Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-2014 COUNCIL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE AGENDA PACKETCIYOF A NGTON Council Operations Committee July 9, 2014 - 10:00 AM Council Conference Room - City Hall AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER A. RoII CaII B. Announcements C. Agenda Modifications 11. CONSENT AGENDA A. May 30, 2014 Minutes* 111. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Transistion to Study Sessions* IV. 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. Page 1 of 29 C17YOF A u641 \VASHCNGTOf! AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Date: May 30, 2014 Minutes July 3, 2014 Department: Attachments: Budget Impact: Administration 5 -30 -2014 Minutes $0 Administrative Recommendation: Background Summary: Reviewed by Council Committees: Councilmember: Meeting Date: July 9, 2014 Staff: Item Number: CA.A CA.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 2 of 29 WASH I NGTO[V Council Operations Committee May 30, 2014 - 1:00 PM City Hall Council Conference Room MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER A. Roll Call Chair Wagner called the Council Operations Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m., in the Council Conference Room at Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street in Auburn. Members in attendance included Chair Rich Wagner, Vice Chair Bill Peloza and Member Largo Wales. Also in attendance were Mayor Nancy Backus, City Attorney Daniel B. Heid, Community Development and Public Works Director Kevin Snyder, and Deputy City Clerk Shawn Campbell. B. Announcements There was no announcement. C. Agenda Modifications There was no agenda modification. II. CONSENT AGENDA A. April 28, 2014 Minutes Vice Chair Peloza moved and Member Wales seconded to approve the April 28, 2014 meeting minutes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3 -0 III. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Council Committee Format The Committee discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the changing from the Council Committee format to the Study Session format. City Attorney Heid provided the Committee a list of pro's and con's compiled by Director Snyder. Chair Wagner requested a Special City Council Meeting to discuss the City of SeaTac's transition from Council Committees to Study Sessions with the Mayor from the City of SeaTac as the presenter. Page 1 of 2 CA.A Page 3 of 29 The Committee discussed ad hoc committees, moving items forward for action and allowing Councilmembers the ability to talk to each other outside of the open public meetings. The Committee also discussed several options to ensure each Councilmember has ample opportunity to speak and the Council's ability to add items to the agenda. City Attorney Heid stated ad hoc committees cannot take public testimony. Member Wales shared concerns regarding eliminating the intervening time between when an item has been introduced to when it is brought before Council for consideration. She stated the importance of ensuring Council has adequate time to review an item. She shared concerns about the Council losing the expertise gained from the smaller committees, the volume of materials that goes through each committee being extensive and being able to adjust the current matrix system to a new system that will work for a larger group. Director Snyder stated he believes the Council would have additional Councilmembers develop expertise and passion. The matrixes will need to be broken down into active projects, monitoring, and tracking review. The new process will help the Council focus more on their policy making role and remove the Council from some of the administrative functions. The Committee requested each Committee's matrix be provided at the next meeting. Chair Wagner requested City Attorney Heid provide the Committee with a synopsis of how the ad hoc committees would work. IV. ADJOURNMENT CA.A There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:31 p.m. Approved this day of , 2014. Rich Wagner, Chair Shawn Campbell, Deputy City Clerk Page 2 of 2 Page 4 of 29 C17YOF wASFINGTON Agenda Subject: Transistion to Study Sessions Department: Administration AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Attachments: revised Pro -Con List Conceptual Format for Study Session City Code and Business Practice Changes for Council Study Session Format City of SeaTac Working Paper Muncipal Services Matrix PCDC Matrix PW Matrix Administrative Recommendation: Background Summary: Reviewed by Council Committees: Date: July 3, 2014 Budget Impact: $0 Councilmember: Staff: Meeting Date: July 9, 2014 Item Number: DI.A DI.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 5 of 29 PROs /CONs for Change to Council Study Session Format * *Revision from the document provided at the April Council Operations Committee meeting shown with underline or strikethrough. ** Workshop Study Session Purpose Summary: The purpose of a City Council workshop study session is to provide a forum for information sharing and discussion on topics or issues that the City Council or Mayor believes there should be in depth information and warrants gathering and discussion on before the council takes any action. Issues should be substantive in nature and should be related to future policy - making, strategic planning or key regional, state or federal issues related to future policy- making or current or future budgeting. Pros • Reinforces City Council's "Board of Directors' responsibilities and helps to reinforce and respect the lines between the policy and financial functions of Council a+d versus the executive /administrative functions of the Mayor and City Administration. • Increases transparency in the governmental process by providing a single forum for discussion of key policy issues or topics, and avoiding what may appear as less meaningful Council meetings fall the real work of the City Council is done in the committeesl. • Reduced limitations on public access and information distribution to Council proceedings. Some of the committees meet during or meet immediately following normal work hours (i.e. 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) making it difficult for interested citizens to attend the current committee meetings. • Forces Council to keep on -topic and reduces the potential for off -topic conversations. • Reinforces and enhances the advisory relationships between City Council and its advisory boards and commissions by having recommendations flow through to the entire Council at the same time for joint consideration. • Provides Council with the opportunity to talk jointly about issues without fear of violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. • Provides opportunity for more focused conversation on key policy issues amongst Council. • Reduces unequal distribution of information Assures that information is distributed more equally among Councilmembers. Allow all Councilmembers to hear the same information at the same time. • Allows for Councilmembers to discuss among themselves the issues and topics before them and learn from each other — and be aware of each other's positions [both positive and negative], questions or suggestions — in the same forum. • Improves the efficiency of staff work by allowing staff to present jointly, uniformly, to the entire City Council. DI.A Page 6 of 29 • Reduces workload demands on staff by not having to prepare for and attend one or more City Council Committee meetings. • Reduce the administrative burden and costs on the City Clerk and Department administrative staff to support the Council Committees process (e.g. 1.25 FTE equivalent in Community Development and Public Works). • Reduces the breadth to some extent of the current subject matter that Council Committees cover. • May increase excitement and passion in some Councilmembers for the job of councilmember because of the increased focus on major city -wide policy matters. • May increase teamwork among Councilmembers in that more of what is done would be done by the whole City Council. Cons • Reduces the breadth to some extent of the current subject matter that Council Committees cover. • Reduces Council's direct oversight over and /or involvement in some of the City's more administrative functions. • May create challenges for some Councilmembers' participation levels. • Potential reduction in some Councilmembers' passion (s) because of reduced ability to display expertise in a particular subject matter. • Will create short -term