reviewed
by the addressing committee and recommendations are made to all department
directors and the directors all review and sign off on changes prior to going to
Council.
Page 2 of 24
CA.0
As for the last several years the addressing committee has reviewed errors or
concerns, particularly public safety concerns, and as part of our practice are trying
to consolidate those and bring them forward in a package, such as the one we will
be discussing tonight, whereby we give the Council the opportunity to discuss with
us potential changes in addressing that, again, from staffs’ perspective are
believed to be necessary.
We understand at the staff level that changing addresses is a disruptive action,
that it disrupts a lot of things not the least people’s normal practices; in terms of
how they get mail and other day in and day out practices we have to balance that
with our issue of making sure we can provide appropriate response times for our
emergency services. This is what really guides us. There are land use
considerations and other things like that but we give a lot of attention to and
deference to our emergency service providers in our meetings on these matters.
The items before you are actually not new to two of the three of the Committee
members because we did come to you in late 2011 and presented to you initially
on this. At that time you asked us to go out and engage with the community that
was going to be impacted by these and we did. We held three separate public
meetings and some were well attended and some were not so well intended but
we did go out and meet with parties and get their feedback. We did take into
consideration the ideas and concerns and in some instances we made some
slight adjustments. Tonight is for discussion purposes only. Our goal is to take
feedback from the Committee and answer your questions and see if we can
address any issues relating to questions you might have, or concerns or a lack of
clarity and we will respond appropriately. The final point in this I think is important
is that we have very much taken our time at the staff level which is why we came
to you in August and why we are only coming back to you in February because we
did not rush through this. I asked Jeff and his team to double check all of these
items to make sure we had considered all the options and to make sure, knowing
that we will cause some disruption to folks that we were doing that only because
ultimately there was a determination that we needed to address that because of
the need to ensure appropriate response time for our emergency services. I can
assure you that we have done that. With that, we have laid out some background
information for you and would be happy to answer any questions about that or the
specific addresses.
Chair Backus: Does Committee have any questions.
Member Holman: You have obviously read the letter that was presented today
and, are you prepared to answer some of these questions in the letter.
Director Snyder: Yes.
Member Holman: I would like to hear that.
Page 3 of 24
CA.0
Director Snyder: The particular area in question and Jeff will help me if I don’t
answer it fully or need to provide more information, but the particular area in
question is a unique area within our community. It is an area with a certain street
design that does not easily fit into our definitions. There has been a practice on
these types of unique street situations that we designate them as a Place. When
we do that we apply the addressing guidelines based on a Place designation. It
does not mean it fully aligns with the City’s addressing gridlines. One of the things
we have to do is we have to sometimes work to address some disconnect
between the physical situation on the ground and the addressing gridlines on a
map. Sometimes they are not fully squared up and in this particular situation we
don’t have that fully squared up situation but we have an approach that our
emergency service providers feel very strongly is necessary in order for them to
assure the appropriate emergency response times.
Chair Backus: Kevin in that case, because obviously I’m pretty familiar with that
area, so it is a T and these addresses are all part of the T, correct; and so one
unique situation noted in Mrs. Martin’s letter is that there are houses on the same
side of the street that have both odd and even numbering. How do we reconcile
that, that while logic tells us we have odds on one side and even on the other how
do we have four houses on one side of the street that have odd and even
numbers?
Development Services Manager Jeff Tate: Sure, first of all the existing condition
that is out there we have a little bit of odd and mix as well. One of the things that is
a practice when you get into these situations where you have a road that is
shaped like a T or L, you go down the road with odd and even (odd on one side
and even on the other) and when you get to the end you move in those directions.
If you are even on one side of the street you continue to move even as you
navigate along that side of the T (indicating moving forward directionally down a
street on the left side then going to the left side of the T); if you are odd on one
side you continue to move odd as you navigate along the T (indicating moving
forward directionally down a street on the right side then going to the right side of
the T). This gives emergency responders the ability to predict that if they’re
responding to an odd or even address they know whether to take a right or left
without having to try to look for signs that might point you directions where there
are no signs. In the case of a T there is, little more of a challenge, especially with
our fire responders, when they have bigger vehicles that when they get to the end
of a location if they’ve made a wrong decision the time it takes to go the other
direction.
Chair Backus: Any other questions in the letter or any other issues that you would
like to address in the letter.
Director Snyder: I think another thing we want to be clear about is there is a
reference to two other proposals in the letter. The first proposal was the original
proposal brought before this Committee. It was also the proposal we presented at
the community meetings as well as the proposal before you this evening. When
Page 4 of 24
CA.0
we got feedback from the community we did go back and look at
alternatives. Staff did not deem that a new proposal but we were looking at
possible approaches. The addressing committee went through those and looked
at them, but ultimately reached a consensus and brought that back to the directors
who also reached a consensus that the original proposal was the more
appropriate proposal.
Chair Backus: And that was the proposal being the difference between Place and
Court and Place is now being identified as the recommended location.
Director Snyder: Yes.
Chair Backus: I know that are people that have come tonight from the
neighborhood and thank you all for coming out. I believe some of you may be
interested in speaking and I will allow for you to speak if you would like. We just
need you to come to the table one at a time providing your name and address for
the record. I believe you have all signed in right, so you’re legal to talk.
Patrick Taylor: 1812 4th Place NE, Auburn, Washington. As you enter 4th PL NE
you pass Wayne Osborne’s property and another house on the other side which is
still on 4th so no fire truck should be turning around if those houses are burning. If
you turn down and come to where I am, about 100 to 115 feet, you come to four
houses which sit on an easement approximately 120 feet long. If that fire truck
pulls up there he has to back up anyway or he will drive around on property and
the yard and the next people’s property and go out. There’s no other exit through
here. Once you get to that point, 120 feet withstanding, two houses to the right
and two houses to the left and literally its 80 feet from the center of that road down
to my house and the other way is about 60 to 70 feet. If you go down that road
and you are a policeman or fireman you should be able to see the problem without
any difficulty and with no addresses on homes. They have been doing that for
more than 40 years that I know of. I don’t understand what the real concern is,
safety wise, because once you turn onto 4th you got two houses right where you
pull up and if you sit right there you will see all five houses that you are looking at
the numbers at. Literally if you had a garden hose you could spray all five of
them. There’s just no distance there. You more than likely get lost going around
4th and end up in Kip Herren’s property. That would be worse than ours as he has
a drive through and comes back out. I don’t know if the fire trucks could make it,
but I don’t know why you are even bothering with our addresses because -- the
situation is you go down 4th Place, all 4 of those houses are on 4th Place; there
are five at that end and Councilmen Wayne’s house at the end and I don’t know
who owns the other. If you get lost on 4th Place I don’t want to go on a trip with
you.
Director Snyder: Maybe some additional comments to add just to help the
conversation. When we talked with police and fire, we are referencing a lot fire
right now; police is an important component too. We certainly can’t and will not
speak for them, but they do have certain operational considerations and
Page 5 of 24
CA.0
procedures that they do make their decisions based on. I want to assure the
Committee and the public that they do go off of those standards. One of the other
things they imparted to us that both of these agencies have legacy issues where
many of their employees have been in their positions for many years and know
the City really “like the back of their hand”. They have new employees coming
through that don’t and they are very much mindful that they need to have as much
consistency in the addressing built in as possible. One of the things they do now
for their new employees is they have to actually go through and learn the
addressing of the City so there is a operational concern about having things as
close to their standards as possible, weighs in their thought process as well.
Kurt Vogel: 1820 4th Place NE, Auburn, Washington. About the logistical
concerns and stuff for the fire department I was with the fire department for quite a
few years and no matter what you do or how you break it up its going to be an
anomaly, and it’s not going to be perfect no matter how you set it up it won’t be
perfect. If it isn’t going to be perfect why change it. It works the way it is. It’s not
going to be perfect after you change it; it’s going to be confusing to a lot of the
guys and it’s no more confusing now than it will be if it’s done.
Chair Backus: Thank you.
Joanne Martin: 1818 4th Place NE. I am kind of amazed in some ways because I
know the people have been preparing this proposal have worked really hard about
this and I appreciate the work they do on behalf of the City. However, if this is a
unique situation and you are just moving to another unique situation what’s not to
say that someone else is not going to come in to say this doesn’t work anymore
and we will change it one more time. I don’t know how a lot of the intricacies work
so I looked at my tax things today and it comes to 102nd SE. That’s what it says --
Chair Backus: -- Your tax assessment. --
Joanne Martin: -- Yea, 102nd. 102nd, so it’s like we’re still, the whole area is still
all messed up and I appreciate you trying to get us all together but this is a very
small neighborhood. Now we’ve had fire out there, we’ve had police out there and
the medics out there and to my knowledge they have not had any difficulty in
finding the houses on our street. And I can remember when I first moved to
Auburn a long time ago, not as long as some people here, a long time ago Cugini
Florist used to like to hire fireman because they were so good at knowing the
addresses. Since my neighbors’ son was a fireperson he told me they had to
memorize all of the addresses way back when. Now I don’t know what is wrong
with having to memorize any more addresses now, I know the place is bigger but
we have more firemen and they can spend more time in training; there are a lot of
games they can play in memorizing these addresses. I’m thinking that can still
keep up with what is hip, using your brains. This is a very small neighborhood that
really doesn’t need change. Now, if my neighbor over there isn’t going to get up
and speak, Wayne Osborne, I want to use his post card as an example. Did you
sign in?
Page 6 of 24
CA.0
Chair Backus: As a private citizen you have to sign in.
Joaanne Martin: So I just would hope you would see that this is a unique situation
and you are asking us to change it to a unique situation and I would respectfully
request that you eliminate I think it’s line 15 through 21 on your little resolution
thing. You just kind of draw a line through it and exempt us from this address
change. It would be different if we were in a large area but this is small. Thank
you.
Wayne Osborne: 1806 4th Place NE, Auburn, 98002. In 1993, the City changed
my address from 1809 to 1806; I was odd to start with. They are proposing that I
go back to an odd number 1833. From 1993 until the current date this is an
example of some of the things I get in the mail and it comes to my house, anything
addressed to a resident I usually get two; one for 1806 and one for 1809. You may
notice that one came from the City. Political ads are exactly the same thing, I get
two. I have been trying to work with the different groups because I said we are
unique and probably am going to be unique if you go through with this address
change and I just don’t see any reason going from unique to unique. I know you
have had two proposals out and I don’t know if anyone spoke to that or not.
Director Snyder: Let me, if I can address that --
Chair Backus: -- Please --
Director Snyder: We did send out a letter explaining the concept in part to; Chair
Backus: clarified, that was the difference between Place and Court and the Court
wasn’t really a proposal. Mr. Osborne stated it was the last letter that it was going
to be a Court and we never got a subsequent letter saying they were going back
to the original. That was one thing that I noted and I think it is important because it
shows that within the City they aren’t even sure which way to go with this.
Director Snyder: A letter was sent explaining the concept in part to elicit
community feedback about that but ultimately the addressing committee felt that
going to Court would actually create more problems than sticking to Place. It was
an idea that did not gain any traction, particularly with our fire and police staff.
Wayne Osborne: So, I am going to ask, specifically as the other citizens of that
area, just to leave us as we are; I don’t think, I know as a fireman in Seattle that
was one thing we were required to do was do address drills on a constant and
continuing basis and they do that today and I think what ever they come up with
they would have to do address drills. Thank you very much.
Chair Backus: Kevin, specific feedback from the VRFA the members that sit on
the addressing team; I know you have addressed that this change is more in line
with the standard, albeit off from the standard, but what were the comments from
the VRFA regarding this area specifically if there were any.
Page 7 of 24
CA.0
Director Snyder: The addressing committee is staffed by Assistant Fire Chief Jeff
Stottlemyre who reviewed it and Jeff’s feeling, I’m paraphrasing, that although not
a perfection solution, this is the appropriate solution to address adequate
response times. It was then reviewed by the VRFA administrator Eric Robertson
and in his capacity again he, and all the other City Directors reviewed these and
he concurred with Mr. Stottlemyer’s recommendation on that matter.
Development Services Manager Jeff Tate: The only thing I would add to that
specific comment focused on the logic when you are in the truck while in the
response mode, that what the proposal here offers is something that is logical and
makes sense to what they are used to, even though it doesn’t fully conform to
some of the standards as you turn down that road as you would expect.
Melissa Baeth: 1815 4th Place NE. Just reiterating, it really doesn’t make sense if
you hit 4th Place there are only five houses down that street, you can literally see
every one of them. If you can’t figure out what is going on if you turn down there,
there are some serious issues going on that has nothing to do with our addressing
and odds and evens on the same side don’t make any sense any more than
what’s already there makes sense. This just seems like a “colossal waste of time”
and we aren’t having any issues and I don’t see that we will be having issues with
this in the future left as it is so I would really appreciate it if you would leave it as it
is. I would really not like to do this again further down the road when you come up
with another thing that makes more sense to you then, because you are not really
fixing it now. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Partridge: Outside of public safety what benefit is this.
Mayor Lewis: Oh, yes, I understand.
Vice-Chair Partridge: You understand my comment. Outside of public safety, um,
what issue is there to the City? Is this purely a public safety issue which you
referred to?
Director Snyder: The short answer is yes. The primary guiding concern in our
addressing always starts with public safety.
Mayor Lewis: Well ok, you asked for something that takes more than, than just the
planning department to answer so now you are going to get the long answer.
Vice-Chair Partridge: My follow up question I was asking for primarily was -- this
item came to light when I first joined the Council. Since that time do we have
documented public safety issues in regards to these 100 or so addresses? So do
we have anything that was documented that we missed a call were late to and if
so can you provide that information.
Mayor Lewis: There is documentation.
Page 8 of 24
CA.0
Mayor Lewis: Madam Chair, can I address Committee.
Chair Backus: Please.
Mayor Lewis: There are a bunch of things, this is my fault. A few years ago, more
than a few years now there was a developer in Lakeland that we found out had in
incorrectly addressed a large area. We went through a big exercise to correct that
which had been done. I looked at this and said, “Tell me the addressing in the City
of Auburn is correct”. The immediate response from all the departments was; oh
no, there is a lot worse stuff all over this town because the town was built not only
in King County but across the tops of other towns that used to be here so the
addressing in lots of areas was totally screwed up. I then put together the
directors, the directors are that committee. I said to the directors we are going to
do this once and we are going to do it with public safety being the driving concern
and when this thing gets done I want every director’s signature in blood that this is
the correct thing to do and public safety is the main goal. You will always go back
to the public safety cop and fire side of this to make dead sure that this is correct
and you will report to me on a regular basis and you will not implement this until
it’s all done, which is why we have this huge list across the City and lots of irate
people.
In every meeting that we went to I knew somebody on that street and I know
almost everyone on this street. I have wanted an out on this deal for quite some
time and regardless of what you decide to do you must do it knowing that fire and
police directly have told you that this is what they want to have done and the
biggest reason with their concern is everything is now changing; changing over to
GIS and the legacy we talked about, over half the police department have
changed in the last five years. There was a huge group of people that were hired
in the 80s and they are gone. The same things are now happening with the fire
authority, it’s the legacy of the department which is mainly Auburn but now that is
changing over as well. I just went their annual awards ceremony and there were
about four to five that are now gone just in this last year. They are really being
specific about this that if we do something that is not in keeping with that than we
are specifically making a statement that getting the best advice from police and
fire (not planners, not public works people or anyone else) but from cops and fire,
that we are going to go against their advise specifically. That is what is making it
really hard for me because I like all these people. I also like the people over on H
Street, K Street and the other areas and I have known them for over 30
years. Again I started off with the statement that I “kicked the hornets nest” in this
case. This is fire and police employees that lead this effort and all the directors,
every single director; Human Resources, Information Services, Legal, Planning,
Public Works, and Police. Everyone needed to sign off on this that they are in
agreement that this is the best option that they had before this ever got to you
before it ever went out to a public meeting. So, given that this is where were at.
Vice-Chair Partridge: I asked within that question, do we have some
Page 9 of 24
CA.0
documentation of public safety issues directly related to these 142 referenced
here.
Mayor Lewis: -- As part of the record you can pull out that as part of the original
stuff that police and fire brought forth as far as how many instances we have had
in the areas of concern. We do not have that in front of us but that is part of the
book.
Vice-Chair Partridge: -- I am assuming that there may be some areas that pose a
higher degree of problems than other areas.
