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