challenges in understanding and implementing changes in roles and responsibilities during the transition period. • Will reduce Council's ability to "dabble" in a subject matter that is not substantive in nature and does not have a current or future policy relationship. DI.A Page 7 of 29 DI.A Auburn City Council Regular Meeting /Study Session Alternative Business Practice Conceptual Format Meetings Format • First Meeting of the Month — Regular Council Meeting • Second Meeting of the Month — Council Study Session • Third Meeting of the Month — Regular Council Meeting • Fourth Meeting of the Month — Council Study Session Study Sessions — Key Aspects • 2. Hour Timeframe • Maximum 5 agenda items • Time frame per agenda item - 30 to 40 minutes • Meeting facilitation — similar to how COW meetings are conducted • Agenda Items: • Should be related to future policy - making, strategic planning or key state or federal issues affecting current or future City operations • Substantive only (e.g. traffic impact fee increase proposal, comprehensive plan update) • Non - substantive items (e.g. acceptance of a grant, contract bidding) should go directly to City Council Institute first/second reading business protocol at regular Council meeting: • Applicable to ordinances only; resolutions /consent items /contract awards, etc. would still be acted on at only one regular Council meeting: o Ordinance action result in changes to City codes; normally more consideration effort is deemed necessary and beneficial to transparent public process • First reading — discussion only at one council meeting • Second reading — action at next council meeting or could be a future subsequent Council meeting depending on Council's discussion and any needed staff follow -up • Preserve Council's right to suspend rules and take action at first reading • Provides Council with opportunity to ask questions and get information at first reading Page 8 of 29 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CITY CODE & BUSINESS PRACTICE CHANGES — COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT COMMITTEE STRUCTURE The City Council, itself, operates in a committee structure - it operates as a collective among its members. That is, it operates by the participation of its members moving, approving and adopting action - passing resolutions in ordinances, approving contracts and policies. These are done in the collective among the Council body, by motion, second, discussion and vote. Aside from, and as a part of the city Council itself, it can utilize committees to aid in its roles and functions. Those committees could be (1) Committee of the Whole, (2) Standing Committees and (3) Ad Hoc Committees. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Committee of the Whole involves the full membership of the City Council and is similar to the (regular) City Council meetings except as limitations may be placed upon this committee structure, e.g., not used for taking formal action, used for lengthy presentations to the city Council, etc. STANDING COMMITTEES Standing Committees - similar to what the City Council now uses - Public Works, PCDC, Municipal Services, Finance, etc. Consistent with other information provided to the City Council, there are pros and cons in connection with keeping the current Standing Committee structure versus moving to a Study Session format. However, there may still be the need for a Standing Committee such as, for instance, the Council operations committee which has a unique function to the city Council. However, the formality with which a committees formed is one of the factors that relates to whether it must comply with the open public meetings act and whether it triggers quorum considerations, something that has been a challenge for councilmembers. The more that the City Council can move away from standing committees, the more easily it will be able to address its issues without having to contend with the artificial limit of a two - person quorum triggering Open Public Meetings Act concerns. AD Hoc COMMITTEES Ad Hoc Committees - committees set up for a specific or limited purpose - could be set up to address specific issues or to function for only that period of time related to the purposes for which it was established. The City Council, during a Study Session [following the consensus of a majority of the Councilmembers] or at a Regular City Council meeting [following the vote of a majority of the Councilmembers], may establish an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of 2 to 3 July 3, 2013 Page 1 DI.A Page 9 of 29 Councilmembers maximum. The Committee should be formed to conduct substantive research or review on a specific national, regional or local issue or project and advise the City Council on the findings of their efforts. A Committee should only be formed if the issue or project is of a significant nature warranting the additional commitment of Councilmembers' time and energy. A Committee should perform its service for a limited duration of time with the timeframe established as part of the initial Council consensus (e.g. report back in 90 days to the full City Council). The Mayor should identify and assign the appropriate staffing resources to support an Ad Hoc Committee, if applicable. The Ad Hoc Committee should not give direction to involved staff to conduct any supporting work unless pre- approved by the Mayor. If the Committee wants additional staff work or staff support, the Committee should make a request directly to the Mayor. OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT IMPLICATIONS An Ad Hoc Committee would not be required to follow the Open Public Meetings Act so long as there will not be a quorum of the full City Council, and so long as it understands that it does not — cannot take no public testimony or receive statements from the public If the City Council wished for its Ad Hoc Committee to solicit or receive public comment or take public testimony in connection with its ad hoc committee functions, the committee would fall within the parameters of the Open Public Meetings Act and its meetings would need to comply with the act - its meetings would need to be recorded and they would trigger quorum limitations. However, again, so long as the ad hoc committee targets its functions at reviewing material, investigating matters that will be coming before the full City Council and preparing recommendations to the City Council - not taking any action independent from, on behalf of or instead of the full City Council - it would not fall under the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act. HOW AD HOC COMMITTEES COULD WORK An informal Ad Hoc Committee intended to operate outside the Open Public Meetings Act could function as follows: • The Ad Hoc Committee would be comprised of 2 to 3 members of the City Council (a number less than the quorum of the full City Council); • Ad Hoc Committee would (only) consider information and materials provided to it by staff in response to the purpose for which the Ad Hoc Committee was established; The reason for the 2 to 3 councilmember committee membership is to avoid a quorum issue regarding the full City Council, where for members constitute a quorum of the City Council. July 3, 2013 Page 2 DI.A Page 10 of 29 • Ad Hoc Committee would not receive public comment or take public testimony at its meetings (to the extent that if members of the public were in attendance at the Ad Hoc Committee's meetings, they would need to understand that the meeting would not accommodate public comment or statements from the public)2; • Ad Hoc Committee would take no action on behalf of or instead of the full City Council, but would report its findings to the full City Council and make its recommendations to the full City Council. MEETING FOCUSES Meeting focuses for Council study sessions should be on substantive policy, financial, risk management, organizational or strategic planning issues, projects and initiatives. Presentations may be given by outside individuals or parties if they are germane and relevant to the substantive topic being discussed. Individuals or organizations that are interested in giving general updates or program overviews or are seeking Council support for a particular matter should be directed by the Mayor's Office to give these presentations at a regular Council meeting. RIGHT -OF -WAY PERMITS ACC 12.60 (Right -of -Way Permits) currently specifies that the Public Works Committee is involved in the consideration of certain Type B short -term right -of -way permits (ACC 12.60.040) and Type C long -term permits (ACC 12.60.050). Specifically these are permits that involve downtown, community impacts, full street closures, or uses with policy implications. The issuance of right -of -way permits is a technical action that can be conducted under the direction and the authority of the City Engineer. Staff would recommend eliminating current City Code references to the involvement of the Public Works Committee in the issuance of right -of -way permits. UTILITY SERVICE WATER LEAK ADJUSTMENTS There are no current City Code regulations that direct the process for the conduct of utility service water leak adjustments. Rather, the City's policy pertaining to utility service water leak adjustments is contained in Administrative Policy and Procedure 100- 52 that is issued by the Mayor's Office. Section 4.8 of Administrative Policy and Procedure 100 -52 specifies that if a customer disputes the decision to deny the adjustment or the approved adjustment amount exceeds $500.00, he or she may submit a written request to the Finance Director for an administrative review of the adjustment request by the City Council Public Works Committee. This Section further states that leak adjustments will be considered by the Public Works Committee including additional adjustments of 50% of the remaining water 2 The limitation of public comment and public testimony is crucial in order for the Ad Hoc Committee to function outside the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act. July 3, 2013 Page 3 DI.A Page 11 of 29 portion over $500.00. This Section specifies that recommendations for leak adjustments made by the Public Works Committee will be submitted to the full City Council for final consideration and approval. The inclusion of the Public Works Committee and the City Council in the appeal process for utility service water adjustment appeals is a business practice that is not required by current City Code or mandated by statute. The Finance Director is responsible for the management of the City's water utility billing system and can effectively exercise professional judgment in any appeals of a decision to deny an adjustment or if the approved adjustment amount exceeds $500.00. Staff recommend that Section 4.8 of Administrative Policy and Procedure 100 -52 be revised to eliminate references to the Public Works Committee and City Council with the launch of the new Council study session format. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS Chapter 3.10 (Purchasing Policy) of the Auburn City Code comprises the City current purchasing policies. ACC 3.10.020 (Expenditure Limits) specifies that for contracts with total dollar amounts up to $5,000, authority rests at the department director level. It further specifies that for all contracts over $5,000, up to $25,000, and contracts for goods and services that have been individually and separately listed in the city's annual budget shall be approved and signed by the mayor prior to purchase order issuance or placement of an order with vendors [emphasis added]. For all unbudgeted expenditures not individually and separately listed in the city's annual budget in excess of $25,000, approval shall be obtained from the Mayor, the appropriate council committee and the city council and that such committee approval shall be reflected in the committee minutes. Staff notes that current City code authorizes the Mayor to sign contracts for all goods and services that have been individually and separately listed in the City's annual budget process. The current business practice of the Public Works Committee reviewing all contracts for goods and services including those listed in the City's budget is not a requirement of current City code. The City Council determines whether these goods and services will be funded as part of the approval of the City's budget or any adjustments. From this point, the Mayor, working with the appropriate Department and City Attorney's Office, should, in conformance with current City code, be able to coordinate the execution of all required contracts. Staff would recommend that this business practice be eliminated with the launch of the new Council study session format and that the Council rely upon and trust the professional expertise of the Mayor and staff in executing contracts for goods and services (i.e. all capital projects and professional services budgets for all Departments) that have been individually and separately listed in the City's budget. Current City code specifies that unbudgeted expenditures not individually and separately listed in the city's annual budget in excess of $25,000, approval shall be July 3, 2013 Page 4 DI.A Page 12 of 29 obtained from the Mayor, the appropriate council committee and the city council. Because the specified amount of $25,000 exceeds the Mayor's current expenditure limit, these items will require separate City Council action. The elimination of the Public Works Committee review of these types of expenditures will in effect remove a process step resulting in greater time and cost efficiencies. Staff would recommend that this code language be eliminated with the launch of the new Council study session format and that contracts for goods and services that are not individually and separately listed in the City's budget and in excess of $25,000 proceed immediately to Council for consideration. Section 3.10.028 (Approval by Council Committee of Asset and /or System Expansion, Additions and Betterments) of the Auburn City Code specifies that asset and /or system expansions, additions, and betterments that have been recognized as authorized capital projects exceeding $25,000 in the budget shall be reviewed by the appropriate council committee to formally initiate the project prior to a call for bids. Staff would recommend that this code language be eliminated with the launch of the new Council study session format and that the Council rely upon and trust the professional expertise of the Mayor and staff to initiate inclusive of project bidding asset and /or system expansions, additions, and betterments that have been recognized as authorized capital projects exceeding $25,000 in the budget. Section 3.12.034 requires that the City Council award construction contracts in excess of $25,000 therefore, contracts for these initiated projects would need to be reviewed and approved by the full City Council prior to these projects moving forward. Sections 3.12.011 (Formal Advertisement Required) and 3.12.020 (Advertising Procedures) of the Auburn City Code contain the City's current regulations pertaining to the advertising of public works projects in excess of $200,000. Current code language in these sections do not specify that the Public Works Committees must grant approval to advertise. Rather, this is a current business practice with no code basis. Staff would recommend that this business practice be eliminated with the launch of the new Council study session format. The full City Council would review and approve or disapprove any public works construction contracts as allowed by City Code. Section 3.12.034 (Procedure for Utilization of Small Works Roster) of the Auburn City Code currently requires the City Council award all construction contracts in excess of $25,000. Contracts under $25,000 are awarded by the Director. Current state law has several limits related to construction contracting as it relates to our "code city" status as follows: 1. Under Bid Limits: up to $40,000 for single trade and $65,000 for multiple trade 2. Limited Public Works: up to $35,000 3. Small Works: up to $300,000 City code currently restricts small works limits to up to $200,000 and is more restrictive then state law. Staff uses the various limits identified above and the differences in the July 3, 2013 Page 5 DI.A Page 13 of 29 contract requirements provided by each option to determine the appropriate type of contract to issue for each project. Staff would recommend that the limitation on the award of construction contracts by the Director be adjusted to be in line with State bid limits for budgeted projects and that the small works limits be revised to reference the appropriate RCW limits so that as state law changes staff can make the most efficient and effective use of the options available for contracting work. CONSULTANT AGREEMENTS Chapter 2.03.030 (Powers and Duties Generally) of the Auburn City Code currently authorizes the Mayor to negotiate and /or award contracts falling within the budget authority of