Mayor Lewis: Here’s the problem that officials keep telling me it’s not about the
people who work here, it’s not about today. Take that out all together, which if we
really did that there wouldn’t really be a reason for us to have a job because if we
take people out of the equation it makes it real simple, something I try to get
across to people. The bottom line is it isn’t about the people who live there today,
but about the people who will be living there in 20 years and it’s not about the
problems that were having today but the problems we might have tomorrow. The
areas change, the people change and the populations change; the reason I say
this is because is because they have been hammering that into me as we have
these discussions with fire and police.
Vice-Chair Partridge: I asked within the areas of concern how many of those were
public complaints or concerns verses or officer or fire complaints. Meaning the
officer says “I had trouble finding something” but in terms of the individual owner
the perception is.
Mayor Lewis: -- I think all the stuff we have came from fire and police --
Vice-Chair Partridge: -- So we don’t have any public complaints that I called and
someone didn’t find us. Do we have any complaints that people felt unsafe in
regards to this? Mayor Lewis: -- I think it was police and fire saying it took this long
to get to this place. I believe that is what the records show.
Vice-Chair Partridge: -- From my perception and my family has owned a house
near this area since the 1960s is when they moved over there, you can imagine
the immensity, when I look at this I see something happening very convenient,
good for us, easier for us, but very disruptive on the other end. So people who feel
disrupted have to feel the same sense of need you feel, if they don’t --
Mayor Lewis: -- I’m sorry, let me revise that, same sense of need that you as a
Council Member are being told by your fire and police, not just me. It is your fire
and police that are telling you directly through this that this is what they are
saying. That’s been the hard part of this, every one of these people; I mean I don’t
like messing with anyone’s address but when you do whatever you do... you do it
with the sure knowledge of what you have been told by your fire and police
people.
Page 10 of 24
CA.0
Chair Backus: There is the possibility that if, not saying which way I am leaning on
this at all as I am just giving you an issue that, if there were a fire in one of these
houses and we didn’t change the addressing and there was a problem with
response, knowing we did not change the addresses, there could be legal issues
for the City. Mayor Lewis agreed.
Director Snyder: Police and fire’s perspective in the conversations we have had
with them is they measure performance in two ways; the response time and the
other is what they are to perform when they are able to respond. If they are
inhibited on the first item because they can’t get there fast enough it affects the
second item. It is very important to them the response time is done as quickly as
possible and that there be no (for lack of better word) obstructions whether they
be physical or logical. They take that very seriously.
Chair Backus: Has GIS has plugged in an address and you see where it takes you
on these. I know the ones we had up on Lakeland took us up to Enumclaw
Plateau, obviously it’s not going to be an issue like that I don’t believe with these
addresses but have we done something like that as a City to see where we would
go, do they show up in the correct location as they are currently.
Director Snyder: A random sampling of Google, just Google --
Chair Backus: -- If I were to Google 1818 4th Place NE would I get there or would
it stop me before I get there.
Director Snyder: I do not know specific to that address; we have done some
random sampling and haven’t encountered any issues but I would hesitate in
making that assumption.
Micky Marquez: 1815 4th Place NE, Auburn, Washington. I am a City of Auburn
employee, storm water and vegetation. We are almost required to or not
necessarily required to know addresses around the City so as a City employee I
know full well when my boss gives me a location to go to I know exactly where I
am going. Now to change here, on Labor Day weekend it was a Monday morning,
around 9:00 – 9:15 a.m. I witnessed a prowler in my vehicle. I responded in a
manner to try to get this individual out, contacted my wife, she came out the front
door with phone in hand and I requested her to call 911. She did, the individual
got out of my car and I assisted him to the ground and the police department was
there in less than three minutes; incredible response time. The two officers that
showed up were both young officers, I know this because I socialize with the
officers at Maintenance and Operations a lot so I know who is new and who is not
so I know the veteran guys as well. Very professional and the response time was
incredible. They took him into custody and we did our paperwork and they were
gone. When it comes to response time they were excellent, everyone in the
neighborhood commented on how fast they got there and we have had to call
police and fire before in that location and they always show up with a fast
Page 11 of 24
CA.0
response time.
Chair Backus: If I recall fire there a few years ago (four or five or more).
Mr. Marquez: I myself can only attest to what I witness and I have called; I have
called the police department several times and had them show up and assisted
the police department a few weeks back and we had a prowler running through
our yard and I assisted K9 in directional where they needed to go…they show up
and we are there to help and they show up quick. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Partridge: First of all, are there options. Is this all or nothing or are
there other municipalities that have different options on how they implement
changes like this within their city.
Chair Backus: The Mayor asked that a committee be put together and find all the
anomalies in the City and correct them. It is the Council’s responsibility to
determine if we implement all of it, if we implement half, if we phase it in or
whatever we want to do it. It is the Council’s decision on how we want to do it, so
it isn’t an all or nothing.
Vice-Chair Partridge: I was asking if I guess if there is any examples of Councils
that have implemented all or nothing or worked in sections, or is there, and --
Mayor Lewis: -- There are cities that are trying to do that that now because of the
annexations but they are looking to us for what we are doing. We were the first
ones to do annexations. If you remember back when the county set up a bonus,
so to speak, for annexations, Auburn was the first City in the State to do them; first
city in King County.
Director Snyder: I have had the opportunity to work in several other cities and I
would say Auburn’s addressing process is the most formal and most considerate
process I have been involved in. Often times it has been chief of Police, myself
and a fire chief sitting around asking each other what do you want to do, I don’t
know, what do you want to do. I want to echo what the Mayor is saying. I think we
are somewhat of a standard-bearer in that process. We take this very seriously
and we don’t try to be disruptive unintentionally and we do it with public safety
considerations at the forefront. Mayor Lewis stated prior to ten years ago the
addressing system was done by the fire department. Chair Backus: Back in 1968
our family had just moved in by the Game Farm Park and we had one address
where an emergency was called in, they went to the cul-de-sac and missed us
completely. We were immediately readdressed.
Mayor Lewis: The frustrating part about this is, regardless of how we might not
want to see people disrupted, it is fire and police that are the ones that are
bringing all this forward.
Vice-Chair Partridge: Is there a reason why fire and police are not here today --
Page 12 of 24
CA.0
Mayor Lewis: -- We did not ask them to be here --
Vice-Chair Partridge: -- Are there any municipalities that had any reimbursement
to the expenses that the people going through this change --
Mayor Lewis: We lead that as well. A reimbursement cost program has been set
up and we also have a two-year program at the post office to keep the mail
coming for both the old and new address. We were being asked to identify our
system to Renton, Kirkland and a couple others. That was set with prior changes
and is still in affect with these changes. That is part of what we talked about when
we went to the neighborhood meetings.
Vice-Chair Partridge: Do we know how much that is.
Director Snyder: I don’t believe our risk management has a specific number but
evaluate on a case by case basis I believe. Mayor Lewis stated it was for actual
costs.
Chair Backus: For business cards, stationary and postage to mail letters to credit
card companies --
Director Snyder: -- Correct.
Mayor Lewis: The City does that as well. The City notifies all the credit agencies.
Development Services Manager Tate: There is a list of approximately 100
different agencies, organizations both public and private, nonprofit, utility
purveyors, county, post office, that we send out the notification to. Chair Backus: -
- This doesn’t mean you will have the answer for this but in the case of Mr.
Osborne who received two pieces of mail for each address residence mailing and
this happens to come from the City of Auburn, its been well past the two years
time period the post office is suppose to deliver mail to a prior address. How is
that still happening; why is the post office still delivering two addresses at the
same location?
Mayor Lewis: -- Do we think we have an answer for the United States Postal
Service?
Chair Backus: -- That address doesn’t even exist any longer.
Director Snyder: -- Staff has talked with the post office on these issues but I have
to echo the Mayor that unfortunately once it goes into their system we have no
other control other than picking up the phone and making repeated requests and
inquiries as to resolution.
Mayor Lewis: It is easier to get mail from two weeks and older to a new address
than to stop.
Page 13 of 24
CA.0
Chair Backus: In this case this is a City mailing and the City posts these
addresses, we have to fix that correct --
Director Snyder, Mayor Lewis: Yes, agree.
Mayor Lewis: The City has so many data bases and if it came out of Bravo it could
have come out of the parks department or three or four different places.
Chair Backus: Is there would be a way, once address changes regardless of
which one is made, is there a way to track that residence or businesses so
duplicate mailings don’t get sent from the City.
Mayor Lewis: That is a really good point is to include in our communications to
resident/businesses, the question: if you are getting duplicate mailings please be
sure to let us know. In many contexts, for example the museum, unfortunately
they do some things on their own even though it is a partnership.
Chair Backus: They would still need to be mindful of expenses and if they are
doing a duplicate mail --
Mayor Lewis: -- I think that is a good point in future business no matter how this
turns out that we should be doing something from time to time with the mailings to
include the statement to resident/businesses to inform us of any duplicate
mailings. That is another good benefit of this discussion, good point.
Melissa Baeth: 18515 4th Place NE, Auburn, Washington. You are talking about --
it is a big safety issue that we have to renumber these five houses but the street is
still the same, the numbering isn’t going to be consistent with how fire and police
are supposed to be finding it anyway, so if you are just changing these numbers to
another thing that doesn’t make sense how does that make sense? I don’t see
how that improves response time for emergencies if that’s what you are stuck on
because if that’s what it was I would have no argument with this whatsoever, I
would not have an issue with it but you are not improving anything, just changing
it.
Mayor Lewis: I think we just need to bring police and fire in because that is their
point, which is why we are stuck in this so it is a specific statement from them that
is bringing this to us.
Melissa Baeth: Correct and I can see with some of them but in our particular area
and our particular case this doesn’t make sense.
Mayor Lewis: Again maybe just bringing fire and police back to this meeting.
Director Snyder: I want to assure the residents that the representatives from fire
and police plus addressing committee members and all department directors
Page 14 of 24
CA.0
reviewed the addresses; believe me keeping the directors in a room for three to
four hours and going through each address is a tough task but we did that with all
the directors and the committee. It did include each address, not a broad brush
look but sight by sight.
Chair Backus: It most likely won’t be the very next meeting (March 8th) because
that’s going to be at 4:00 p.m. (a short meeting due to Committee members
having other commitments that evening and some members being out of town on
the original day the meeting was to be scheduled (March 12th), but we can
discuss this on March 26th at 5:00 p.m. and plan on having fire authority and the
police representation here for that meeting.
Member Holman: Do I understand that what you are trying to achieve with fire and
police, and what they are trying to achieve is a consistent strategy to be applied
over the whole City not just this one neighborhood --
Mayor Lewis: Agree.
Member Holman: So that when I have a rookie under my wing and am training
him how to memorize addresses then this neighborhood is treated the same as a
neighborhood across town; I am sure there is more than one T street and I know
there is certainly more than one place in town but it would be numbered in the
same pattern, or similar pattern.
Director Snyder: I think Jeff Tate used the term logical before, relative to the fire
and police operational procedures. Member Holman: There is nothing logical
about addresses, I was a cop for 31 years and I had to memorize --
Director Snyder: I understand --
Member Holman: addresses --
Mayor Lewis: -- One house on one street --
Member Holman: -- That being said do you still expect the same, a Place is
different than a Street and which way an avenue runs, north, south, east, west --
you have that general -- I will tell you that most cops under the age of 30 now
have a Global Positioning System (GPS) in their car and use it.
Mayor Lewis: -- That is one of the problems that cops got done telling us is that it’s
all going to GPS. You can't count on that memory book any longer. Director
Snyder: It’s only as good as the input.
Vice-Chair Partridge: One point I would like make as you prepare for fire and
police, at least from my stand point is that there is logical and then there’s
common sense When I talk about responses and the fire department says there
going to be five extra seconds because of the conditions I think to some people
Page 15 of 24
CA.0
that would not be common sense that might be an issue as far as public
perception of that. But I would like to see some measurement of what all this
means. You’ve done all the hard work and identified all the problem areas and I’m
sure that on a scale from 1-10 there are areas that are riskier in terms of our
response time There’s one that I saw in here that nothing changed but A to 1. Unit
A to unit 1.
Chair Backus: -- No, there is more to them than that.
Director Snyder: -- Councilmember if I could interject for one second. I would be
careful because we’ve had these conversations with our emergency service
providers.
Chair Backus: -- Right.
Director Snyder: -- They don’t prioritize risk. There is risk and they look at it that
you need to address the situation so they don’t grade the risk factors. They looked
at these from their perspective as emergency service providers --
Chair Backus: Right --
Director Snyder: They made a determination from their perspective and
operational practices and procedures and they recommended that these changes
needed to be made but they don’t look at it -- correct me if I am wrong but they
don’t look at it that way. They don’t grade the risk. Vice-Chair Partridge: I’m telling
you, I agree with you, thank you I mean that’s the point I am making that you are
talking that as we move from that logical, the work they have done from a logical
sense has to be made to be common sense. That is the part of understanding of
what this really means and there are people that are going to be really disrupted
by this change and I -- you just heard right -- and what I loved hearing was the fact
that if it was an area of public safety like a child is going to get help verses not get
help and seconds counted I don’t know if anybody on this room would say
“whatever it costs”. I guess that’s what I am understanding what their logic -- if you
look at item number 22 the only thing that changed, 3305 M PL SE -- I think it is
3305 M PL SE #1 -- I mean there actually isn’t a unit number it’s just blank where
they put a unit #1 there. I am assuming they are going to be at that building.
There’s an area where there would be a unit #1 and unit #2 in the new one but it’s
getting down to some pretty minor changes that someone’s going to go back and
change their records as a result of that, that I noticed. I didn’t look through all 120
or 145 of them to figure out how deep the level of change was but from a common
sense standpoint it would help me to know when I ask people to disrupt their lives
to do this, that it is going to make sense from an emergency response standpoint
of what that means -- and they may have to identify that a little bit, and someone
said they were here in two minutes and that’s fast enough for them -- that’s a
common sense perspective, if it was a half an hour someone may have felt
different.
Page 16 of 24
CA.0
Mayor Lewis: Let’s do something else here; we have a full book of all the things
that have been done -- all of these we held -- all the testimony. Let’s give that to
all three of the Council Members.
Chair Backus: -- And I can tell you right now the police and the fire authority are
not going to come in here and tell you to change something for common
sense. There focus is going to be on the logical and the safety. There not going to
say -- it’s ok to blur the line for common sense, that’s not their role. That may be
our role but it is not their roll nor will I ever ask them to make that choice.
Mayor Lewis: -- I do need to make one more comment too -- to bring in the fire
authority and police department, we’re not going to have an open-ended thing
going on with fire and police.
Chair Backus: -- Sure --
Mayor Lewis: -- They are in a difficult spot just like staff always is. Most of the time
they aren’t in a position where they can say anything back and I am not going to
put them in that position.
Chair Backus: -- No --
Mayor Lewis: -- Questions from Council are just fine because you are the
individuals who are going to make the decision --
Chair Backus: -- Right, there will not be any "do you understand the common
sense"; that's our decision to make and we are going to be asking the fire
authority nor the police to go off of message --
Mayor Lewis: -- However, I would like part of this conversation given to fire and
police so that they heard all the -- actually I want this all transcribed so they have
all the individual testimony so that fire and police have that before they come
here -- I just want to make really sure that they have that before they come into
this room so that they know what the concerns are --
Director Snyder: -- Yes. --
Mayor Lewis: -- And they know what they have heard as far as when people arrive
and how quickly and all that stuff -- they aren’t ever going to tell you that an
additional five seconds is going to make a difference because that to an
emergency tech or a police officer is a long moment, an eternity, and they are
never going to say that’s ok. I’ve heard this conversation for the last year so that’s
never going to be alright as long as they are concerned.
Chair Backus: Kevin and Jeff wondering about, we have a very concerned
neighborhood that’s obviously here tonight in support of not changing but, what
other comments did you hear and how much support for the other areas that you
Page 17 of 24
CA.0
have listed for changes?
Director Snyder: I would say the primary concerns we’ve heard, particularly we
have with the residential community that was impacted and I would say that the
neighborhood that was represented tonight was definitely well represented and
gave input. We had other folks that came and I won’t say that people were
universally happy about it but I think other parts of the City were ok. Our next
meeting was with the commercial community; I would say that the commercial
community had significant sentiments that you are hearing tonight. We get that. At
the same time for all the same reasons that we have gone back over police and
fire along with the rest of the staff involved reached the same conclusions that
they need to be changed. I think that those parties are begrudgingly accepting of it
and understand the purpose of it. Our third meeting was another residential
meeting and we had one attendee who had been at our previous meeting I
believe.
Jeff Tate: We had one that was at the previous meeting and one that showed up
late.
Chair Backus: Was it because they had a bad address?