the Mayor per Chapter 3.10.020 and indicates that these contracts may be taken to the City Council as consent or discussion items for informational purposes. Chapter 3.10.020 (Expenditure Limits) provides authority to the Mayor to execute contracts for unbudgeted items up to $25,000 and for any contracts that are listed in the City's annual budget. This provides for any professional, personal, or construction contract for projects listed in the annual budget or within the professional services line items of each departmental budget. In addition, Chapter 3.10.25 (Professional and Personal Services) of the Auburn City Code specifies when to take amendments to professional and personal services agreements to the City Council for approval and is specifically ties to the expenditure authority such that amendments that are within budget are not required to be approved by the Council but only those changes that exceed the Mayor's authority for unbudgeted items. The submittal of consultant agreements to the Council for approval has been a previously established business practice. Staff would recommend that this business practice be eliminated with the launch of the new Council study session format and that the Council rely upon and trust the professional expertise of staff in preparing professional services contracts as allowed by the current code authority. OBTAINMENT & RELEASE OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EASEMENTS Chapter 12.04.050 (Authorities for Public Infrastructure and Right -of -Way Management) of the Auburn City Code currently authorizes the City Engineer to accept easements granted to the City as part of an approved development project for city utilities, drainage, slope protection, public access, and right -of -way. This Chapter further grants that the City Engineer after review by the Public Works Committee, may execute a release or partial release of any city utility, drainage, temporary road, or slope protection easements that are no longer needed for city purposes. All other city -held easements require action by the City Council. While this allows the city to accept easements and right -of -way related to development projects, formal action by the Council is required to accept easements and right -of -way associated with City capital projects. Current July 3, 2013 Page 6 DI.A Page 14 of 29 business practice has been to grant City staff the ability to procure rights for capital projects through a resolution of the City Council. In addition, the City's current business practice is that the Public Works Committee must concur with the release of temporary easements obtained or provided to the City for construction or other similar purposes. Because the relationship to the land is temporary in nature no further action by the City Council is necessary. For permanent easements granted to or obtained by the City, the Public Works Committee must concur with the release of easements related to utilities, drainage or slope protection. For all other types of easement releases, City Council must accept them and approve their release unless City Council delegates these authorities to the Mayor. Staff would recommend for improved efficiencies that the City Council adopt Code language authorizing the Mayor or designee (e.g. City Engineer) to obtain and release temporary and permanent easements related to utilities, drainage, slope protection, and temporary uses. DESIGN STANDARDS Chapter 12.04.010 (Adoption of Engineering Construction Standards and Engineering Design Standards) of the Auburn City Code stipulates that the engineering design standards must be approved by the Public Works Committee. These standards include clearing and grading, City utilities, private utilities, streets, and City telecommunication facilities is currently required to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Committee. Staff recommends that this business practice be eliminated with the launch of the new Council study session format. The City Engineer should have the authority to establish and modify these design standards as necessary. However, because these design standards affect the community's quality of life, the City Engineer should review the establishment of new standards or the modification of existing standards with the full City Council in a study session format and make any necessary adjustments, if applicable, prior to publication of the standards specifically where there is a policy implication. July 3, 2013 Page 7 DI.A Page 15 of 29 Working Paper. - City Council Committees ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES The City Council has established seven standing committees of the. City Council, each consisting of three. Councilmembers. The procedures for member selection, as well as the identification of the seven standing committees and their areas of responsibility, are set forth in the City of SeaTac's City Council Administrative procedures. Those standing committees consist of the following: 1. Transportation Committee, 2. Administration and Finance Committee, 3. Land Use, Zoning and Economic Development Committee, 4. Intergovernmental Relations Committee, 5. Public Safety and Justice Committee, 6. Public Works Committee, 7. Community Development Committee. INITIAL REASONS FOR COMMITTEES The initial creation and use of Council Committees by the City of SeaTac made good sense from the standpoint that the City, being a newly incorporated city, initially had no staff members to handle matters which were of importance to the City. As staff was added, the City Council was still involved in many day -to -day matters, including not just activities of the newly hired staff but also determinations of what future municipal functions should be expanded and added to the City's increasing role. These Council Committees obviously served a very valuable role in shaping the direction of the new City, and interfacing, with the initial limited staff personnel. This use of these committees was particularly appropriate and understandable in light of the limited initial level of municipal services, activities and functions of the City. CHANGES SINCE COMMITTEES CREATED Now that the City is over three years old, and now that the City has hired a relatively full complement of municipal employees to handle the day -to -day activities of City operations, it is appropriate to evaluate the need for and use of Council Committees. in addition to the increased number of City employees available to handle administrative matters of the City regarding the various activities and functions which, had initially been addressed by the Council Committees, the City Council has adopted ordinances establishing a number of boards and commissions which further assist the City Council in various functions of municipal government, acting in an advisory capacity to the City Council. Those boards and commissions currently include the following: 1. Planning Commission, 2. Human Services Commission, 3. Arts Commission, 4. Human Relations Commission, 5. Americans With Disabilities Act Citizens' Access Committee, 6. Youth Commission, 7. Civil Service Commission, 8. Library Board, 9. Parks and Recreation Commission, 10. Solid Waste. Advisory Board, Page 1 DI.A Page 16 of 29 In addition to the above Boards and Commissions, the City has several ad hoc boards (including the North SeaTac Park Advisory Board and the International Boulevard Center [IBC] Advisory Group). There are also other groups which are operating within the City and which provide advice and assistance to the City Council in a Tess official way, including the SeaTac Apartment Manager's Association, the Chamber of Commerce and other such groups. As staff has been increased, as has the operational workload of rurming the City of SeaTac, the need for City Councilmembers to be as involved in the day -to -day operations of the City has decreased. Similarly, with the increased number of city boards and commissions, and the increase in their activity to provide advisory information to the City Council, the need for Council Committees has, likewise, been decreased. In that regard, it should be noted that a number of the boards and commissions of the City cover overlapping if not identical issues to those addressed by a number of the Council Committees. In order to allow the boards and commissions to effectively operate in their advisory capacity, and to avoid what would otherwise be a duplication or redundancy of effort, it would be appropriate to let matters that could be handled by these advisory boards and commissions to be so handled, rather than have them ALSO handled by a Council Committee. When it gets right down to it, the current structure results in a committee (i.e. Arts Commission) reporting to another committee (the Community Development Council Committee) which then reports to another committee (the entire City Council). COUNCIL COMMITTEE PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS As a further, and perhaps more important, incentive to re- evaluate the current Council Committee structure, there are some problems that are occurring or that at least occasionally occur which would indicate justification for reduction or elimination of Council Committees. Those problems include the following: 1. Reduced focus or priority regarding City Council boards and commissions. Particularly where, again, Council Committees may otherwise take action essentially the same or involving the same subject matter as that which would be addressed by a City board or commission (such as making preliminary reviews of proposals and issues of importance to the City, and then making recommendations to the full City Council), the members of the board or commission who would be presenting an advisory opinion to the Council may feel somewhat less valuable if the same process is essentially being done independent of their board or commission, by a Council Committee. In order to give more full utilization and greater efficacy to the City's boards and commissions, and to take advantage of the volunteer - citizen participation and encourage that participation, it would be appropriate to let the board or commission take its action and then make its recommendations to the whole City Council. That would help the members of the board or commission to feel that their board or commission serves a real, independently valuable service to the City Council. 2. Slowed process. The speed with which some matters could be addressed by the City Council is actually hampered by the Council Committee process. This is particularly so where there may be difficulty in those Councilmembers on a particular Committee meeting even once a month. But also, since Council Committees generally only meet once a month, even though the City Council, itself, meets four times per month (two times for regular City Council meetings and two times for City Council Study Sessions), the requirement or expectation that matters should go through a committee review prior to being placed on the agenda for either a regular city council meeting or a study session, creates somewhat of a procedural funnel which slows down the speed with which matters could otherwise be addressed. Especially where some matters may be more time Page 2 DI.A Page 17 of 29 sensitive, those delays could hamper the City's ability to effectively respond to a certain need. Additionally, because of the division of responsibilities among the Council Committees, the "funneling" effect may be amplified by the need for a particular issue to be reviewed by more . than one Council Committee. Even in those instances where two or more Council Committees could conceivably meet at the same time to consider such an issue, the question must then be asked whether it wouldn't be more appropriate: and certainly more expeditious to handle the matter, instead, at a full City Council study session. 3. Promotion of proprietary interests. Even though it would seem that this matter is Tess of an issue in the City of SeaTac than it could be, the committee structure could result in the members of the committee and /or its chair developing a possessory interest in issues coming before his /her /their committee. Worst case scenarios could even result in support bartering for issues of various committees (for instance: "I'll vote for your conmiittee's issue if you vote for my committee's issue "). Even if things don't get to that point, the "ownership" of a particular issue by a committee and its chair and members may result in a reluctance by a Councilmember who is not a member of that committee from addressing challenges or raising questions regarding an issue which has been adopted or endorsed by a committee. Conversely, the Council Committee approach would also likely result in a diminished interest or ownership by Councilmembers who are not members of committees which addressed or dealt with the subject matter involved. 4. Unequal distribution of information. The committee structure, as it currently operates, results in certain City Councilmembers being given. substantially more information about topics that come . before their committees than would reasonably be available to the other Councilmembers. This is particularly so where a subject comes before a committee and goes directly from the committee to the regular City Council meeting where the entire City Council votes on the. issue. At the time of such a vote, those Councilmembers who were on a committee which reviewed the particular subject matter may have a substantially greater understanding of background information, impacts and effects, and their vote on the issue is a substantially more informed vote than would be the vote of those Councilmembers who did not have the benefit of that additional background information. The result of that unequal distribution of information might be that Councilmembers who are less informed about the subject matter involved would develop the need to rely upon those Councilmembers who received that additional information. For that matter, again, a Tess informed Councilmember may be less likely to challenge or even raise questions about an issue which is strongly supported by members of the committee that had previous reviewed information about the subject matter. 5. Staff obligation to provide information to City Council. Another aspect of the problem of unequal distribution of information is the uncomfortableness that develops when staff does not give information uniformly to all Councilmembers. The Committee structure which creates the unequal distribution of information goes counter to the obligation of City staff to provide information to all Councilmembers. Any time one member of the City Council receives extra /more information on a matter going before the City Council than other Councilmembers, the obligation to the Councilmembers who do not receive the extra /more information is drawn into question. Particularly where one Council Committee is receiving additional information, the question of whether certain topics would justify additional or extraordinary measures to provide that same information to Councilmembers who are not on reviewing committees, or whether those Councilmembers should be left in that "less informed" state need to be addressed. If the answer to that question were in favor of providing additional information to Councilmembers Page 3 DI.A Page 18 of 29 who are not on reviewing committees, then the additional workload and the additional questions and effort to provide that same level of information to those non - committee. Councilmembers begs the question of whether the Council Committee structure is an efficient and effective tool. That is in addition to the previously mentioned concerns about unequal distribution of information. In a related vein to both paragraphs 4 & 5 hereof, according to the CODE CITY HANDBOOK, published by the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington, and the Municipal Research Council, in cooperation with the Association of Washington Cities, (Report No. 17, . August 1988), in addition to seeming somewhat superfluous, standing Council Committees in Washington council- manager non - charter code cities, such as SeaTac, seem contrary to the provisions of the International City Management Association's Code of Ethics which suggests that the manager should "relate to the council essentially as a collective body rather than as a group of individuals in order to avoid suspicions of favoritism." (See International City Management Association, Managing the Modern City. [Washington, D.C.. 1971], p..99.) The CODE. CITY HANDBOOK also indicates that standing committees "tends to interfere with the city manager's control over administration, thereby disrupting the work of city government. Furthermore, if there is any tendency on the part of the council to follow uncritically the advice . and recommendations of its committees, or if standing committee members try personally to make certain that the departments with which they deal are well administered, the standing committee system is likely to conflict with the principle that the city manager's responsibility is to the council as a body and not to various members and groups within the council," The CODE CITY HANDBOOK additionally points out that these standing committee conflicts could also violate the spirit, if not the terms, of RCW 35A.13.120, which prohibits interference by the council, its committees, or any councilmember with the city's administrative services. 