Director Snyder: So, just to summarize, I think the themes of life, safety, public
emergency response goes with the over riding conversation area. We heard very
strongly from different parties about the disrupting affect; the Mayor has pointed
out that we tried to put measures into place to somewhat reduce the impact -- I’m
not going to say it’s going to take away the entire impact; that would be
inappropriate for me to say. We are trying to mitigate it if we can, including the
possibility of claims for appropriate expenses and I just have to say we get it, I
can’t say I would feel any different if it was my address but, we are also trying to
balance the needs here and police and fire, emergency response is an important
issue. Even if it doesn’t seem like an important issue now the Mayor said it well, a
five second difference can mean a lot to those who are service providers and they
aren’t willing to give up on that.
Chair Backus: So one more question as John said, some of the only change that
was made is going from A to #1 or #2. Do we not do A, B, C, D in the City, is that
the standard that we --
Development Services Manager Tate: -- Right, there’s the, in our City addressing
guidelines there is a hierarchy of different street naming to building numbering and
then there is a secondary numbering tier -- and, some of these might help to look
at -- kind of on the ground what it would looks like to understand the context
because some of those changes where you see part of a duplex or a fourplex and
some of them are, like, the one you pointed out (3305) it doesn’t have a unit. The
duplex is 3205 and 3307 so a duplex should be both 3305 unit A and B so that
first unit doesn’t look like there is much of a change other than adding -- you are
pulling up that second unit in that duplex and getting that one right and changing
Page 18 of 24
CA.0
the whole building at the same time to make it right.
Mayor Lewis: One of the really difficult things is that we have apartments buildings
where the letters may go across (from building to building) and then back this way
(diagonal and back diagonal again). We had systems that were brought in from
almost every shape and size you want to have.
Chair Backus: That’s what I was just wondering because like, 3515 K Street SE A
moving to 3515 K Street SE #1.
Mr. Tate: I look at that and when I am looking at the tabular way that it is displayed
and I see the same thing. When I look at the map and I see you enter into a cul-
de-sac or you have six duplexes and some have unit 1 and 2 and some have unit
A and B and some have two different numbers assigned to the units in the same
building, that is what becomes confusing when you look at the entire cul-de-sac
and every building is done differently. So, in the individual it looks like it is a very
little change in that little community of six or seven duplexes getting the whole
neighborhood conforming under one format makes sense.
Chair Backus: That’s a good point.
Vice-Chair Partridge: One thing I love about the Committee’s structure is this is
where we get to gut things out and I may ask a question like wanting to hear some
comments and what does it mean. If police and fire cannot address that all I did
was ask the question. If they say they cannot answer it I am totally find with it. I
just want to make sure that if I can ask any question this is where we do it. That
was my point. The second one was that I rolled with police and fire for seven
years and responded to these conditions and saw how things worked and when
they called me it was usually on the worst situations and wasn’t on the easiest of
situations. So, I understand the impact and know what it means to be there when
something really critically is coming down so I am -- but I take the other -- when I
am here -- I’m going to ask the questions that help me better understand the
whole aspect of what that means. I think that’s where a lot of people live. If you
can’t go there then if the Council gets to discern that it will be important for us
know what type of variance we can make in applying those decisions. Maybe
that’s the bigger part of that is where I was going with that is can we, do we have
the variance to allow this area to not be impacted by this change?
Chair Backus: -- I was just going to say we ask the Council to determine what part
of this we have to --
Mayor Lewis: -- Totally up to Council --
Vice-Chair Partridge: -- Perfect, and that’s getting down to that so I think that’s as
we continue to review this, I want to know, I know what I am going to be after is
how much of this -- are we doing because it is a good time to get it done verses if
we are only doing it really being a severe -- obviously it wasn’t an emergency
Page 19 of 24
CA.0
enough when I started in Council -- we’re still talking about it after all this time and
there --
Mayor Lewis: -- No, no that’s not the case either, I asked them not to move this –
Vice-Chair Partridge -- Well --
Mayor Lewis: -- Just so I can finish --
Vice- Chair Partridge: -- Alright --
Mayor Lewis: -- I asked them not to bring this back until they were absolutely sure
and they were only doing those things that they flat knew had to be done. So I
forced -- matter fact they brought it back to me twice and I said I don’t think you
are done yet; don’t bring this to me until you are absolutely positive of what has to
be done and what we don’t have to do but make sure it is going to be once and
not again because nobody is going to want to go through this a second time
anywhere in this City, ever, so be right before you bring it causing it to stretch out
for quite a long time. The reasoning was there as police and fire were wanting to
do something but I was asking the directors and all the people involved and there
was a large group of people involved in this being absolutely sure as they possibly
could before this came back to the Committees, and that’s when we started
sending it out for the public but we had a number of meetings with a lot of
testimony bringing it up to this stage which they should be getting anyway. I would
also like, because it’s the only area that anyone is coming back from, is that
anything they would like to supply in writing prior to the next meeting they ought to
do that as well so the police and fire departments can see that as well.
Chair Backus: -- Did you all hear that as far as providing any letters or anything in
writing prior to that March 26th meeting so that police department and VRFA
would have availability of that in the packet that we provide to them?
Director Snyder: If I might Chair Backus --
Mayor Lewis: -- Well prior to --
Chair Backus: -- Yea, within the next week, would that be --
Director Snyder: -- Certainly and I would ask this for consistency and make sure it
is going to one place if they could go through Jeff Tate --
Mayor Lewis: -- Let’s get all the testimony, all the meetings, all this stuff because
there is a big book of it.
Director Snyder: The other thing I just want you to understand what the Mayor, in
response to his request we went out and rechecked all addresses and made the
addressing committee go back through each of them and discuss them making
sure they were of like mind still so in response to the Mayor’s instruction, we took
Page 20 of 24
CA.0
that very seriously which again that’s why the long awaited time frame between
the last time we talked about this and this time because we were methodical if you
will because we do want to make sure we are getting this right.
Vice-Chair Partridge: I appreciate when you jumped in there and concluded with
was,, when this is all done the point that I heard that was made is that we will
probably never going to have a perfect system. Meaning, everything being -- I
mean -- I know we are trying to get as close as we can --
Mayor Lewis: -- Actually this is going to be as best as anybody can physically
figure out how to do. Probably if it was perfect again there wouldn’t be any need
for any of this at any time.
Vice-Chair Partridge: That is what I am saying that we have taken our time to get
this done that as we begin now to roll out all the hard work, we take our time to get
it rolled out right and appropriately; and then probably, I am assuming that there
are some things that we’re just going to have to live with, things that are as perfect
as we can make them but they’re just going to be the way they are. And police
and fire will have these addresses down there until their changed; we’ll know
where there at -- I mean they probably already working these in terms of their
study -- no, as we improve them and make it work out. I think the good thing this
time is it’s been identified and that we know we have our spots that need to be
improved. How we implement that as the Chair was saying we have to -- that’s up
to us in this room.
Director Snyder: As the Mayor indicated this is, an ongoing process and our goal
is on an annual basis we will bring to you those necessary address changes for
your consideration as we continue to try to do corrective action to the best of our
ability to address the --
Mayor Lewis: -- One of the things is when someone builds something new and
then they put a different address on it than even what the City has given them and
had another one after we started this, a whole subdivision and they did it wrong
and we had to make them go back and do it over again.
Chair Backus: If I understand correctly this is a comprehensive list of all existing --
Director Snyder: -- Correct --
Chair Backus: -- Address changes; its not if you come back in within a year its not
going to say oops we forgot this pocket --
Director Snyder: -- Right --
Chair Backus: -- We’ve either annexed in a new area and there are addresses
that need to be corrected for that reason or there has been a new development
that addressed wrong to begin with.
Page 21 of 24
CA.0
Director Snyder: I want to assure you and Jeff knows this very well because I kind
of beat on him a little about it, for new development we are going to work
extremely hard to make sure that those mistakes you reference do not get
made. That is a legacy issue of the past that will not continue because to the best
of our ability because that is something we control. There are things that
happened in the past, in the annexation areas for example we didn’t control that
and we will have to deal with that as a repercussion issue --
Chair Backus: -- Right --
Director Snyder: But what we will control, s we will control --
Mayor Lewis: -- The only other issues that there might be is how many Pikes are
there in this town? Some future Council might say we have had enough of all of
the Pike Streets. There’s another one that I can think of off hand, and we have
joked about it, I and Harvey. I street, M Street, Harvey; and sooner or later
somebody is going to have to do something about that. But in this generation with
all the things that we could find there is no expectation on my part of coming back
here except if we finds things like new development or annexed areas --
Chair Backus: -- Or in building on a large piece of property that has one address
but is part of another.
Director Snyder: As I said I feel very confident in reference to VRFA’s
establishment going forward we’ve done a much better job but there are things in
the City prior to that, as the Mayor referenced, we may have to come back where
there are errors and we will try to minimize those. I think the process in place, the
book you see here, the formal process we have in place, the addressing
committee and the department directors all that intended to make sure these
issues are not part of the future. There are some legacy issues that we will deal
with, but and we’re trying to make sure that those are minimal as possible to void
the disruption that comes with this.
Micky Marquez: 1815 4th Place NE. Mr. Mayor was assisting in helping me make
my point, he brought up Pike Street, um, Pike Street is an extension that goes,
well, from one end to the other and it’s quite long. This question is for Kevin and
Jeff, how many 4th Places in downtown, 4th Place NE.
Jeff Tate: I think there is, I’m quite confident there is only one of them.
Micky Marquez: And that is our residence. If we are unique and if there is just one
4th Place NE and if we are grandfathered into that and the City does any
development off of 4th, which I doubt would happen, because everything off 4th
from Main to the river has already been established and I don’t believe there is
any more construction that can happen. There won’t be, I’m just making that
assumption, another 4th Place where he address being off the 1800 block are
Page 22 of 24
CA.0
back in that unique situation. We’re not a Pike, we’re not a M street, or a Harvey
road that extends eight or 14 blocks; we are unique 4th Place NE and there is no
other so that’s just my point, thank you.
Chair Backus: Ok.
Director Snyder: We will bring that back March 26th.
Chair Backus: If you have any letters you would like included in the record that will
be provided to the police department and VRFA for the meeting we have on
March 26th if you could have those to Jeff by next week. That way they’re
included in the packet of information that they receive and that we as Council
receive. Thank you very much for coming. Were there any other questions on the
addressing?
Committee indicated there were not.
C. Director's Report (Snyder)
Director Snyder updated Committee on the new laundry facility coming into town
that is going to be a job creator for us. The facility has been the opportunity to
get a Federal Tax Credit that expires later this year and we sat down with them
and put a timeline together and through Development Services Manager Tate and
Planning Manager Chamberlain and folks from public works and others we are
exceeding their timelines. They are going to be well positioned to take advantage
of this tax credit by the timeline. They had thought about splitting the project into
various parts but the City assured them they did not need to do so as it would
have costs them more money and more time and so they are able to be well
positioned to start building very soon.
The similar situation is present for the Auto Zone store next to the Pick-Quick
restaurant. We are now two and a half weeks ahead of them and they are very
pleased with our performance. Similarly situation with our new Coastal Farm and
Ranch. They have started demolition and the building plans have been issued
and are on target to open up in May.
D. PCDC Status Matrix (Snyder)
Committee had no questions regarding changes in the matrix.
V. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning and Community
Development Committee, Chair Backus adjourned the meeting at 6:25.
APPROVED THIS ________ day of _________________, 2012.
Page 23 of 24
CA.0
____________________________________
Nancy Backus - Chair
____________________________________
Tina Kriss - Planning and Development
Secretary
Page 24 of 24
CA.0
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 4805 - Consolidated Annual Performance
and Evaluation Report (CAPER)
Date:
February 29, 2012
Department:
Administration
Attachments:
Resolution No. 4805
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Committee to review and move forward Resolution No. 4805 accepting the 2011
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER).
Background Summary:
The Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) is written and
submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annually. Its
primary purpose is to inform the citizens of Auburn where Federal dollars are being
spent, by whom, and what the money accomplishes. It also serves as an evaluation tool
and begins the process of setting spending goals for the next year.
The CAPER is an overall review of housing and community development activities that
were funded by the Community Development Block Grant program in the year 2010.
Furthermore, HUD regulations stipulate the City solicit comments and public review of its
annual CAPER.
A City Council public hearing on the CAPER is scheduled for the Monday, March 19,
2012 City Council meeting. Public Notice of the CAPER's availability was provided by
publication in the Seattle Times and posted on the City of Auburn's website. No
comments have been received regarding the CAPER to date.
At its March 19, 2012 meeting, the Council can act on the CAPER by accepting it by
resolution. The resolution directs staff submit the report to HUD.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Hursh
Meeting Date:March 8, 2012 Item Number:ACT.0
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.0
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.0
Resolution No. 4805
March 19, 2012
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 4805
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, TO ACCEPT THE CONSOLIDATED
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER)
FOR THE 2011 PROGRAM YEAR.
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn was designated as an entitlement
community by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
for its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the CDBG require the City prepare and
submit a "Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER)”
for each program year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Auburn heard and considered
public testimony on March 19, 2012 about the CAPER for its 2011 program
year. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, IN A REGULAR MEETING DULY ASSEMBLED, HEREWITH
RESOLVES THAT:
Section 1. That the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER) for the 2011 program year is accepted.
Section 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such
administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of
ACT.0
Resolution No. 4805
March 19, 2012
Page 2 of 2
this legislation and submit the report to HUD.
Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force
upon passage and signatures hereon.
DATED and SIGNED this ______ day of ______________, 2012.
CITY OF AUBURN
______________________________
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
Danielle E. Daskam
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Daniel B. Heid
City Attorney
ACT.0
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6400
Date:
February 27, 2012
Department:
Finance
Attachments:
Memo
Ordinance No. 6400
Schedule A
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Attached is proposed budget amendment #7 for your review.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Finance, Public Works
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Coleman
Meeting Date:March 8, 2012 Item Number:DI.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.A
Interoffice Memorandum
To: City Council
From: Shelley Coleman, Finance Director
CC: Pete Lewis, Mayor
Date: February 27, 2012
Re: Ordinance 6400 - 2012 Budget Amendment #7
Attached is proposed budget amendment #7 for your review. At the end of 2011, some construction
projects, consulting services, and purchases of furniture and supplies remain outstanding. Carryforward of
the budget authority from 2011 to 2012 is necessary to enable the City to complete these projects. The
following is a description of the significant changes included in this budget amendment.
x Construction Project Carryforwards: Carryforward unspent funding for various transportation,
street preservation, local revitalization and park projects. These carryforwards constitute the
majority of the proposed changes in this budget amendment. Significant projects being carried
forward to 2012 include:
o ts: A. Street NW Extension, W. Valley Highway; M Street Grade
Separation; Local Street and Pavement Preservation projects;
Transportation Projec
Park Projects: Lea Hil
Local Revitalization P
town
Water Utility Proj
Sewer Utility Proj
Storm Utility Proj
Airport Projects: Run
o l Park replacement; Auburn Environmental Park; Fenster Levee
Setback;
o rojects: So. Division Street Promenade; Downtown Pedestrian
Lighting; City Hall North Plaza; Downtown Art; City Hall Plaza Construction; and Down
Pedestrian Kiosks;
o ects: Water Supply Charges; SCADA System Improvements; Lakeland
Hills Booster Pump Station; Lakeland Hills Reservoir #6
o ects: Sewer Utility Repair and Replacement; SCADA System
Improvements
o ects: Local Street Pavement Preservation; Storm Pipeline Repair and
Replacement; SCADA System Improvements;
o way Lighting; Hangar ROW 9&10
x Operating Expense Carryforwards: Carryforward unspent funding for contracted professional
services, furniture replacement and supplies. These carryfowards are primarily included in the
General Fund and total approximately $311,000.
DI.A
x Golf Course Debt Management: Moves $392,000 in budgeted 2012 debt service payments fro
the Golf Course Fund to a newly established Golf Course Debt Service Fund (Fund #417), and
funds Golf Course Debt by way of inter-fund transfers from the General Fund.
m
serve
ill
The 2012 budget for the Golf Course Fund includes debt service principal and interest payments for
general obligation bonds related to the construction and improvements to the clubhouse. Golf
Course debt service is the second largest cost center for the Auburn Golf Course, behind salaries
and wages. Removal of this cost center will enable the Golf Course enterprise fund to operate
within its current level of revenues, which has declined as a result of the economic recession and
weather conditions.
x Cemetery Cash Flow Management: Authorizes a $200,000 transfer from the Cumulative Re
Fund to the Cemetery Fund for purposes of cash flow management. Approval of this transfer w
increase the working capital of the Cemetery Fund, enabling it to meet anticipated cash flow needs
during the remainder of 2012.
Table 1 below summarizes the 2012 budget, as amended, under this proposed Ordinance:
Table 1: 2012 Budget As Amended
2012 Approved Budget $224,188,656
Budget Amendment #7 (#6400)
20,959,830
Budget as Amended $245,148,486
Attachments:
1. Proposed Ordinance #6400 (budget adjustment #7)
2. Summary of proposed 2012 budget adjustments by fund and department (Schedule A)
DI.A
ORDINANCE NO. 6400
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
6339, THE 2011-2012 BIENNIAL BUDGET ORDINANCE AS
AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 6351, ORDINANCE NO.
6352, ORDINANCE NO. 6362, ORDINANCE NO. 6370,
ORDINANCE NO. 6378 AND ORDINANCE NO. 6379
AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF AUBURN
2011-2012 BUDGET AS SET FORTH IN SCHEDULE “A”
WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council at its regular meeting of December 6,
2010, adopted Ordinance No. 6339 which adopted the City of Auburn 2011-2012
Biennial budget; and
WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council at its regular meeting of February 22,
2011, adopted Ordinance No. 6351 which amended Ordinance No. 6339 which
adopted the City of Auburn 2011-2012 Biennial budget; and
WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council at its regular meeting of April 4, 2011,
adopted Ordinance No. 6352 which amended Ordinance No. 6351; and
WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council at its regular meeting of July 18, 2011,
adopted Ordinance No. 6362 which amended Ordinance No. 6352; and
WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council at its regular meeting of September 6,
2011 adopted Ordinance No. 6370 which amended Ordinance 6362; and
WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council at its regular meeting of December 5,
2011 adopted Ordinance No. 6378 which amended Ordinance 6370; and
WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council at its regular meeting of December 5,
2011 adopted Ordinance No. 6379 which amended Ordinance 6378; and
-------------------------
Ordinance No. 6400
February 1, 2012
Page 1 of 3
DI.A
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn deems it necessary to appropriate additional
funds to the various funds of the 2012 budget; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance has been approved by one more than the
majority of all councilpersons in accordance with RCW 35A.34.200.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Amendment of the 2011-2012 Biennial Budget. The 2011-
2012 Biennial Budget of the City of Auburn is amended pursuant to Chapter 35A.34
RCW, to reflect the revenues and expenditures as shown on Schedule “A” attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Mayor of the City of Auburn,
Washington is hereby authorized to utilize revenue and expenditure amounts
shown on said Schedule “A”. A copy of said Schedule “A” is on file with the City
Clerk and available for public inspection.
Section 2. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the
application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, the
remainder of such code, ordinance or regulation or the application thereof to other
person or circumstance shall not be affected.
Section 3. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to
implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the
directives of this legislation.
-------------------------
Ordinance No. 6400
February 1, 2012
Page 2 of 3
DI.A
-------------------------
Ordinance No. 6400
February 1, 2012
Page 3 of 3
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided
by law.
INTRODUCED: _______________
PASSED: ____________________
APPROVED: _________________
____________________________
PETER B. LEWIS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Danielle E. Daskam
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Daniel B. Heid
City Attorney
PUBLISHED:__________________
DI.A
Schedule A
Summary of 2012 Budget Adjustments by Fund
Budget Amendment # 7 Ordinance 6400
General Fund (#001)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
General Fund
2012 Adopted Budget 10,487,938 49,252,800 54,612,340 5,128,398
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)1,064,250 798,500 1,839,080 23,670
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)-
-
Municipal Court
Court Interpreter -State Distribution 11,760 11,760
Community & Human Services
Carry forward Human Services contracted professional services 55,500 55,500 -
Carry forward Cultural Connections Center supplies 3,500 3,500 -
Planning
Carry forward professional services for wetland assessment 20,000 20,000 -
SCORE
Carry forward SCORE billings for Benton County & King County 38,500 38,500 -
Police
New Grant for Citizen Corps Program 5,440 5,440 -
Carry forward Grant funds and expenses for the following programs:
2009 JAG program 3,080 3,080 -
2009 JAG equipment 9,060 9,060 -
2010 JAG program 3,030 3,030 -
2011 JAG program 33,630 33,630 -
RSOprogram 8230 8230 - RSO program 8,230 8,230 -
Bulletproof Vest Program 1,220 1,220 -
Auto Theft Task Force 53,550 - 53,550
Target Zero 7,890 7,890 -
High Visibility 6,420 6,420 -
Emergency Management Performance Grant 25,510 25,510 -
Engineering
Carry forward budget for new signal poles 15,100 15,100 -
Carry forward SWIBS Bridge Inspections 5,000 5,000 -
Parks
Carry forward Senior Center furniture replacement budget 5,000 5,000 -
Non Departmental
Transfer Out to Golf Course Debt Service Fund 392,100 7 (392,100)
Carry forward Mill Creek Restoration project 10,100 - 10,100 -
BA#7 Total 152,700 168,820 648,310 (326,790)
2012 Revised Budget 11,704,888 50,220,120 57,099,730 4,825,278
Total Resources / Expenditures 61,925,008 61,925,008
1
DI.A
Schedule A
Summary of 2012 Budget Adjustments by Fund
Budget Amendment # 7 Ordinance 6400
Arterial Street Fund (#102)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 265,018 14,715,500 14,806,900 173,618
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)982,406 (1,480,300) (826,100) 328,206
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
A St NW Extension
Carry forward Federal grant, Contributions, Fund Balance & Capital expense 53,750 1,115,340
Reduce Developer Contribution -Multicare (1,560)
Carry forward capital project expenses 1,167,530
Subtotal A St NW Extension 53,750 1,113,780 1,167,530 -
W Valley Hwy
Carry forward State grant 680,450
Carry forward Transfer In- Impact Fees 170,120 1
Carry forward capital project expenses 850,570
Subtotal W Valley Hwy - 850,570 850,570 -
M St Grade Separation
Carry forward Transfer In -Impact Fees and Beg. Fund Balance 150,000 566,900 2
Carry forward capital project expenses 716,900
Subtotal M St Grade Separation 150,000 566,900 716,900 -
AWS Fir to Hemlock
Carry forward State grant 236,160
Carry forward MIT match 59,090
Carry forward capital project expenses 295,250
Subtotal AWS Fir to Hemlock - 295,250 295,250 -
AWS Dogwood to Fir
Carry forward Federal grant and Beg. Fund Balance 8,460 39,920
Carry forward capital project expenses 48,380
Subtotal AWS Dogwood to Fir 8,460 39,920 48,380 -
So Auburn ITS Expansion
Carry forward Federal Grant & capital project expenses - 42,500 42,500 -
8th St NE U Turn Improvements
Carry forward Federal Grant & capital project expenses - 50,000 41,400 8,600
Lea Hill Safe Routes to School
Carry forward Federal Grant & capital project expenses - 25,000 25,000 -
Carry forward capital project expenses for the following projects
S 277th Wetland Mitigation 32,050 32,050 -
37th St SE & R St SE Ped connector 15,330 15,330 -
41st & A St SE Access Study 6,840 6,840 -
AWS & M St SE 5,170 5,170 -
104th & Green River Rd Study 1,350 1,350 -
Auburn Pacific Trail 1,000 1,000 -
8th St NE & R St NE Signal 1,000 1,000 -
BA#7 Total 274,950 2,983,920 3,250,270 8,600
2012 Revised Budget 1,522,374 16,219,120 17,231,070 510,424
Total Resources / Expenditures 17,741,494 17,741,494
2
DI.A
Schedule A
Summary of 2012 Budget Adjustments by Fund
Budget Amendment # 7 Ordinance 6400
Local Street Fund (#103)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 1,095,806 2,155,000 2,000,000 1,250,806
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)(277,271) - 110 (277,381)
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
Carry forward capital project expenses for the following projects
Annual Local Street Impr. Program 730,000 730,000 -
2011 Local Street Pavement Preservation 291,000 291,000 -
- - - -
BA#7 Total 1,021,000 - 1,021,000 -
2012 Revised Budget 1,839,535 2,155,000 3,021,110 973,425
Total Resources / Expenditures 3,994,535 3,994,535
Arterial Street Preservation Fund (#105)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 35,089 1,501,500 1,500,000 36,589
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)412,761 - - 412,761
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
-
Carry forward capital project expenses for the following projects
Annual Arterial Crack Seal Program 60,000 60,000 -
2011 Arterial/Collector Pavement Preservation 6,500 - 6,500 -
- - - -
BA#7 Total 66,500 - 66,500 -
2012 Revised Budget 514,350 1,501,500 1,566,500 449,350
Total Resources / Expenditures 2,015,850 2,015,850
Cumulative Reserve Fund (#122)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 5,601,564 24,000 - 5,625,564
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)(369,882) - - (369,882)
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
-
Auburn Environmental Park
Carry forward Transfer Out to Fund 321 for capital project expenses 26,520 26,520 5 -
Cemetery Fund
Transfer Out to Cemetery Fund to meet 2012 cash flow needs - - 200,000 6 (200,000)
BA#7 Total 26,520 - 226,520 (200,000)
2012 Revised Budget 5,258,202 24,000 226,520 5,055,682
Total Resources / Expenditures 5,282,202 5,282,202
3
DI.A
Schedule A
Summary of 2012 Budget Adjustments by Fund
Budget Amendment # 7 Ordinance 6400
Mitigation Fees Fund (#124)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 1,665,773 902,000 1,120,700 1,447,073
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)78,393 - 537,000 (458,607)
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
-
Carry forward Transfer Out Impact Fees for following projects
W Valley Hwy 170,120 170,120 1 -
M Street Grade Separation 566,900 566,900 2 -
Mohawks Plastics Site Mitigation 9,620 9,620 3 -
Misc Park Improvements (Park Impact Fees)50,000 50,000 4 -
BA#7 Total 796,640 - 796,640 -
2012 Revised Budget 2,540,806 902,000 2,454,340 988,466
Total Resources / Expenditures 3,442,806 3,442,806
Municipal Park Construction Fund (#321)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 201,868 1,874,100 1,979,100 96,868
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)305,995 18,150,900 18,399,200 57,695
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
Lea Hill Park Replacement
Carry forward GRCC reimbursement and capital expense 129,790 129,790 -
Misc. Park Improvements
Transfer In -Park Impact Fees and capital expense 50,000 4 50,000 - ppp ,,
Auburn Environmental Park
Carry forward State grant and Beg. Fund Bal 11,800 26,520
Carry forward Transfer In from Cumulative Reserve Fund 26,520 5
Carry forward capital expense 64,840
Subtotal Auburn Environmental Park 11,800 53,040 64,840 -
Fenster Levee Setback
Carry forward Federal Grant 50,710
Carry forward State Grant 29,490
Carry forward capital expense 80,200
Subtotal Fenster Levee Setback - 80,200 80,200 -
BA#7 Total 11,800 313,030 324,830 -
2012 Revised Budget 519,663 20,338,030 20,703,130 154,563
Total Resources / Expenditures 20,857,693 20,857,693
4
DI.A
Schedule A
Summary of 2012 Budget Adjustments by Fund
Budget Amendment # 7 Ordinance 6400
Capital Improvements Fund (#328)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 2,390,706 1,737,700 1,159,100 2,969,306
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)3,267,059 15,000 2,080,600 1,201,459
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
2011 Citywide Sidewalk Repair and Replacement
Carry forward capital expenses 180,000 180,000 -
Traffic Signal Improvements - Carry forward 2010 and 2011 capital expenses
Carry forward 2011 capital expenses 34,520 34,520 -
Carry forward 2010 capital expenses 9,270 9,270 -
City Hall Remodel
Carry forward 2011 capital expenses 39,060 39,060 -
Mohawk Plastics Wetland Mitigation
Carry forward Transfer In from fund 124 & capital expenses - 9,620 3 9,620 -
12th St SE/ AWS Intersection
Carry forward capital expenses 2,000 - 2,000 -
- - - -
BA#7 Total 264,850 9,620 274,470 -
2012 Revised Budget 5,922,615 1,762,320 3,514,170 4,170,765
Total Resources / Expenditures 7,684,935 7,684,935
LocalRevitalizationFund(#330)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012Expenditures
Ending Fund
BalanceLocal Revitalization Fund (#330)Balance Revenues 2012 Expenditures Balance
2012 Adopted Budget - - - -
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)806,907 116,100 668,500 254,507
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
So. Division St. Promenade Project
Carry forward EDA Grant , Beg. Fund Balance and Capital expenses 1,075,120 730,780 1,805,900 -
Carry forward capital expenses for the following projects
Downtown Pedestrian Lighting Replacement 440,090 440,090 -
City Hall North Plaza 51,260 51,260 -
Downtown Art 40,000 40,000 -
City Hall Plaza Construction 49,700 49,700 -
Downtown Pedestrian Kiosks 26,440 26,440 -
- - - -
BA#7 Total 1,682,610 730,780 2,413,390 -
2012 Revised Budget 2,489,517 846,880 3,081,890 254,507
Total Resources / Expenditures 3,336,397 3,336,397
5
DI.A
Schedule A
Summary of 2012 Budget Adjustments by Fund
Budget Amendment # 7 Ordinance 6400
Water Fund (#430)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 2,577,279 11,624,400 12,867,420 1,334,259
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)7,080,418 (1,153,750) 5,070,250 856,418
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
Carry forward consultant agreement for Annual Hydraulic Model Update 85,490 85,490 -
Carry forward Equipment for Muddog Excavator and Water Service trucks 72,500 72,500 -
Carry forward capital expenses for the following projects:
Water Supply Charges 3,000,000 3,000,000 -
SCADA System Improvements 1,085,310 1,085,310 -
Lakeland Hills Booster Pump Station 718,650 718,650 -
Lakeland Hills Reservoir 6 402,000 402,000 -
2011 Local Street Pavement reconstruction Ph 2 266,900 266,900 -
Academy Booster Pump Station 200,750 200,750 -
132nd Ave SE Tacoma Pipeline 5 Intertie 160,800 160,800 -
A St NW Corridor 92,760 92,760 -
Water Comp Plan update 2,030 - 2,030 -
BA#7 Total 6,087,190 - 6,087,190 -
2012 Revised Budget 15,744,887 10,470,650 24,024,860 2,190,677
Total Resources / Expenditures 26,215,537 26,215,537
Sewer Fund (#431)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 3,172,444 18,361,600 20,472,820 1,061,224
BA#6(Adopted;ordinance#6379)6184655 75600 627000 5633255BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)6,184,655 75,600 627,000 5,633,255
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
Carry forward capital expenses for the following projects:
Sewer Facility Repair & Replacement 680,000 680,000 -
SCADA System Improvements 670,260 670,260 -
Sewer & Storm Pump Station Rep (Ellingson & Dogwood)300,000 300,000 -
2009-2010 Sewer Repair & Replacement 253,250 253,250 -
Street Utility Improvements 80,000 - 80,000 -
BA#7 Total 1,983,510 - 1,983,510 -
2012 Revised Budget 11,340,609 18,437,200 23,083,330 6,694,479
Total Resources / Expenditures 29,777,809 29,777,809
6
DI.A
Schedule A
Summary of 2012 Budget Adjustments by Fund
Budget Amendment # 7 Ordinance 6400
Storm Drainage Fund (#432)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 1,842,732 7,923,300 8,323,710 1,442,322
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)3,804,846 (436,800) 2,506,530 861,516
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
Carry forward capital expenses for the following projects:
2012 Local Street Pavement Preservation Phase 2 425,400 425,400 -
2011 Storm Pipeline Repair & Replacement 377,740 377,740 -
SCADA System Improvements 363,250 363,250 -
White River Storm Pump Station Replacement 215,000 215,000 -
Well 1 Improvements 151,200 151,200 -
S 296th St & Bry's Cove Storm Pond Improvement 58,180 58,180 -
2010 Local Street Pavement Preservation 11,790 11,790 -
North Central Storm Improvements - Phase 1 4,950 - 4,950 -
BA#7 Total 1,607,510 - 1,607,510 -
2012 Revised Budget 7,255,088 7,486,500 12,437,750 2,303,838
Total Resources / Expenditures 14,741,588 14,741,588
Airport Fund (#435)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 578,532 652,380 738,610 492,302
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)336,137 - 250,440 85,697
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
Increase budget for Airport Management Fees 13,300 (13,300)
Additional budget professional services (Reid Middleton)40,000 (40,000)
Carry forward funding for the following projects - Carry forward funding for the following projects
Hangar row 9 & 10 Repair 3,950 3,950 -
Runway Lighting Grant Funding, Beg. Fund Balance and Capital expense 2,230 87,140 89,370 -
BA#7 Total 6,180 87,140 146,620 (53,300)
2012 Revised Budget 920,849 739,520 1,135,670 524,699
Total Resources / Expenditures 1,660,369 1,660,369
Cemetery Fund (#436)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 146,198 942,600 1,075,880 12,918
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)60,431 - (34,590) 95,021
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
Adjust estimated beginning fund balance for 2011 year end financial activity (148,100) (148,100)
Transfer In from Cumulative Reserve to meet cash flow needs 200,000 6 200,000
- - - -
BA#7 Total (148,100) 200,000 - 51,900
2012 Revised Budget 58,529 1,142,600 1,041,290 159,839
Total Resources / Expenditures 1,201,129 1,201,129
7
DI.A
Schedule A
Summary of 2012 Budget Adjustments by Fund
Budget Amendment # 7 Ordinance 6400
Golf Course Fund (#437)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 95,488 1,877,700 1,943,550 29,638
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)185,924 - (66,710) 252,634
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
Adjust estimated beginning fund balance -
Move Debt Service Interest to Fund 417 (177,100) 177,100
Move Debt Service Principal to Fund 417 - - (215,000) 215,000
BA#7 Total - - (392,100) 392,100
2012 Revised Budget 281,412 1,877,700 1,484,740 674,372
Total Resources / Expenditures 2,159,112 2,159,112
New Fund
Golf Course Debt Service Fund (#417)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget - - - -
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)- - - -
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
Transfer In from General Fund for Golf Course Debt Service 392,100 7- 392,100
Move Debt Service Interest from Fund 437 - - 177,100 (177,100)
Move Debt Service Principal from Fund 437 - - 215,000 (215,000)
BA#7 Total - 392,100 392,100 -
2012 Revised Budget - 392,100 392,100 -
Total Resources / Expenditures 392,100 392,100
Insurance Fund (#501)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 2,348,069 3,800 58,700 2,293,169
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)(156,237) - - (156,237)
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
Adjust estimated beginning fund balance
Increase Unemployment Claims - - 145,000 (145,000)
BA#7 Total - - 145,000 (145,000)
2012 Revised Budget 2,191,832 3,800 203,700 1,991,932
Total Resources / Expenditures 2,195,632 2,195,632
8
DI.A
Schedule A
Summary of 2012 Budget Adjustments by Fund
Budget Amendment # 7 Ordinance 6400
Facilities Fund (#505)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 346,439 3,658,200 3,548,540 456,099
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)450,085 195,000 604,670 40,415
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
Carry forward funding for the following projects
McKinstry Energy Conservation Program Improvement 270,640 270,640 -
Jacobsen Tree Farm Demolition project MS1110 78,650 78,650 -
- - - -
BA#7 Total 349,290 - 349,290 -
2012 Revised Budget 1,145,814 3,853,200 4,502,500 496,514
Total Resources / Expenditures 4,999,014 4,999,014
Information Services Fund (#518)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 2,097,797 4,351,070 5,006,990 1,441,877
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)286,836 48,000 138,400 196,436