6. Uncertainties of participation. An additional area that is not clearly defined in the current Council Committee structure is the question of what role may be played in committee meetings by members of the City Council who are not members of that committee. Although the committee meetings are open to the public, and any member of the City Council may attend, the levels of committee meeting participation that "non - committee member" Councilmembers vary quite a bit among the current members of the City Council. Some Councilmembers seem to participate in those meetings to the same degree as the regular members of the committee, actively engaging in the discussion and seemingly voting or at least voicing opinions that are considered and incorporated in the "decision" of the committee. It is not clear whether the voice vote or position of non - committee members count or should be weighed equally to those of committee members. The participation by non- committee members blurs the distinction of Council Committee membership, particularly since the levels of participation vary so much among the City Councilmembers. This participation again illustrates the fact that many issues are of interest to a number of City Councilmembers, not just those who are on one committee or another. By taking issues to City Council Study Sessions, where all City Councilmembers could participate on the same footing, instead of taking them to Council Committees, the potential confusion and uncertainty in who can participate and to what level of participation would be addressed. 7. Open Public Meetings, It is appropriate to consider how the Council Committee structure meshes with the statutory requirements for public city council meetings. Pursuant to Sections 35A.12.110 and 42.30.060 of the Revised Code of Washington, the times and places of Regular Page 4 DI.A Page 19 of 29 Meetings of the City Council must be fixed by ordinance or rule. It appears that this requirement is adequately met by the City Council Administrative Procedures, since the procedures were adopted by Resolution and since they set the time and place for the Regular SeaTac City Council Meetings. However, there are separate procedural requirements for Special Meetings of the City Council, set forth in RCW 42.30.080. The Special Meeting requirements include written notice to all members of the City Council and to members of requesting news media at least 24 hours in advance, and identification of the subject matter to be addressed. These requirements also appear to be met for Council Committee meetings, since the Friday Letter /City Council packets do go to all Councilmembers and to the local newspaper at least 24 hours in advance of the Council Committee meetings, and they do identify the agenda topics. Accordingly, under ordinary, regular circumstances, the City's use of Council Committees does not conflict with the Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30). That would appear to be the case even if additional non - committee- Councilmembers attend and participate in Council Committee meetings, since the prerequisites for the public meeting would have been met. (In that regard, because the Council Committees take action for and on behalf of the whole City Council, including not just reviewing and discussing matters, but also restricting (deciding) what items are to be forwarded to the full City Council and when they are to be placed on the. City Council agenda, the Open Public Meetings Act would apply to Council Committee meetings.) A problem could arise, however, if a Council Committee meeting does not meet the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act and things occur that mandate compliance with the Act. This could, for instance, occur if a Council Committee meeting is changed to a date different than the date shown on the City Council calendar (included in the Friday Packet) and if notice has not been given to the Councilmembers and the news media in conformity with statutory requirements. Specifically, if a quorum (4 or more members) of the full City Council attends such a Council Committee, and /or if the Council Committee takes action and /or makes decisions at such meeting for and on behalf of the whole City Council, that would be in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. Because of a more relaxed approach to the scheduling and holding of Council Committee meetings which occasionally results in last minute re- scheduling of such meetings, care has to be exercised to avoid a Council Committee - Open Public Meetings Act problem, particularly since the penalties for violation could include payment of fines and invalidity of City Council action. 8. Public hearings and specific protocols. Some issues need to be considered in accordance with the requirements of specific statutes, rules or regulations. For instance, some issues which are to be considered by a particular board or commission might be, similarly, within the subject matter jurisdiction of a particular Council Committee. Because the boards and commissions of the City operate in an advisory capacity, the process is encumbered where the board or commission may be operating on a different timetable than the Council Committee reviewing the same subject matter. In that regard, and particularly with respect to some Council Committees more than others, the process may be regulated much more strictly with respect to some boards and commissions and corresponding Council Committees than others. For instance, the City's Planning Commission, which is created in accordance with requirements of State statute, has certain responsibilities and obligations to consider matters involving land use and zoning. Those same issues would generally go before the Land Use, Zoning and Economic Development Committee. If the process /handling by both the Committee and the Commission are not kept in consistent sequence, the result could be that the Committee might be tempted to consider some matters before it has received the Commission's advisory recommendations. Particularly since, in that case, the consideration by the Commission often requires a public Page 5 DI.A Page 20 of 29 hearing and compliance with certain statutory procedures, the consideration out of sequence could cause challenges to action taken by the City Council with respect to that subject matter. 9. Increased workloads resulting from Council Committees. The use of Council Committees obviously involves extra meetings in addition to those regular City Council meetings and City Council Study Sessions. The attendance of Councilmembers at those meetings and the efforts to schedule them when they are convenient involve a lot of time. Additionally, the staff efforts to prepare for the meetings and to attend the meetings also involves a lot of time, taking care of such things as preparing agendas, packets and minutes, and scheduling meetings and notifying attending attendees. Particularly where some issues involve consideration by more than one committee, that staff time and the information presentation causes a duplication of efforts. The additional time investment by staff for Council Committees results in a cost to the City, which, although not necessarily as visible, is real and is something which makes it appropriate to consider the effectiveness and efficiency of the Council Committee approach. 