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
Carry forward Grant funded IS COPS Equipment 57,740 57,740 -
Carry forward 2011 Program Improvements:-
CAD Replacement Project 30,000 30,000 -
Electronic Plan Review Program 40,000 40,000 -
Spillman Superforms 50,000 50,000 -
Multimedia Refresh for Council Chambers 75,000 75,000 -
Carry forward 2011 Projects to be completed in 2012
SCORE Communications Interface 25,000 25,000 -
Online Timekeeping/TOPS 24,000 24,000 -
Infrastructure Installs for outlying facilities 30,000 30,000 -
CRW Upgrade 30,000 30,000 -
Cartegraph Software Enhancements 30,000 30,000 -
- - - -
BA#7 Total 334,000 57,740 391,740 -
2012 Revised Budget 2,718,633 4,456,810 5,537,130 1,638,313
Total Resources / Expenditures 7,175,443 7,175,443
9
DI.A
Schedule A
Summary of 2012 Budget Adjustments by Fund
Budget Amendment # 7 Ordinance 6400
Equipment Rental Fund (#550)
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 2,858,954 3,073,250 3,098,660 2,833,544
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)803,831 - 101,840 701,991
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)
Carry forward funding for following projects
Capital Equipment-Fleet vehicles to be purchased in 2012 1,404,610 1,404,610 -
M & O Vehicle Bay & Storage capital project expense 54,920 54,920 -
Fuel System Improvements capital improvements expense 40,000 - 40,000 -
BA#7 Total 1,499,530 - 1,499,530 -
2012 Revised Budget 5,162,315 3,073,250 4,700,030 3,535,535
Total Resources / Expenditures 8,235,565 8,235,565
Grand Total - All Funds
Beg. Fund
Balance
2012
Revenues 2012 Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
2012 Adopted Budget 43,633,003 137,821,900 147,921,880 33,533,023
BA#6 (Adopted; ordinance #6379)25,060,843 17,672,910 32,741,610 9,992,143
BA#7 (Proposed ordinance #6400)16,016,680 4,943,150 21,232,320 (272,490)
2012 Revised Budget 84,710,526 160,437,960 201,895,810 43,252,676
Total Resources / Expenditures 245,148,486 245,148,486
February 22, 2012
Prepared by Auburn Financial Planning
F:\Budget Directory\2012 Budget\Amendments\BA#7\Budget Adjustments SummaryF:\Budget Directory\2012 Budget\Amendments\BA#7\Budget Adjustments Summary
10
DI.A
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 4796
Date:
February 24, 2012
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Resolution No. 4796
2012 Stormwater Management Program
2011 Annual Report
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Resolution No. 4796 approves the Stormwater Management Program for implementation
in the City of Auburn and the Mayor is authorized to include a copy of this program in the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Western Washington Phase II
Municipal Stormwater Permit annual report to the Washington State Department of
Ecology.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Public Works
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Carlaw/Thorn
Meeting Date:March 8, 2012 Item Number:DI.B
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.B
-----------------------------
Resolution No. 4796
January 31, 2012
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 4796
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE 2012
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO INCLUDE A COPY OF THE PROGRAM IN THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
WESTERN WASHINGTON PHASE II MUNICIPAL STORMWATER
PERMIT ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2011 TO THE WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
WHEREAS, The Washington State Department of Ecology issued a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Western Washington Phase II
Municipal Stormwater Permit that regulates the discharge of stormwater from
municipal stormwater systems; and
WHEREAS, the City operates a municipal stormwater system and is
regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Western
Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit; and
WHEREAS, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit requires
development and implementation of a Stormwater Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the Stormwater Management Program is required to be
updated annually;
WHEREAS, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit requires submittal
of an Annual Report which is to include a copy of the updated Stormwater
Management Program.
DI.B
-----------------------------
Resolution No. 4796
January 31, 2012
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. That the updated Stormwater Management Program is
approved for implementation in the City of Auburn in substantial conformity with
the copy of the Program attached hereto, marked as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such
administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of
this legislation, including submitting a copy of the Program with the City’s
Annual Report to the Department of Ecology.
Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force
upon passage and signatures hereon.
Dated and Signed this _____ day of ____________, 2012.
CITY OF AUBURN
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________
Daniel B. Heid,
City Attorney
DI.B
Resolution No. 4796
Exhibit “A”
CITY OF AUBURN
2012 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
City of Auburn, WA
March 2012
DI.B
Table of Contents City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan
ii
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Regulatory Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 City of Auburn Regulated Area ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Compliance ............................................................................................. 2
1.5 SWMP Implementation Responsibilities .......................................................................................................... 2
1.6 Document Organization ................................................................................................................................... 3
2. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................... 1
2.1 Permit Requirements ....................................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Current Compliance Activities .......................................................................................................................... 1
2.3 Planned 2012 Compliance Activities ................................................................................................................ 2
3. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH .................................................................................................................. 1
3.1 Permit Requirements ....................................................................................................................................... 1
3.2 Current Compliance Activities .......................................................................................................................... 1
3.3 Planned 2012 Compliance Activities ................................................................................................................ 2
4. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 1
4.1 Permit Requirements ....................................................................................................................................... 1
4.2 Current Compliance Activities .......................................................................................................................... 1
4.3 Planned 2012 Compliance Activities ................................................................................................................ 1
5. ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION ........................................................................................... 1
5.1 Permit Requirements ....................................................................................................................................... 1
5.2 Current Compliance Activities .......................................................................................................................... 1
5.3 Planned 2012 Compliance Activities ................................................................................................................ 2
6. CONTROLLING RUNOFF FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT, AND CONSTRUCTION SITES .... 1
6.1 Permit Requirements ....................................................................................................................................... 1
6.2 Current Compliance Activities .......................................................................................................................... 1
6.3 Planned 2012 Compliance Activities ................................................................................................................ 2
7. POLLUTION PREVENTION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS ............... 1
7.1 Permit Requirements ....................................................................................................................................... 1
7.2 Current Compliance Activities .......................................................................................................................... 1
7.3 Planned 2012 Compliance Activities ................................................................................................................ 2
8. MONITORING ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
8.1 Permit Requirements ....................................................................................................................................... 1
8.2 Current Compliance Activities .......................................................................................................................... 2
8.3 Planned 2012 Compliance Activities ................................................................................................................ 2
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................................. A-1
Acronyms and Definitions from Permit ................................................................................................................. A-1
DI.B
iii
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. 2012 Stormwater Management Administration Program Work Plan ……………………………..………2-2
Table 3-1. 2012 Public Education and Outreach Work Plan ……………………………..…………………………….3-2
Table 4-1. 2012 Public Involvement Work Plan…………………………..………………………………………. …….4-2
Table 5-1. 2012 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Work Plan ……………………………………………….5-2
Table 6-1. 2012 Controlling Runoff from Development, Redevelopment, and Construction Sites Work Plan……6-2
Table 7-1. 2012 Pollution Prevention and Operations and Maintenance Work Plan………………………………..7-2
Table 8-1. 2012 Water Quality Monitoring Work Plan…………………………………………………………………..8-2
DI.B
1
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
CITY OF AUBURN 2012
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
This document presents the City of Auburn’s Stormwater Management Program (SWMP). Preparation and
maintenance of this SWMP is required by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) as a
condition of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (the Phase II Permit). The
Phase II permit covers discharges from regulated small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s).
The permit to discharge stormwater is designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants, protect water quality,
and meet the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act.
Appendix A includes acronyms and definitions from the Permit to help the reader understand the City’s
Stormwater Management Program.
1.2 Regulatory Background
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program is a requirement of the
federal Clean Water Act, which is intended to protect and restore waters for “fishable, swimmable” uses. The
federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delegated permit authority to state environmental
agencies, and these agencies can set permit conditions in accordance with and in addition to the minimum
federal requirements. In Washington, the NPDES-delegated permit authority is the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology).
In Washington, municipalities with a population of over 100,000 (as of the 1990 census) were designated as
Phase I communities and must comply with Ecology’s Phase I NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit.
Auburn’s 1990 census was below the 100,000 threshold, and the City must comply with the Phase II
Municipal Stormwater Permit. About 100 other municipalities in Washington must also comply with the
Phase II Permit, along with Auburn, as operators of small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s).
Ecology’s Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit is available on Ecology’s website at
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/phaseIIww/wwphiipermit.html
The Permit allows municipalities to discharge stormwater runoff from municipal drainage systems into the
state’s water bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands) as long as municipalities implement programs to
protect water quality by reducing the discharge of “non-point source” pollutants to the “maximum extent
practicable” (MEP) through application of Permit-specified “best management practices” (BMPs). The BMPs
specified in the Permit are collectively referred to as the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) and
grouped under the following Program components:
Public Education and Outreach
Public Involvement
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Controlling Runoff from Development, Redevelopment, and Construction Sites
Pollution Prevention and Municipal Operation and Maintenance
DI.B
1: Introduction City of Auburn 2012 SWMP
2
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
Monitoring
The Permit issued by Ecology became effective on February 16, 2007, was modified on June 17, 2009 and
expires on February 15, 2012. In 2011 the State Legislature passed and the Governor signed Engrossed
Substitute House Bill 1478 which affected the re-issuance of the updated Municipal Stormwater General
Permits. ESHB 1478 requires Ecology to re-issue the current Phase II permits with no modification in July
2012 for a period of one year, and to re-issue the next updated Phase II permits in July 2012 with an effective
date of August 2013. Until the new permit becomes effective the City will continue to operate under the
existing 2007 permit in accordance with WAC 173-226-220(3). The Permit requires the City to report
annually (March 31st of each year) on progress in SWMP implementation for the previous year. The Permit
also requires submittal of documentation that describes proposed SWMP activities for the coming year. This
document contains the City’s proposed activities for 2012. Implementation of various Permit conditions were
staggered throughout the five-year Permit term from February 16, 2007 through February 15, 2012.
Throughout 2012 the City will continue to implement existing programs and maintenance activities.
1.3 City of Auburn Regulated Area
The Western Washington Phase II Permit applies to operators of regulated small MS4s that discharge
stormwater to waters of Washington State located west of the crest of the Cascade Range (west of the eastern
boundaries of Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Lewis and Skamania counties). For cities, the
Permit requirements extend to those areas of each City that drain to MS4s. Most of Auburn drains to MS4s
that ultimately discharge into the Green River, the White River, or Mill Creek. In addition, some portions of
the City drain to regional infiltration basins.
1.4 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Compliance
The federal Clean Water Act requires that Ecology establish “Total Maximum Daily Loads” (TMDL) for
rivers, streams, lakes, and marine waters that don’t meet water quality standards. A TMDL is a calculation of
the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards.
After the TMDL has been calculated for a given water body, Ecology determines how much each source
must reduce its discharges of the pollutant in order bring the water body back into compliance with the water
quality standards. The Clean Water Act requires that TMDL requirements must be included in the NPDES
permits for dischargers into the affected water bodies.
Stormwater discharges covered under this permit are required to implement actions necessary to achieve the
pollutant reductions called for in applicable TMDLs. Applicable TMDLs are those approved by the EPA
before the issuance date of the Permit or which have been approved by the EPA prior to the date the
permittee’s application was received by Ecology. Information on Ecology’s TMDL program is available on
Ecology’s website at www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl.
The current permit does not contain any TMDL requirements for the City of Auburn. However, Ecology
has identified several water bodies that do not appear to meet the water quality standards. Ecology has
developed and the EPA has approved fecal coliform TMDLs for the Puyallup River Watershed. In
accordance with the Ecology approved Quality Assurance Project Plan, Auburn has begun wet weather
stormwater sampling for one wet season (October 2011 through April 2012).
1.5 SWMP Implementation Responsibilities
The Utilities Engineering Division in the Public Works Department coordinates the overall administration of
efforts to comply with Permit requirements. The work plan tables in each Chapter provide the lead
departments for the associated task. Other major departments/divisions included in the 2012 SWMP
DI.B
1: Introduction City of Auburn 2012 SWMP
3
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
implementation include Maintenance and Operations (M&O), Human Resources (HR), Development
Engineering, Permit Center, Information services (IS), and Parks.
1.6 Document Organization
The contents of this document are based upon Permit requirements and Ecology’s “Guidance for City and
County Annual Reports for Western Washington, Phase II Municipal Stormwater General Permits.” The
remainder of this SWMP is organized similarly to the Permit:
Section 2.0 addresses Permit requirements for administering the City’s Stormwater Management
Program for 2012.
Section 3.0 addresses Permit requirements for public education and outreach for 2012.
Section 4.0 addresses Permit requirements for public involvement and participation for 2012.
Section 5.0 addresses Permit requirements for illicit discharge detection and elimination for 2012.
Section 6.0 addresses Permit requirements for controlling runoff from new development,
redevelopment, and construction sites for 2012.
Section 7.0 addresses Permit requirements for pollution prevention and operations and maintenance
for municipal operations for 2012.
Section 8.0 addresses Permit requirements for the monitoring section of the Permit for 2012.
Each section includes a summary of the relevant Permit requirements, a description of current activities, and
a table showing the planned activities for 2012. This document also includes acronyms and definitions from
the Permit in Appendix A for easy reference.
DI.B
1
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
CITY OF AUBURN 2012
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
This section of the SWMP describes Permit requirements related to overall Stormwater Management
Program administration, including descriptions of the City’s current and planned compliance activities for
2012.
2.1 Permit Requirements
The Permit (Section S5.A) requires the City to:
Develop and implement a Stormwater Management Program and prepare written documentation for
submittal to Ecology on March 31, 2008, and update the SWMP annually thereafter. The purpose of
the SWMP is to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the municipal stormwater system to the
maximum extent practicable and thereby protect water quality.
Submit annual compliance reports (for the previous calendar year) to Ecology on March 31, beginning
in 2008 that summarize the status of implementation and provide information from assessment and
evaluation procedures collected during the reporting period.
Coordinate with other permittees on stormwater related policies programs, and projects within
adjacent or shared areas.
2.2 Current Compliance Activities
The current compliance activities associated with the Permit include:
The City is on track to comply with Ecology requirements for submittal of SWMP documentation by
March 31, 2012. The Utilities Engineering Division leads the development of the future planned
activities with input and support from several other departments.
The City created an NPDES implementation management group.
The City set up the systems for tracking training. Training attendance is recorded and kept on file with
Human Resources.
The City has defined its strategy for cost tracking. Cost tracking is managed by staff recording time
spent on Permit elements on their timecards using project coding numbers. Reports can be generated
by the Finance Department to determine annual costs by element.
The City has defined and implemented a strategy for managing SOPs. SOPs are available for staff use
on the City’s Intranet.
The City is participating in a regional education and outreach consortium. Staff has ensured that the
City’s education and outreach program will work in concert with regional efforts such as the Puget
Sound Starts Here campaign.
The City is on track to comply with Ecology’s requirements for submittal of the fifth Annual Report
by March 31, 2012.
DI.B
2. Stormwater Management Program Administration City of Auburn 2012 SWMP
2
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
2.3 Planned 2012 Compliance Activities
Auburn has positioned itself well to maintain compliance. Table 2-1 presents the proposed work plan for the
2012 SWMP administration activities.
Table 2-1. 2012 Stormwater Management Administration Program Work Plan
Task ID Task Description Lead Compliance
Timeframe
SWMP-1
Summarize annual activities for "Stormwater
Management Program" component of Annual Report;
identify any updates to Program document. Define
process and roles for annual updates for SWMP.
Utilities
Engineering
The SWMP and Annual
Compliance Report submittal
is due on or before March
31st of each year.
SWMP-2 Provide comments to Ecology during the public review
period for the Draft Municipal Stormwater Permits.
Utilities
Engineering
Comments due to Ecology by
February 3, 2012.
DI.B
1
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
CITY OF AUBURN 2012
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
3. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
This section describes the Permit requirements related to public education and outreach, including
descriptions of the City’s current and planned compliance activities for 2012.
3.1 Permit Requirements
The Permit (Section S5.C.1) requires the City to:
Prioritize and target education and outreach activities to specified audiences, including the general
public, businesses, residents/homeowners, landscapers, property managers, engineers, contractors,
developers, review staff and land use planners, and other City employees to reduce or eliminate
behaviors and practices that cause or contribute to adverse stormwater impacts.
Have an outreach program that is designed to improve the target audience’s understanding of the
problem and what they can do to solve it.
Track and maintain records of public education and outreach activities.
3.2 Current Compliance Activities
The current compliance activities associated with the Permit include:
Collaboration with other NPDES municipalities through involvement in the Stormwater Outreach for
Regional Municipalities (STORM) integrated public education campaign, Puget Sound Starts Here
(PSSH). This campaign includes public service ads broadcast locally and on cable tv and the website
www.pugetsoundstartshere.org/. The City of Auburn broadcasts PSSH commercials on the City’s
government TV channel (TV 21).
Many of the current education and outreach activities that address stormwater management are
targeted at the general public, residents/homeowners, and some industries. Some of these programs
are listed below:
• Natural yard care workshops
• Car wash kits
• Used motor oil and household hazardous waste program
• Residential hazardous waste newsletter
• Kids day booth
• Water Festival
• Household hazardous waste mobile
• Stormwater lobby display in the Customer Service Center.
• Spring Clean-up (curbside appliance pickup )
• News letter (quarterly or biannually) for business
DI.B
3: Public Education and Outreach City of Auburn 2012 SWMP
2
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
The City tracks its education and outreach efforts.
3.3 Planned 2012 Compliance Activities
The City plans to continue the program that has been developed over the last five years. The target audiences
include:
The general public
Businesses (including home-based and mobile businesses)
Residents/homeowners
Landscapers
Property managers
Engineers, contractors, and developers
City plan review staff, land use planners, and other City employees.
Table 3-1 presents the work plan for the 2012 SWMP public education and outreach activities.
Table 3-1. 2012 Public Education and Outreach Work Plan
Task ID Task Description Lead Compliance
Timeframe
EDUC-1
Continue collaboration with other NPDES
municipalities to identify appropriate program
evaluation techniques.
Utilities
Engineering
Refinements to existing
public education and
outreach activities are on-
going.
EDUC-2 Refine education and outreach strategy to supplement
existing education activities.
Utilities
Engineering
EDUC-3 Implement new or modify existing education and
outreach activities.
Utilities
Engineering
EDUC-4
Staff training related to Surface Water Management
Manual Implementation/Technical Standards:
• Permitting
• Plan Review
• Site Inspections
• Maintenance Standards.
Utilities
Engineering
EDUC-5
Inform public employees, businesses and the general
public of the hazards associated with illegal
discharges and improper disposal of waste.
Utilities
Engineering Ongoing
EDUC-6
Summarize annual activities for "Public Education and
Outreach" component of Annual Report; identify any
updates to SWMP.
Utilities
Engineering
The SWMP and Annual
Compliance Report submittal
is due on or before March
31st of each year.
DI.B
1
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
CITY OF AUBURN 2012
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
4. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
This section describes the Permit requirements related to public involvement, including descriptions of the
City’s current and planned compliance activities for 2012.
4.1 Permit Requirements
The Permit (Section S5.C.2) requires the City to:
Provide ongoing opportunities for public involvement through advisory boards or commissions and
watershed committees, and public participation in developing rate structures and budgets, stewardship
programs, environmental actions, or other similar activities. The public must be able to participate in the
decision-making processes, including development, implementation, and update of the SWMP.
Make the SWMP and Annual Compliance Report available to the public, by posting on the City’s website.
Make any other documents required to be submitted to Ecology in response to Permit conditions
available to the public.
4.2 Current Compliance Activities
The current compliance activities associated with the Permit include:
The City has defined a series of public involvement activities intended to meet the Permit requirements
for public involvement in development of the Stormwater Management Program. This process involves
presenting the draft SWMP to the Planning and Community Development (PCDC) and Public Works
(PWC) Committees. The City will then have a public hearing and presentation to the City Council.
The City will make the Stormwater Management Program document and Annual Compliance Report
available to the public on the City website.
4.3 Planned 2012 Compliance Activities
The City of Auburn has a history of including the public in decision making. Table 4-1 below presents the
work plan for the 2012 SWMP public involvement activities.
DI.B
4: Public Involvement City of Auburn 2012 SWMP
2
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
Table 4-1. 2012 Public Involvement Work Plan
Task ID Task Description Lead Compliance
Timeframe
PI-1 Provide public involvement opportunities for annual
SWMP update.
Utilities
Engineering Public involvement
opportunities will be available
before 3/31/2012 submittal. PI-2
Make SWMP document and Annual Compliance
Report available to public by posting on the City
website.
Utilities
Engineering
PI-3
Summarize annual activities for "Public Involvement
and Participation" component of Annual Report;
identify any updates to SWMP.
Utilities
Engineering
The SWMP and Annual
Compliance Report submittal
is due on or before March
31st of each year.
PI-4
Provide public involvement opportunity for planting
project in conjunction with the completion of the
elevated boardwalk through Auburn’s Environmental
Park.
Planning and
Development
Department
2012
PI-5 Host an open house associated with the Mill Creek
Restoration Project.
Planning and
Development
Department
2012
PI-6 Hold a public meeting associated with the Fenster
Levee Setback Project.
Planning and
Development
Department
2012
DI.B
1
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
CITY OF AUBURN 2012
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
5. ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION
This section describes the Permit requirements related to illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE),
including descriptions of the City’s current and planned compliance activities for 2012.
5.1 Permit Requirements
The Permit (Section S5.C.3) requires the City to:
Implement an ongoing program to detect and remove illicit discharges, connections, and improper
disposal, including any spills into the municipal separate storm sewers owned or operated by the City.
Develop a storm sewer system map, have ordinances that prohibit illicit discharges, and create a
program to detect and address illicit discharges.
Publicly list and publicize a hotline or other local telephone number for public reporting of spills and
other illicit discharges. Track illicit discharge reports and actions taken in response through close-out,
including enforcement actions.
Inform public employees, businesses and the general public of hazards associated with illegal
discharges and improper disposal of waste.
Train staff on proper IDDE response SOPs and municipal field staff to recognize and report illicit
discharges.
Summarize all illicit discharges and connections reported to the City and response actions taken,
including enforcement actions, in the Annual Compliance Report; identify any updates to the SWMP.
5.2 Current Compliance Activities
The current compliance activities associated with the Permit include:
The City has completed the mapping required for the Permit and is continually adding data to improve
the quality of the information in the storm drainage system layer of the GIS map. The City also has an
SOP for keeping the municipal separate storm sewer system map and inventory up-to-date.
City codes and standards already have sections that address the required illicit discharges and civil
infractions.
Citizens can report illicit discharges or illicit dumping using the published spill hotline number or any
of the phone numbers published by the City. The calls are routed to Operations and Maintenance
where they are recorded and distributed to the appropriate response authority.
The City tracks spills, illicit discharges, and inspections.
The City has chosen to use CarteGraph as its issue tracking and resolution system.
The City created an IDDE response and enforcement SOP.
The City has trained staff for illicit discharge recognition and response.
The City has performed field assessments at primary outfalls.
DI.B
5: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination City of Auburn 2012 SWMP
2
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
5.3 Planned 2012 Compliance Activities
Table 5-1 presents the work plan for 2012 SWMP illicit discharge detection and elimination activities.
Table 5-1. 2012 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Work Plan
Task ID Task Description Lead Compliance
Timeframe
IDDE-1 Define and implement City-wide IDDE Program and
develop any necessary supplemental IDDE activities.
Utilities
Engineering Ongoing
IDDE-2
Continue to review and update storm system map to
address data gaps and Permit requirements.
Utilities
Engineering
ongoing
IDDE-3 Conduct a field assessment of one high priority water
body.
Utilities
Engineering
Complete assessment field
work for one high priority
water body this year.
IDDE-4
Summarize annual activities for "Illicit Discharge
Detection and Elimination" component of Annual
Report; identify any updates to SWMP.
Utilities
Engineering
The SWMP and Annual
Compliance Report submittal
is due on or before March
31st of each year.
DI.B
1
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
CITY OF AUBURN 2012
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
6. CONTROLLING RUNOFF FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT,
REDEVELOPMENT, AND CONSTRUCTION SITES
This section describes the Permit requirements related to controlling runoff from new development,
redevelopment, and construction sites, including descriptions of the City’s current and planned compliance
activities for 2012.
6.1 Permit Requirements
The Permit (Section S5.C.4) requires the City to:
Develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff (i.e., illicit
discharges) to the municipal separate storm sewer system from new development, redevelopment, and
construction site activities. The program must apply to both private and public projects, including
roads, and address all construction/development-associated pollutant sources.
Adopt regulations (codes and standards) and implement plan review, inspection, and escalating
enforcement SOPs necessary to implement the program in accordance with Permit conditions,
including the minimum technical requirements in Appendix 1 of the Permit.
Develop provisions (plan review, inspection, and enforcement) and SOPs to allow non-structural
preventive actions and source reduction approaches such as Low Impact Development techniques to
minimize the creation of impervious surfaces and the disturbance of native soils and vegetation.
Adopt regulations (codes and standards) and processes to verify adequate long-term operations and
maintenance of new post-construction permanent stormwater facilities and BMPs in accordance with
Permit conditions, including an annual inspection frequency and/or approved alternative inspection
frequency and maintenance standards for private drainage systems as protective as those in Chapter IV
of the 2005 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
Provide copies of the Notice of Intent (NOI) for construction or industrial activities to representatives
of the proposed new development and redevelopment.
Provide training to staff on the new codes, standards, and SOPs and create public education and
outreach materials.
Develop and define a process to record and maintain all inspections and enforcement actions by staff.
Summarize annual activities for the “Controlling Runoff” component of the Annual Compliance
Report; identify any updates to the SWMP.
6.2 Current Compliance Activities
The current compliance activities associated with the Permit include:
The City has existing programs, codes, and standards that address the Permit requirements for
management of stormwater runoff from development, redevelopment, and construction sites. The City
reviews all stormwater site plans for proposed development.
DI.B
6: Controlling Runoff from New Development, Redevelopment
and Construction Sites City of Auburn 2012 SWMP
2
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
The City adopted a stormwater management manual approved by Ecology as equivalent to the 2005
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
The City has a site planning process for BMP selection and design criteria.
The City inspects all permitted development sites during construction and after construction.
The City clearly identifies the party responsible for operations and maintenance (O&M) and requires
long-term O&M of permitted facilities and BMPs.
The City tracks and records inspections and enforcement actions by staff.
The City provides copies of Notices of Intent (NOI) for construction and industrial activities in the
pre-application meeting with developers.
Construction inspectors and most building inspectors have the required erosion control training.
The City submitted the Permit required LID Implementation Report to Ecology.
Engineering staff have obtained LID Certification through the Washington State University Extension
Program.
6.3 Planned 2012 Compliance Activities
The City has a program to help reduce stormwater runoff from new development and construction sites.
Table 6-1 presents the work plan for 2012 SWMP activities related to runoff control for new development,
redevelopment, and construction sites.
Table 6-1. 2012 Controlling Runoff from Development, Redevelopment, and Construction Sites Work
Plan
Task ID Task Description Lead Compliance
Timeframe
CTRL-1
Track and report construction, new development, and
redevelopment permits, inspections and enforcement
actions.
Planning/ Permit
Center On-going.
CTRL-2 Conduct annual inspection of all treatment and flow
control (other than catch basins) – private systems.
Utilities
Engineering On-going
CTRL-3
Summarize annual activities for "Controlling Runoff
from New Development, Redevelopment, and
Construction Sites" component of Annual Report;
identify any updates to SWMP.
Utilities
Engineering
The SWMP and Annual
Compliance Report submittal
is due on or before March
31st of each year.
CTRL-4 Additional staff will obtain LID certification through the
Washington State University Extension Program.
Utilities
Engineering Spring 2012
DI.B
1
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
CITY OF AUBURN 2012
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
7. POLLUTION PREVENTION AND OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE FOR MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS
This section describes the Permit requirements related to pollution prevention and operations and
maintenance for municipal operations, including descriptions of the City’s current and planned compliance
activities for 2012.
7.1 Permit Requirements
The Permit (Section S5.C.5) requires the City to:
Develop and implement an O&M program, with the ultimate goal of preventing or reducing pollutant
runoff from municipal separate stormwater system and municipal O&M activities.
Establish maintenance standards for the municipal separate stormwater system that are at least as
protective as those specified in the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
Perform inspections of stormwater flow control and treatment facilities and catch basins and perform
maintenance as needed to comply with maintenance standards.
Check treatment and flow control facilities after major storms and perform repairs as needed in
accordance with adopted maintenance standards.
Have SOPs in place to reduce stormwater impacts associated with runoff from municipal O&M
activities, including but not limited to streets, parking lots, roads, or highways owned or maintained by
the City, and to reduce pollutants in discharges from all lands owned or maintained by the City.
Train staff to implement the SOPs and document that training.
Prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) for all heavy equipment maintenance or
storage yards identified for year-round facilities or yards, and material storage facilities owned or
operated by the City.
Summarize annual activities for the “Pollution Prevention and Operations and Maintenance for
Municipal Operations” component of the Annual Compliance Report; identify any updates to the
SWMP.
7.2 Current Compliance Activities
The current compliance activities associated with the Permit include:
The City operates an O&M program intended to minimize pollutant runoff from municipal
operations.
The City adopted the stormwater maintenance standards listed in the Stormwater Management
Manual.
DI.B
7. Pollution Prevention and O&M for Municipal Operations City of Auburn 2012 SWMP
2
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
The City conducts and records the necessary maintenance operations identified based on inspections
of stormwater facilities and catch basins. The City performs spot checks of potentially damaged
permanent treatment and flow control facilities after storm events.
M&O staff involved with pesticides, pest management, and erosion and sediment control, receive
training in these areas. The City has developed procedures for these activities.
The City has developed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans for applicable City facilities.
Public streets are swept on a regular schedule.
7.3 Planned 2012 Compliance Activities
Table 7-1 presents the work plan for 2012 SWMP activities related to pollution prevention and operations
and maintenance for municipal operations.