10. Interference with coordination among City Departments. Just as issues may be of importance to various City Councilmembers, so too are a number of issues of importance to a variety of departments of the City. However, the Council Committee review process tends to prevent effective coordination among interested City Departments. This is the case because the Council Committees tend to operate independent of each other. Because the staff persons who represent a particular Council Committee would reasonably be expected to follow an issue as it progresses through that Council Committee, the "cross- over" to other staff or to other departments for their review may not be available until a time when involvement by other staff or departments would be untimely, inconvenient and /or less conducive to an efficient review or evaluation. In order to assure the soonest involvement of all interested staff and departments in issues affecting them, these issues should not be considered in Council Committee, but rather by the entire City Council. Because the interest or importance of an issue to a particular department may not be immediately evident, and in fact may not surface until it is considered and discussed by members of the City Council, the place for such consideration should be at a City Council Study Session. That would also help assure the City Council of a more thoroughly considered review and evaluation of all aspects of the issue, from the perspective of all City Departments. Again, it would enhance the teamwork among City Departments that is so vital to effective City operations. The smoother things. work from a City staff - teamwork perspective, the fewer problems there should be for the City Council to have to address. 11. Limitation on Public Access. It is not possible for interested citizens to always be able to attend all meetings at City Hall, particularly those meetings that are generally held during the normal work day, or that are held Tess frequently and /or scheduled less regularly. That is the case with Council Committee meetings, even though members of the public are welcome to attend such meetings and the meetings are "open public meetings." Often, Council Committees meet during the day, and on a number of occasions the Council Committee meetings need to be re- scheduled and moved to different dates and /or times because of calendar conflicts. That lack of scheduling uniformity, which is different than the scheduling of regular City Council Meetings and City Council Study Sessions, makes it more difficult for members of the public to know when the committee meetings will be held, and therefore harder to be able to plan to attend. Interested citizens who want to watch the process or track a City related issue would be, from a practical standpoint, deprived of an effective opportunity to follow the proceedings of a Council Committee. Particularly since such a significant share of deliberations and discussion involving Page 6 DI.A Page 21 of 29 City issues occurs at Council Committee meetings, interested citizens would likely miss that part of the process. What the citizens would see at the City Council meetings would likely have informational gaps that couldn't be effectively filled without the discussion and the data which was presented at the Council Committee meeting(s). Just as the Council Committee structure promoted an unequal distribution of information to City Councilmembers, it also restricts the information that would reasonably be available to members of the public. Even though City related meetings don't need to have as their first priorities the scheduling convenience of private citizens, nor the widest distribution of information about City action, those are important goals that are hampered by the current Council Committee structure. CONCLUSION Although there may be a need for the City Council to be able to create Council Committees and to have such committees consider and evaluate certain matters on behalf of the whole City Council, it would seem that the Council Committee structure should be amended to reflect the changes that have occurred since the City's initial incorporation, including the increased City staff, increased scope of City services and creation of the various City Boards and Commissions. Perhaps those Council Committees could be utilized to evaluate specific projects, rather than ongoing issues or matters which require action or concurrence by the full City Council. However, because of the problems that have been identified above, it would seem that the time has come for the City Council to utilize City Council Study Sessio -ns instead of the current Council Committee approach. The use of City Council Study Sessions instead of the Council Committees to consider matters would allow the City to respond faster to matters about which it will be taking action, help to assure a more equal distribution of information involving Council action, and promote greater efficiency in City operations. Again, even though the Council Committee structure was created as the only reasonable way to handle City affairs when there were no staff members, and the committees were developed to address specific projects and areas of municipal function faced by the City of SeaTac in its infancy, the City has grown to a point where the issues coming before the City Council may be addressed more expeditiously and efficiently through Study Sessions rather than Council Committees. The development and evolution of the City to a point which prompts a change away from the Council Committee approach should not be seen as a negative commentary on the use of the Council Committees in the past. Rather, it needs to be recognized that the City would not be where it is today without the very important work already done by the City Councilmembers, much of it being done through Council Committees. Page 7 DI.A Page 22 of 29 MUNICIPAL SERVICES COMMITTEE PROJECT - GOAL MATRIX NO. PROJECT DESCRIPTION LEAD COST REVIEW DATE EST. COMPL. STATUS DATE Imeetina of the month. The amended contract Quarterly Reports: Jan (Prey Oct -Dec); Apr (Prey Jan - Mar); Jul (Prey Apr- June); Oct (Prey July -Sept) 1st meeting of the month. provided monthly to the committee for tracking purposes of License sales for measuring the removal of the rabies requirement. The Council Operations Committee /MIT met on 3/18/14. MIT confirmed same fireworks policies as 2013. MIT will pre- announce vendor demonstrations. Through MSWMAC input from other cities will help COA determine if it will change to direct billing. New rates will go into effect January 1 (2013 & 2014). *For 7/14/14 meeting, report on Solid Waste direct billing information. Quarterly Reports: Jan (Prey Oct -Dec); Apr (Prey Jan-1 Mar); Jul (Prey Apr- June); Oct (Prey July -Sept) 2nd Quarterly update to review Marketing Plan. 2nd meeting of the month. 1 NO. ITEM OF INTEREST January (Prey July -Dec), July (Prey Jan - June). Annual review of taxation basis to determine if any changes need to be made - dependent upon status of economy. Ordinance No. 6398 was enacted 2/21/12. Quarterly Reports: Jan (Prey Oct -Dec); Apr (Prey Jan- 1 Mar); Jul (Prey Apr- June); Oct (Prey July -Sept) 2nd Review street sweeping program in 6 months. Review auto theft statistics every 6 months. Last Revision Date: 6/24/14 E:\ AGENDA\ MunicipalServicesPaperlessPacket \2014 \13 -July 14 \ Resources \Matrix 06- 24- 14.xls 0) c O O 0) c O O 0) c O 0 0) c O 0 v 0 w CN C I\ 7/14/2014 v 0 w I\ 7/28/2014 11/24/2014 8/11/2014 8/11/2014 7/14/2014 0 o G N 7/28/2014 v 0 N _ O 8/11/2014 Bob Lee Bob Lee Shelley Coleman Bob Lee Shelley Coleman Daryl Faber Daryl Faber Randy Bailey 7 C 2 c 0 0 Shelley Coleman Randy Bailey Bob Lee Red Light Photo Enforcement Animal Control and Rescue AVHS Board Review and Animal Control Licensing Program Fireworks Update Solid Waste Rate Review Golf Course & Restaurant Review Cemetery Update Shopping Cart Update Ordinance No. 6398 - Pull Tabs SCORE Jail Stats Street Sweeping Schedule Auto Thefts O O N N CN N N M c) rn N O (Y) N a) O) (6 0_ PCDC Work Plan Matrix — June 23, 2014 LAND USE CODES /POLICIES Comments Planning Department staff went before the Planning Commission on 1 -22 -14 and 3 -4 -14. The code amendment process is on- going. Once Planning Commission has made their recommendation that will be presented to PCDC and staff anticipates that taking place July 2014, most likely at the 2nd meeting. Staff to develop a work plan as part of the overall comprehensive plan updates. Staff will provide a plat and short plat training session during the June 23rd PCDC meeting. Staff will then return to PCDC on July 28th with an overview of potential draft code amendments. Staff will be moving forward with a proposed code amendment related to floor area ration within the Downtown Urban Center (DUC) zone to the Planning Commission in June. Staff will formulate a strategy action plan and bring back to Committee as part of the overall comprehensive plan update. Code concepts and ideas to be developed based on Council retreat direction and linked to the overall comprehensive plan update. Funding options and ideas to construct and install the remaining 6 pedestrian kiosks downtown. Staff is moving forward with the project ideas presented at the 3 -7 -14 PCDC meeting and will look for other funding opportunities with the City Council for the upcoming 2015 -2016 two year budget cycle. PARKS, ARTS & RECREATION Discussion of the Auburn Avenue Theater. Staff /Council Lead (/) CD C o Chamberlain o RI 1- Chamberlain Chamberlain Chamberlain Chamberlain Faber Next on PCD August cr N July 2014 July 2014 cr N cr N 0 00 1 Topic /Issue Code Amendments • Marijuana /Cannabis • Healthcare District Overlay • Short Plat Threshold • FAR (Floor Area Ratio) with DUC zone Historic Preservation Strategies Strategy Areas for Population /Business /Employment Pedestrian Kiosks Theater Lease O O co O Lf) O Please Note: New additions underlined, deletions removed. Page 24 of 29 Comments COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION PCDC requested an update at a future meeting; briefing to be scheduled. Updates provided as needed or requested. Community Services to give annual updates. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & HEARING EXAMINER On 12/09/13 the Arts Commission provided a presentation updating PCDC of their 2013 plans and activities and will return for an update in 2014. The Human Services Committee provided a 2013 update before PCDC on 01- 27 -14. The Human Services Committee is scheduled to present a 2014 update in 12 -2014. The Hearing Examiner attended PCDC to present an annual briefing on 11/12/13. The next briefing is scheduled for fall of 2014. Annual update occurred 7 -22 -13 with PCDC; the next update will take place 7/2014. The Committee held a Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission on 3/18/14. The next joint meeting will be in September, 2014. Annual update occurred on 5 -28 -13 with PCDC. Annual update occurred 10 -28 -13 with PCDC. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANNING (Long Range Planning) Major update of the comprehensive plan for the next 20 years +; Staff /Council Lead Hursh Hursh Hursh Faber Hursh C O X_ 0 Faber Chamberlain Thordarson Faber Chamberlain Next on PCD 0 m 1— Ongoing 0 m 1— December 2014 December 2014 Fall 2014 July 2014 September 2014 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 0 m H Topic /Issue Building Community Human Services Center Unify communities through centralized communication and outreach Arts Commission Human Services Committee Hearing Examiner Parks & Recreation Board Planning Commission Transportation, Transit, and Trails Urban Tree Board Major Comprehensive Plan Update (o O N. O 00 O O) O O N M cr L[) (O Page 25 of 29 Comments Community visioning meetings were held the week of March 11 -13 and March 18 -20 with grocery store intercept events held April 7 -9. Report back to the community of the vision themes was held May 21St. Next step a draft report to be presented at the June 30th COW meeting. Update to the three utility comprehensive plans as the City updates its comprehensive plan. Joint PCDC and PWC meeting held on June 2nd to review the draft policies for the three utility comprehensive plans. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update in concert with the comprehensive plan update project. (TIP) was approved on 6 -16 -14 by City Council. Update annually as needed as part of the comprehensive plan update process. City Council adopted Ordinance no. 6489, the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments at the 12 -2 -13 City Council meeting. Committee discussion on impact fees and calculations. UPDATES AND BRIEFINGS An Economic Development update was provided to the Committee on 4- 14 -14, future briefings will be provided as needed. Staff /Council Lead Chamberlain Public Works L as LL L as LL Finance Tate/ Chamberlain Mayor Next on PCD cm cm O cm cm O cm cm 0 MO LW cm 0 0 LW M0 LWL Topic /Issue • Visioning for the major update • Water, Sewer, Storm Scope: Update to the Water, Sewer, and Storm Comprehensive Plans in concert with the Comprehensive Plan Update project. • Transportation Planning Scope: Long -term planning for the interrelationship between land use and transportation infrastructure. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Scope: 6 -year TIP that is updated annually identifying transportation related capital projects Capital Facilities Plan Scope: 6 -year capital facilities plan for the City's public facilities /utilities Fee discussions Economic Development Updates I-- N- OD N- 0) N- O N Page 26 of 29 Comments Staff to stay in touch with Planning Dept. and keep coordination & communication open with Tribe. The City met with the Muckleshoot Tribe on 11- 19 -13. The Auburn Downtown Association provided an update at the 04 -14 -14 meeting and will return in the spring of 2015 for their annual update. City tracking potential station stops expansion study by Amtrak. Public Works staff provided an update at the Committee's 3 -25 -13 meeting, the WSDOT station stop expansion feasibility study is expected to be complete in June, 2013. Council passed Resolution No. 4949 supporting an Amtrak stop in Auburn. LGCC to provide a briefing as needed. Stream and wetland restoration activities are ongoing. CRS: Staff is evaluating the 2013 changes to the CRS program requirements and developing policy options for the Committee to consider for City's future approach to CRS participation. FEMA on -site audit of the City's CRS Program is scheduled for November 6, 2014. NFIP -ESA: City has received notice that FEMA's model floodplain ordinance has been revised and new City regulations must be adopted and submitted to FEMA. Staff is preparing amendments to the City's regulations to meet this requirement. Staff /Council Lead a) LCU I— Chamberlain Mayor Backus Wagner Andersen c a) L a) c Q Next on PCD 0 c1-0 Co_ N 0 I— 0 I— Spring 2015 0 I- Topic /Issue Muckleshoot Tribe The ADA Amtrak Les Gove Community Campus Auburn Environmental Park Floodplain programs — NFIP and CRS N N N co N N co Page 27of29 O N MQ F Comments On 4 -14 -2014 staff provided an update of City environmental restoration projects planned and in progress for 2014, and will return in the Spring of 2015 for an update. CP1016: Fenster Phase 2 Levee Setback - Revised preliminary design has been approved by the Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB). Project proceeding to final design and construction. CP0746: Mill Creek Wetland 5K Restoration - Staff is working with Army Corps to complete 95 %- design and prepare draft Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) for Committee review. On April 7, 2014, the City was notified that it has been selected to receive an additional $532,000 in state floodplain management grant funds for this project. CP1315: City Wetland Mitigation — Design and construction of compensatory wetland mitigation in the Auburn Environmental Park is ongoing. Resolution No. 5031, the Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan was adopted by City Council on 2 -3 -14. The parking permit program will be blended into the CDPMP. Staff will provide monthly briefings on the development and implementation of parking management strategies. Council passed a one -year moratorium on 6 -16 -14 to look at the regulations that were adopted back in September. Now that the new regulations have been Staff /Council Lead c a) i2 L a) C Q Chamberlain/ Yao Chamberlain/ Tate Next on PCD C1.° •L Q 0 N September o Lm L Topic /Issue Environmental Restoration Projects Downtown Parking Management Plan Communal Residences N 00 N 0) N a) as 0 Page 28 of 29 N- C) N MQ F ca 2 al) U c6 0 U a) Q- 4--+ E E 0 U 0 U d Status Ongoing - Quarterly updates Consultant to complete analysis Consultant to complete analysis. This may be a good topic for the Spetember COW meeting. Annual Traffic Impact Fee Update will be presented to PWC to review and approval. Review SR -164 Corridor Plan. Review status when changes occur. Permanent solution being developed for incorporation into future Lea Hill Roadway widening project. Monitoring of the slope area will continue through 2014. Estimated Completion Date Z 0 .\-1 N N 8/4/2014 1 0 N N 01 8/4/2014 TBD 0 CO ~ Next PWC Review Date N1 c-1 N N1 c-1 N 8/4/2014 0 co 8/4/2014 TBD 0 CO I- Staff Lead Sweeting _a I(0 V _a I� V (6 (6 T a3 m - Ias V Item Description Track completed project on the Current Year Active Capital Improvement Projects Map System Development Charges Cost of Service Analysis Transportation Impact Fee Structure Analyses Auburn Way South SR -164 Corridor Plan Review 105th Street Sewer Odor Lea Hill Road Repair C z a co L) 0 W LL 0 Page 29 of 29 Updated: 6/30/2014 3:41 PM