Table 7-1. 2012 Pollution Prevention and Operations and Maintenance Work Plan
Task ID Task Description Responsible Schedule Notes
PPOM-1 Conduct annual inspection of all treatment and flow
control (other than catch basins) – public system.
Utilities
Engineering On-going
PPOM-2
Inspect all public catch basins at least once during the
permit cycle and perform maintenance as triggered by
the maintenance standards.
M&O On-going
PPOM-3
Summarize annual activities for "Pollution Prevention
and Operation and Maintenance" component of
annual report; identify any updates to SWMP.
Utilities
Engineering
The SWMP and Annual
Compliance Report submittal
is due on or before March
31st of each year.
PPOM-4 Perform street sweeping. M&O Ongoing
DI.B
1
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
CITY OF AUBURN 2012
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
8. MONITORING
This section describes the Permit requirements related to water quality monitoring, including descriptions of
the City’s current and planned compliance activities for 2012.
8.1 Permit Requirements
The Permit (Section S8) does not require municipalities to conduct water quality sampling or other testing
during this permit term, with the following exceptions:
Sampling or testing required for characterizing illicit discharges pursuant to the SWMP’s IDDE
conditions.
Water quality monitoring required for compliance with Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
conditions (water quality clean up plans). The current Permit does not require that Auburn perform
TMDL-related monitoring.
Preparing future comprehensive, long-term water quality monitoring plan including two components:
1) stormwater monitoring and 2) targeted Stormwater Management Program effectiveness monitoring.
By the 4th Annual Compliance Report (March 31, 2011), Auburn was required to identify two outfalls
or conveyances where permanent stormwater sampling stations can be installed and operated for
future monitoring. The City is also required to develop plans to monitor stormwater, sediment, and
receiving water for physical, chemical, and/or biological characteristics. One outfall represents high-
density residential land use, and the other commercial land use.
To monitor SWMP effectiveness, the City will need to identify two suitable Program questions and
sites where targeted Program effectiveness monitoring can be conducted and develop a monitoring
plan for these questions and sites. The proposed effectiveness monitoring is required to answer the
following types of questions:
• How effective is a specific targeted action or a narrow suite of actions?
• Is the Stormwater Management Program achieving a targeted environmental outcome?
In addition, the City is required to provide the following monitoring and/or assessment data in each annual
report:
A description of any stormwater monitoring or studies conducted by the City during the reporting
period. If stormwater monitoring was conducted on behalf of the City, or if studies or investigations
conducted by other entities were reported to the City, a brief description of the type of information
gathered or received shall be included in the annual report.
An assessment of the appropriateness of the best management practices identified by the City for each
component of the SWMP; and any changes made, or anticipated to be made, to the BMPs that were
previously selected to implement the SWMP and why.
DI.B
8: Monitoring City of Auburn 2012 SWMP
2
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
8.2 Current Compliance Activities
The City developed a map of the significant municipal stormwater outfalls and has developed a monitoring
plan to implement future Permit water quality monitoring requirements. Although not required in the current
Permit, the City is performing wet weather fecal coliform monitoring of stormwater discharge to a tributary
of the White River as part of the recently approved Puyallup River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL.
8.3 Planned 2012 Compliance Activities
Table 8-1 presents the work plan for 2012 SWMP monitoring activities.
Table 8-1. 2012 Water Quality Monitoring Work Plan
Task ID Task Description Lead Compliance
Timeframe
MNTR -1
Participate in regional and state monitoring forums
and future legislative actions in order to influence
development of feasible and effective alternative
future monitoring requirements.
Utilities
Engineering Continue participation.
MNTR -2
Summarize annual monitoring activities for the Annual
Report; identify any updates to SWMP including
identification of sites selected for monitoring and a
summary of proposed questions for effectiveness
monitoring, purpose, design and methods.
Utilities
Engineering
The SWMP and Annual
Compliance Report submittal
is due on or before March
31st of each year.
MNTR-3
Wet weather fecal coliform monitoring in conjunction
with the Puyallup River Watershed Fecal Coliform
TMDL.
Utilities
Engineering
October 2011 through April
2012
DI.B
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
APPENDIX A
Acronyms and Definitions from Permit
DI.B
Appendix A: Acronyms and Definitions City of Auburn 2012 SWMP
A-1
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
The following definitions and acronyms are taken directly from the Phase II Permit and are reproduced here
for the reader’s convenience.
AKART means all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment. All
known, available and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment refers to the State
Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 90.48.010 and 90.48.520 RCW.
Basin Plan is a surface water management process consisting of three parts: a scientific study of the basin’s
drainage features and their quality; developing actions and recommendations for resolving any deficiencies
discovered during the study; and implementing the recommendations, followed by monitoring.
Best Management Practices ("BMPs") are the schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices,
maintenance procedures, and structural and/or managerial practices approved by the Department that, when
used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce the release of pollutants and other adverse impacts to waters
of Washington State.
BMP means Best Management Practice.
CFR means Congressional Federal Register.
Component or Program Component means an element of the Stormwater Management Program listed in
S5 Stormwater Management Program for Cities, Towns, and Counties or S6 Stormwater Management
Program for Secondary Permittees of this permit.
CWA means Clean Water Act (formerly referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) Pub.L. 92-500, as amended Pub. L. 95-217, Pub. L. 95-
576, Pub. L. (6-483 and Pub. L. 97-117, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
Discharge for the purpose of this permit means, unless indicated otherwise, any discharge from a MS4
owned or operated by the permittee.
Ecology’s Western Washington Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit regulates discharges from
municipal separate storm sewers owned or operated by Clark, King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties, and the
cities of Seattle and Tacoma.
Ecology’s Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit covers certain "small"
municipal separate stormwater sewer systems.
Entity means another governmental body, or public or private organization, such as another permittee, a
conservation district, or volunteer organization.
Equivalent document means a technical stormwater management manual developed by a state agency, local
government or other entity that includes the Minimum Technical Requirements in Appendix 1 of this Permit.
The Department may conditionally approve manuals that do not include the Minimum Technical
Requirements in Appendix 1; in general, the Best Management Practices included in those documents may be
applied at new development and redevelopment sites, but the Minimum Technical Requirements in Appendix
1 must still be met.
Heavy equipment maintenance or storage yard means an uncovered area where any heavy equipment,
such as mowing equipment, excavators, dump trucks, backhoes, or bulldozers are washed or maintained, or
where at least five pieces of heavy equipment are stored.
Illicit connection means any man-made conveyance that is connected to a municipal separate storm sewer
without a permit, excluding roof drains and other similar type connections. Examples include sanitary sewer
DI.B
Appendix A: Acronyms and Definitions City of Auburn 2012 SWMP
A-2
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
connections, floor drains, channels, pipelines, conduits, inlets, or outlets that are connected directly to the
municipal separate storm sewer system.
Illicit discharge means any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer that is not composed entirely of
storm water except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit (other than the NPDES permit for discharges
from the municipal separate storm sewer) and discharges resulting from fire fighting activities.
IDDE means Illicit discharge detection and elimination.
Low Impact Development (LID) means a stormwater management and land development strategy applied
at the parcel and subdivision scale that emphasizes conservation and use of on-site natural features integrated
with engineered, small-scale hydrologic controls to more closely mimic pre-development hydrologic
functions.
Major Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Outfall means a municipal separate storm sewer outfall from a
single pipe with an inside diameter of 36 inches or more, or its equivalent (discharge from a single conveyance
other than circular pipe which is associated with a drainage area of more than 50 acres); or for municipal
separate storm sewers that receive stormwater from lands zoned for industrial activity (based on
comprehensive zoning plans or the equivalent), an outfall that discharges from a single pipe with an inside
diameter of 12 inches or more or from its equivalent (discharge from other than a circular pipe associated
with a drainage area of 12 acres or more).
Material Storage Facilities means an uncovered area where bulk materials (liquid, solid, granular, etc.) are
stored in piles, barrels, tanks, bins, crates, or other means.
Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) refers to paragraph 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the federal Clean Water Act
which reads as follows: Permits for discharges from municipal storm sewers shall require controls to reduce
the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control
techniques, and system, design, and engineering methods, and other such provisions as the Administrator or
the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants.
MEP means Maximum Extent Practicable.
MS4 – see Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System.
MTRs means Minimum Technical Requirements.
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) means a conveyance, or system of conveyances (including
roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or
storm drains):
(i) owned or operated by a state, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body
(created by or pursuant to state law) having jurisdiction over
disposal of wastes, storm water, or other wastes, including special districts under state law such as a sewer
district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian
tribal organization, or a designated and approved management agency under section 208 of the CWA that
discharges to waters of the United States.
(ii) designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater.
(iii) which is not a combined sewer; and (iv) which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2.
DI.B
Appendix A: Acronyms and Definitions City of Auburn 2012 SWMP
A-3
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) means the national program for issuing,
modifying, revoking, and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and
enforcing pretreatment requirements, under sections 307, 402, 318, and 405 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
for the discharge of pollutants to surface waters of the state from point sources. These permits are referred to
as NPDES permits and, in Washington State, are administered by the Washington Department of Ecology.
Notice of Intent (NOI) means the application for, or a request for coverage under this General Permit
pursuant to WAC 173-226-200.
Outfall means point source as defined by 40 CFR 122.2 at the point where a municipal separate storm sewer
discharges to waters of the State and does not include open conveyances connecting two municipal separate
storm sewer systems, or pipes, tunnels, or other conveyances which connect segments of the same stream or
other waters of the State and are used to convey waters of the State.
O&M means Operations and Maintenance.
Permittee unless otherwise noted, the term “Permittee” includes Permittee, Co-Permittee, and Secondary
Permittee, as defined below:
(i) A “Permittee” is a city, town, or county owning or operating a regulated small MS4 applying and receiving
a permit as a single entity.
(ii) A “Co-Permittee” is any operator of a regulated small MS4 that is applying jointly with another applicant
for coverage under this Permit. Co-Permittees own or operate a regulated small MS4 located within or
adjacent to another regulated small MS4.
(iii) A “Secondary Permittee” is an operator of regulated small MS4 that is not a city, town, or county.
Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or Small MS4 is a conveyance or system of conveyances
for municipalities having populations of less that 100,000 according to the 1990 US census. Such systems
include road drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels,
and/or storm drains that are:
a. Owned or operated by a city, town, county, district, association or other public body created
pursuant to State law having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, stormwater, or other
wastes, including special districts under state law such as a sewer districts, flood control districts or drainage
districts, or similar entity.
b. Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater.
c. Not a combined sewer system,
d. Not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2.
e. Not defined as “large” or “medium” pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(4) & (7) or designated under
40 CFR 122.26 (a)(1)(v).
Small MS4s include systems similar to separate storm sewer systems in municipalities such as: universities,
large publicly owned hospitals, prison complexes, highways and other thoroughfares. Storm sewer systems in
very discrete areas such as individual buildings do not require coverage under this Permit.
Small MS4s do not include storm drain systems operated by non-governmental entities such as: individual
buildings, private schools, private colleges, private universities, and industrial and commercial entities.
DI.B
Appendix A: Acronyms and Definitions City of Auburn 2012 SWMP
A-4
H:\PUB_WRKS\Utilities\Storm\NPDES II\Administration\SWMPs\2012 SWMP\2012 Auburn SWMP 20120125.docx
Stormwater means runoff during and following precipitation and snowmelt events, including surface runoff
and drainage.
Stormwater Associated with Industrial and Construction Activity means the discharge from any
2conveyance which is used for collecting and conveying stormwater, which is directly related to
manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant, or associated with clearing
grading and/or excavation, and is required to have an NPDES permit in accordance with 40 CFR 122.26.
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington means the 5-volume technical manual
(Publication Nos. 99-11 through 15 for the 2001 version and Publication Nos. 05-10-029-033 for the 2005
version (The 2005 version replaces the 2001 version) prepared by Ecology for use by local governments that
contains BMPs to prevent, control, or treat pollution in storm water.
Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) means a set of actions and activities designed to reduce the
discharge of pollutants from the regulated small MS4 to the maximum extent practicable and to protect water
quality, and comprising the components listed in S5 or S6 of this Permit and any additional actions necessary
to meet the requirements of applicable.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a
waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards,
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
DI.B
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Phase II Zoning Code Updates - Group 2
Date:
March 5, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Phase II Zoning Code Updates Memo
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
See attached memo.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Wagner
Meeting Date:March 8, 2012 Item Number:DI.C
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.C
1
Memorandum
TO: Nancy Backus, Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee
John Partridge, Vice-Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee
John Holman, Member, Planning and Community Development Committee
FROM: Stuart Wagner, AICP, Planner
DATE: March 8, 2012
RE: Review policy questions related to Phase II, Group 2 Zoning Code Update -
inclusive of non-residential zoning districts
Background
In recent weeks planning staff has been working on new land use tables for the Phase II, Group
2 of the zoning code update. While reviewing various land uses and zoning districts several
use-related policy questions surfaced. At the March 8, 2012 Planning and Community
Development meeting, planning staff would like to hold a collaborative work session with
Committee members on the series of policy questions listed below.
Discussion
Multi-family dwellings in the C3, Heavy Commercial Zone
The zoning code currently lists apartments (multi-family dwellings) as a permitted use in the C3,
Heavy Commercial Zone provided that 1,200 square feet of lot area is provided for each
dwelling and an Administrative Use Permit is granted. Previously the PCDC amended the C1,
Light Commercial zoning district to only allow multi-family dwellings when a part of a mixed-use
development. The Committee and staff agreed that a relatively small land area in the City is
zoned C1, and the City needs to ensure that the commercial zones do not become overly
committed to residential uses as this could preclude having sufficient lands available in the City
for commercial development in the future. Similarly, the same scenario could take place in the
C3 zone. Multi-family dwellings are not permitted outright in the zone but through an
administrative use permit so there is degree of control to make sure that they are consistent with
the intent of the zone and compatible with other existing and permitted uses within the zone.
Planning staff would like to hear if the Committee has similar concerns with multi-family
development going into the C3 zone.
General Retail
Currently the zoning code individually lists out retail uses in the City’s commercial zoning
districts i.e. antiques, bicycles, clothing, household appliances, etc. This setup takes up a lot of
space in the code (see attachment A). Realizing that retail uses can range in size and have
different intensities staff is proposing to capture each general retail use in the following manner:
DI.C
“Neighborhood retail commercial”, “Community retail commercial”, and “Regional retail
commercial”. Each of these terms will be defined together with several examples provided.
Square footage maximums are also being considered within each definition. Here is a sample
definition of Community retail commercial:
Community retail commercial (sample definition)
Retail commercial and service uses oriented to serve several neighborhoods which typically
include neighborhood retail commercial uses that may include, but are not limited to, a variety
department store, florist, milliner, furniture store, radio and television repair shop, shoe store, gift
shop, liquor store, men's and women's clothing stores, book store, toy store and movie theater.
Planning staff would like to discuss this approach with the PCDC and whether it makes sense
for those who will be using the zoning code in the future.
Outdoor storage in the M2, Heavy Industrial Zone
Currently outdoor storage is permitted as a stand-alone use in the M2 zone. Outdoor storage is
defined as:
ACC 18.04.676 Outdoor Storage
Outdoor storage means the keeping of materials, supplies, equipment, machinery and vehicles
which are not currently licensed or capable to operate on public streets or highways, in an open,
uncovered yard or nonwalled buildings. This definition includes junkyards as defined by ACC
18.04.500, but excludes outdoor sales as defined by ACC 18.04.672.
Recently staff was approached by an individual that wanted to store shipping containers on a
piece of property zoned M2. There was no mention of a supporting office or building for this
use. Based on the recent code amendments to the landscaping chapter of the zoning code
(ACC 18.50), any outdoor storage use will need be screened by a six foot wide landscape buffer
but that would take some time to establish. Staff is questioning if this type of use should remain
as a stand-alone use or if it should only be allowed if incidental to a principal use. To further
regulate outdoor storage in the M2 zone, supplemental developments controlling where and
how high storage can go could be added to the code. The M1, Light Industrial zone currently
has supplemental standards for outdoor storage (see Attachment B). Staff would like to know
how Committee feels about outdoor storage as a principal use.
Future hospital
Auburn Regional Medical Center has been serving South King and North Pierce counties since
1921. Since its existence it has expanded its footprint in Auburn’s downtown and may continue
to expand in the future. While there are no plans for an additional hospital in Auburn the
continued growth of the city’s population and surrounding communities may necessitate a new
one. Currently the city’s zoning code allows hospitals within each of the commercial zones with
the exception of CN, Neighborhood Shopping District. Hospitals are not permitted in the M1,
Light Industrial, M2, Heavy Industrial, or I, Institutional Zones. Staff would like to have a
discussion on the appropriate zone(s) for a hospital if one is needed in the future. If the zoning
code were to remain as is, a hospital could located on property zoned C1, Light Commercial
which typically backs up to single family residential. At the same time, a hospital couldn’t locate
within the M1, Light Industrial zone which might be an appropriate location given that properties
zoned M1 are typically on or near arterial roadways. The industrial zoned properties also have
a lot redevelopment potential.
DI.C
Outdoor display and sales
Certain retail operations like to have outdoor displays and sales in front of their stores. These
displays make their products more visible and can also serve as a place for extra merchandise.
Lowe’s, for example, likes to display product in front of their stores such as BBQs or sheds, the
product largely depending on the time of year. The zoning code in its current form doesn’t list
outdoor display and sales as a separate use or allowed in combination with an authorized use.
In the CN, C1, and C2 zones, it is permitted but it’s not treated as a use but rather a
development standard:
18.24.050 Supplemental development standards.
Supplemental development standards in a C-N district are as follows:
A. All uses shall be conducted entirely within a building or structure excerpt:
2. Display or sales of goods that do not extend eight feet past the front of the building, do not
block entrances or interfere with pedestrian travel, do not interfere with the parking areas and do
not encroach upon public property;
While outdoor displays and sales can assist stores by bringing greater awareness of their
products to consumers it can also have negative consequences. Depending on the location of
the display, the storage and loading of materials merchandise could spill out into the fire lanes
around the store causing a threat to public safety. And if controls or parameters aren’t put in
place the amount and where merchandise can go there is the potential for the outdoor display
area to be aesthetically unpleasing to the eye. Required fencing and landscaping are possible
ways to lessen these concerns but they would require continued maintenance. Another option
would be to limit the amount of time product could be displayed or only permit outdoor sales on
a seasonal basis. Staff would like to discuss outdoor displays and sales further with the
Committee, learning what types of parameters should be put in place.
Motor freight transportation
Last fall planning staff was approached by the owners of certain truck terminals in the City, also
known as cross docks, for the movement of freight. These owners felt the following language in
the current zoning code restricts the current use of their properties.
Section 18.32.020, Subsection BB of the M-1 Zone, Permitted Uses include:
BB. Warehousing and distribution facilities, to include wholesale trade not open to the
general public. This includes motor freight transportation as an incidental use but
specifically excludes motor freight transportation as the principal use of the property;
Upon hearing the City was undergoing an update of its zoning code, the owners presented staff
with a request for a zoning text amendment1 (see Attachment C). The request received outlines
the differences between less-than-truckload (LTL) operators and truckload carriers, how their
facilities were never intended to be exclusively motor freight transportation, and that future
protection of property value and continued operation of their facilities would be best served by
an amendment to the zoning code. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, however, contains
policies stating that warehouse and distribution land uses are not a preferred long term
economic development and land use priority for industrial zoned areas in the City due to a loss
of sales tax revenue associated with the State’s implementation of streamline sales tax
legislation (see Attachment D). Staff would like to discuss the LTL facilities in question, whether
they are consistent with the policies in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
1 Not applied for – as a privately initiated zoning code amendment but for consideration
DI.C
Attachment A – List of Permitted Retail Uses – C3, Heavy Commercial Zone
Chapter 18.30
C-3 HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
18.30.020 Permitted uses.
Hereafter all buildings, structures, or parcels of land in the C-3 district shall only be used for the
following, unless otherwise provided for in this title:
…
WW. Retail stores and shops, including department and variety stores which offer for sale the following
and similar related goods:
1. Antiques,
2. Art supplies,
3. Automobile parts and accessories,
4. Baked goods,
5. Beverages,
6. Bicycles,
7. Books and magazines,
8. Candy, nuts and confectionery,
9. Clothing,
10. Computers,
11. Dairy products,
12. Dry goods,
13. Flowers and house plants,
14. Fruits and vegetables,
15. Furniture and home furnishings,
16. Garden and farm supplies,
17. Hardware, including electrical, heating, plumbing, glass, paint, wallpaper, and related goods,
18. Home garden supplies,
19. Household appliances,
20. Household pets,
21. Housewares,
22. Jewelry and clocks,
23. Meat, fish, and poultry, preprocessed,
24. Notions,
25. Nursery and horticultural products,
26. Office supplies and equipment,
27. Photographic equipment, including finishing,
28. Radio, television, and stereos,
29. Shoes,
30. Sporting goods,
31. Stationery,
32. Toys;
DI.C
Attachment B – Supplemental Standards for Outdoor Storage in the M1, Light Industrial
Zoning District
18.32.060 Supplemental development standards.
Supplemental development standards in an M-1 light industrial district are as follows:
A. All activities shall be conducted entirely within a building except as follows:
1. Outdoor storage subject to the following requirements:
a. Outdoor storage shall be limited to an area no greater than 50 percent of the lot.
b. Outdoor storage shall be located between the rear lot line and the extension of the front facade of
the principal structure, provided also that for corner lots no outdoor storage would be allowed
between a building and a side street lot line. For through lots, the location for outdoor storage
shall be determined by the planning director.
c. Outdoor storage shall not be located in a required yard/setback area.
d. Outdoor storage shall not be permitted on vacant lots.
e. Outdoor storage shall be limited to 15 feet in height.
f. Outdoor storage areas shall be landscaped in accordance with ACC 18.50.050(F).
g. Outdoor storage areas shall consist of a hard surface material of either gravel or paving.
h. Outdoor storage shall be supplemental to a permitted use on the property.
i. Outdoor storage shall consist of supplies, materials, and/or equipment that are in working and
usable condition. Outdoor storage of unworkable and/or unusable equipment, supplies or
materials is not permitted.
DI.C
Attachment C
DI.C
DI.C
Attachment D - Economic Development Comprehensive Plan Policies
ED-16 Warehouse and distribution land uses are not a preferred long term economic development and
land use priority for industrial zoned areas in the City due to the loss of sales tax revenue associated with
the State’s implementation of streamlined sales tax legislation in 2008, no substantive contribution to an
increase in per capita income for Auburn residents, no reduction in the tax burden of Auburn residents,
low employment densities, lower property values and land use inefficiencies.
ED-18 To reduce economic impacts resulting from the redevelopment of properties from warehousing
and distribution uses to manufacturing and industrial uses the City should develop and implement a
limited term transition plan that contains among other things both incentives for conversion and
disincentives for not converting.
ED-19 To support continued sales tax revenue growth opportunities in the City, those areas currently
dominated by existing and warehouse land uses that abut existing commercial retail areas and could take
advantage of this proximity to realize substantive value by changing to commercial retail uses should be
considered for changes in comprehensive plan and zoning
designations that would facilitate the conversion
DI.C
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Director's Report
Date:
March 5, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
No Attachments Available
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Snyder
Meeting Date:March 8, 2012 Item Number:DI.D
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.D
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
PCDC Status Matrix
Date:
March 5, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
PCDC Status Matrix
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Snyder
Meeting Date:March 8, 2012 Item Number:DI.E
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.E
PC
D
C
W
o
r
k
P
l
a
n
M
a
t
r
i
x
–
M
a
r
c
h
8
,
2
0
1
2
Pl
e
a
s
e
N
o
t
e
:
N
e
w
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
u
n
d
e
r
l
i
n
e
d
,
d
e
l
e
t
i
o
n
s
r
e
mo
v
e
d
,
r
e
t
r
e
a
t
i
t
e
m
s
a
r
e
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
.
Ma
r
c
h
8
,
2
0
1
2
LA
N
D
U
S
E
C
O
D
E
S
/
P
O
L
I
C
I
E
S
To
p
i
c
/
I
s
s
u
e
Ne
x
t
o
n
P
C
D
St
a
f
f
/
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Le
a
d
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
1
•
M
u
c
k
l
e
s
h
o
o
t
T
r
i
b
e
TB
D
S
n
y
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
t
o
s
t
a
y
i
n
t
o
u
c
h
w
i
t
h
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
pt
.
a
n
d
k
e
e
p
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
&
co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
p
e
n
w
i
t
h
T
r
i
b
e
.
2
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
W
o
r
k
•
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
–
Gr
o
u
p
2
Ma
r
c
h
8
W
a
g
n
e
r
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
,
G
r
o
u
p
2
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
t
o
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
om
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
an
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
i
n
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
2
.
•
C
l
u
s
t
e
r
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Sp
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
2
Sn
y
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
r
a
f
t
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
la
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
•
C
o
t
t
a
g
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Sp
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
2
Sn
y
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
r
a
f
t
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
la
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
•
C
e
l
l
T
o
w
e
r
s
–
s
t
e
a
l
t
h
d
e
s
i
g
n
,
an
t
e
n
n
a
s
,
a
n
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
Sp
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
2
Ta
y
l
o
r
S
t
a
f
f
t
o
b
r
i
n
g
t
o
P
C
D
C
f
o
r
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
o
li
c
y
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
•
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
P
a
r
k
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
20
1
2
S
n
y
d
e
r
C
o
d
e
w
o
r
k
t
o
f
o
l
l
o
w
g
r
e
e
n
z
o
n
e
s
u
m
m
i
t
.
•
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
G
a
s
TB
D
D
i
x
o
n
W
a
i
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
f
o
r
c
o
d
e
w
o
r
k
f
r
o
m
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
.
3
U
r
b
a
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
•
H
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Wi
n
t
e
r
2
0
1
2
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
S
t
a
f
f
t
o
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
M
a
y
o
r
’
s
Of
f
i
c
e
t
o
e
n
g
a
g
e
A
u
b
u
r
n
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Ce
n
t
e
r
i
n
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
•
U
r
b
a
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
Sp
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
2
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
S
t
a
f
f
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
r
a
f
t
w
h
i
t
e
p
a
p
e
r
o
n
i
s
s
u
e
s
/
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
/
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
f
o
r
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
n
t
e
r
.
•
T
A
D
A
Sp
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
2
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
N
e
x
t
u
p
d
a
t
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
o
n
i
n
t
he
S
p
r
i
n
g
o
f
2
0
1
2
.
•
A
m
t
r
a
k
On
-
g
o
i
n
g
M
a
y
o
r
L
e
w
i
s
/
Sn
y
d
e
r
Ci
t
y
t
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
p
s
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
s
t
u
dy
b
y
A
m
t
r
a
k
.
•
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
On
-
g
o
i
n
g
S
n
y
d
e
r
/
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
,
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
u
r
v
e
y
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
b
e
i
n
g
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
.
DI.E
Ma
r
c
h
8
,
2
0
1
2
Pa
g
e
2
To
p
i
c
/
I
s
s
u
e
Ne
x
t
o
n
P
C
D
St
a
f
f
/
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Le
a
d
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
4
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
Wi
n
t
e
r
2
0
1
2
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
St
a
f
f
w
i
l
l
f
o
r
m
u
l
a
t
e
a
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
b
r
i
ng
b
a
c
k
t
o
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
.
5
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
A
r
e
a
s
f
o
r
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
/
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
/
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Wi
n
t
e
r
2
0
1
2
S
n
y
d
e
r
/
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
St
a
f
f
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
A
u
b
u
r
n
W
a
y
S
o
u
t
h
V
i
s
u
a
l
P
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
Su
r
v
e
y
w
i
t
h
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
V
i
s
u
a
l
P
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
f
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
ar
e
a
s
.
EN
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
6
A
u
b
u
r
n
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
P
a
r
k
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
An
d
e
r
s
e
n
St
a
f
f
i
s
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
W
S
D
O
T
o
n
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
a
c
q
u
i
s
it
i
o
n
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
;
Bo
a
r
d
w
a
l
k
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
,
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
u
n
d
er
w
a
y
.
7
G
r
e
e
n
Z
o
n
e
S
u
m
m
i
t
Ea
r
l
y
-
M
i
d
20
1
2
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
An
d
e
r
s
e
n
St
a
f
f
t
o
w
o
r
k
o
n
S
u
m
m
i
t
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
.
8
Gr
e
e
n
Z
o
n
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
Pl
a
n
/
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
TB
D
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
An
d
e
r
s
e
n
St
a
f
f
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
r
a
f
t
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
p
l
a
n
/
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
a
te
g
y
f
o
r
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
i
n
p
u
t
.
PA
R
K
S
,
A
R
T
S
&
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
9
L
e
a
H
i
l
l
/
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
C
C
P
a
r
k
T
B
D
F
a
b
e
r
Me
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
n
d
G
R
CC
t
o
s
w
a
p
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
–
L
e
a
H
i
l
l
p
a
r
k
t
o
G
R
C
C
a
n
d
t
h
e
M
a
r
t
i
n
p
r
o
pe
r
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
f
o
r
a
ne
w
p
a
r
k
.
L
e
a
H
i
l
l
/
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
C
C
P
a
r
k
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
10
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Su
m
m
e
r
2
0
1
2
Hu
r
s
h
PC
D
C
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
a
t
a
f
u
t
u
r
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
;
b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
t
o
b
e
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
.
11
H
u
m
a
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
H
u
r
s
h
Re
v
i
e
w
H
S
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
a
n
d
C
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
P
l
a
n
l
an
g
u
a
g
e
f
o
r
ma
n
d
a
t
o
r
y
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
O
n
e
-
S
t
o
p
-
S
h
o
p
.
S
t
a
f
f
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
PC
D
C
o
n
9
/
2
7
/
1
0
.
12
Un
i
f
y
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
ce
n
t
r
a
l
i
z
e
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
Fa
l
l
2
0
1
2
H
u
r
s
h
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
t
o
g
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
u
pd
a
t
e
s
.
BO
A
R
D
S
,
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
&
H
E
A
R
I
N
G
E
X
A
M
I
N
E
R
13
A
r
t
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
20
1
2
Fa
b
e
r
J
o
i
n
t
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
h
e
l
d
o
n
1
1
/
1
4
/
1
1
w
i
t
h
P
C
D
C
.
14
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
2
Di
x
o
n
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
a
t
t
e
n
d
e
d
1
0
/
2
4
/
1
1
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
n
n
u
al
b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
.
DI.E
Ma
r
c
h
8
,
2
0
1
2
Pa
g
e
3
To
p
i
c
/
I
s
s
u
e
Ne
x
t
o
n
P
C
D
St
a
f
f
/
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Le
a
d
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
15
P
a
r
k
s
&
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
B
o
a
r
d
S
u
m
m
e
r
2
0
1
2
F
a
b
e
r
A
n
n
u
a
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d
6
/
1
3
/
1
1
w
i
t
h
P
C
D
C
.
16
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
j
o
i
n
t
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
i
n
2
0
1
2
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
G
r
ou
p
2
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
w
o
r
k
an
d
s
u
b
-
a
r
e
a
p
l
a
n
w
o
r
k
.
17
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
,
a
n
d
T
r
a
i
l
s
Ap
r
i
l
-
M
a
y
20
1
2
Th
o
r
d
a
r
s
o
n
St
a
f
f
t
o
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
T
r
a
n
si
t
a
n
d
T
r
a
i
l
s
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Ch
a
i
r
.
18
U
r
b
a
n
T
r
e
e
B
o
a
r
d
S
u
m
m
e
r
2
0
1
2
F
a
b
e
r
A
n
n
u
a
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d
6
/
1
3
/
1
1
w
i
t
h
P
C
D
C
.
CA
P
I
T
A
L
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
(
L
o
n
g
R
a
n
g
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
)
22
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Sc
o
p
e
:
L
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
th
e
i
n
t
e
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
la
n
d
u
s
e
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
On
-
g
o
i
n
g
H
a
n
k
i
n
s
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
b
y
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
i
n
2
0
0
9
.
Up
d
a
t
e
d
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
pr
o
c
e
s
s
.
23
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
(
T
I
P
)
Sc
o
p
e
:
6
-
y
e
a
r
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
h
a
t
i
s
up
d
a
t
e
d
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
Fa
l
l
2
0
1
2
Ha
n
k
i
n
s
20
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
T
I
P
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
1
.
T
h
e
n
e
x
t
si
x
-
y
e
a
r
T
I
P
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
F
a
l
l
2
0
1
2
.
24
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
(
C
I
P
)
Sc
o
p
e
:
6
-
y
e
a
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
fo
r
s
e
w
e
r
,
w
a
t
e
r
,
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
st
r
e
e
t
s
.
On
-
g
o
i
n
g
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
Up
d
a
t
e
d
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
pr
o
c
e
s
s
.
OT
H
E
R
25
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
M
a
y
o
r
F
u
tu
r
e
b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
s
t
o
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
DI.E