HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-2001sp SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 25, 2001 4:30 PM
Council Work Area
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
MINUTES
I. Call to Order
The special meeting of the Auburn City Council to discuss the Capital Facilities
Plan was called to order at 4:43 PM in the Council Chambers located in Auburn
City Hall. Mayor Charles A. Booth and the following Councilmembers were
present: Jeanne Barber, Trish Borden, Pete Lewis, Sue Singer, Rich Wagner,
Stacey Brothers, and Fred Poe. Staff members present included: Police Chief
Jim Kelly, Assistant Police Chief Marion Dukes, Planning and Community
Development Director Paul Krauss, Assistant City Attorney Judith Ausman,
Senior Center Supervisor Cheryl Sallee, City Engineer Dennis Dowdy, Public
Works Director Christine Engler, Fire Chief Bob Johnson, Grant Accountant
Lanny Pettijean, Budget and Finance Manager Lee Hall, Storm Drainage
Engineer Tim Carlaw, Finance Director Shelley Coleman, Utility Accountant Julie
Salzman, Water Utility Engineer Tim Osborne, Sewer Utility Engineer Jeff
Roscoe, Assistant Water Utility Engineer Duane Huskey, Traffic Engineer Mike
Fuess, and Deputy City Clerk Cathy Richardson.
Also present were Randy Young and Bill Henderson with Henderson, Young &
Company.
II. Introduction
Finance Director Coleman stated that the purpose of this evenings meeting was
to discuss the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and introduced Randy Young with
Henderson, Young & Company.
Special City Council Meeting Minutes September 25, 2001
Page 2
III. Enterprise Projects
Mr. Young distributed score sheets for Council review on proposed CFP projects
for sewer, water, and storm projects
Councilmembers requested that the Enterprise Fund projects be reviewed by the
Public Works Committee prior to Council discussion.
IV. General Government Projects
Mr. Young Randy distributed results of the score cards completed by
Mr. Young explained that, in addition to the projects originated in Public Works,
Henderson, Young & Company reviewed projects used by the City as the cost
basis for calculating traffic impact fees. Impact fees must be based on the CFP.
There are some long-term projects listed that are expected to be completed in
the years 2007 through 2020 that were used to determine the traffic impact fees.
They should remain on the CFP to avoid re-evaluation of the fees.
Mr. Young recommended that Council consider a six-year plan for all facilities
and a supplemental list for transportation projects designated for years 2007
through 2020.
Mr. Young noted that the following project numbers should be moved to the
2007-2020 list:
Project Number Description
#55 Auburn Way S - Fir Street SE to Poplar Street SE
#56 Academy Dr/SE Green Valley Road -Auburn Way S
to Auburn/Black Diamond Road
#57 Kersey Way - Oravetz Road to 53rd Street SE
#58 Kersey Way - 53rd Street SE to South City Limit
#59 "M" Street SE - 37th Street SE to 41st Street SE
#60 "R" Street SE - 29th Street SE to Oravetz Road
#61 "R" Street SE -6th Street SE to 17th Street SE
#62 10th Street NE -"A" Street NW to "D" Street NE
#63 12th Street SE -"M" Street SE to Scenic Drive
#64 41st Street SE -"D" Street SE to "R" Street SE
Special City Council Meeting Minutes September 25, 2001
Page 3
Discussion followed regarding the pros and cons of Project #56, including the
importance of a route from the plateau to the valley, the disadvantages of the
terrain on Academy Drive, the possibility of considering other routes, and the
alleviation of traffic.
Director Krauss stated that he is a member of a technical committee with the
Department of Transportation that is currently studying Highway 164 safety
issues and alternative routes from the plateau to the valley.
Director Engler advised that, subject to Council approval, an update of the City's
Transportation Plan is scheduled for 2002. An update of the City's transportation
impact fees in 2003 is mandated by ordinance. These projects should be listed
in the 2001 to 2006 CFP.
Mr. Young explained that completed projects were listed as they can be used for
cost recovery with regard to impact fees.
Mr. Young referred Councilmembers to Project #10 - Public Safety Building for
discussion.
Councilmember Barber stated that the Public Safety Building project was
selected as a first priority by Council.
Councilmember Brothers responded that the Public Safety Building is still a high
priority project, but the analysis of potential costs have triggered concerns with
regard to reducing costs.
Councilmember Lewis concurred with Councilmember Brothers, especially in
light of the recent events of September 11, 2001 and possible economic slow-
downs.
Councilmember Wagner stated that he and Councilmember Poe represent the
City of Auburn on the Planning Committee for the Public Safety Building. The
consultant suggested a 400 bed jail. He and Councilmember Poe urged the
Committee to consider reducing the facility to a 200 bed jail, which would be
sufficient for the Auburn community.
Councilmember Poe concurred with Councilmember Wagner and urged Council
to determine the best means of moving forward with the Public Safety Building
project.
Special City Council Meeting Minutes September 25, 2001
Page 4
Mr. Young pointed out that the current standard for the level of service for a jail
facility adopted in the Comprehensive Plan is 1.3 beds per 1,000 population.
This would equate to a 66 bed facility.
Mr. Young referred Councilmembers to Project #2 - Undergrounding of Utilities.
In response to questions from Councilmember Brothers, Director Krauss
explained that the idea of Project #2 developed over a number of years. There
have been occasions when the undergrounding of utilities for city street projects
is desired for aesthetic or design purposes, but the undergrounding is not
completed due to a lack of project funds. Project #2 would provide a funding
source that could be used to subsidize projects costs.
Councilmember Wagner stated that he voted to delete Project #2.
Councilmember Wagner stated that, although it is aesthetically desirable, a much
larger fund would be needed to begin this type of project and the funds would be
better spent on traffic improvements. Councilmembers Poe, Borden, and
Brothers concurred with Councilmember Wagner.
Mr. Young referred Councilmembers to Project #5 - Second Downtown Parking
Garage.
Councilmember Poe voted to keep the project and expressed concern regarding
a funding source, community commitment, and the demand for additional
parking. Councilmember Lewis concurred.
In response to questions from Councilmember Wagner, Mr. Young stated that
various sources that might be used to collect revenue for a parking garage,
including general obligation bonds, parking fees or permits, or a parking tax.
In response to questions from Councilmember Brothers, Director Krauss
explained that the additional parking garage project is pad of the downtown
revitalization plan. The City has obtained a grant to explore financing strategies.
A parking study completed in 1996 or 1997 concluded that a lot of existing
parking within the downtown area was not being effectively used. The study
expressed a narrow vision of what could be accomplished in the downtown
redevelopment. The Downtown Revitalization Plan included working with Sound
Transit and other projects and included higher expectations.
Special City Council Meeting Minutes September 25, 2001
Page 5
Mr. Young referred Councilmembers to Project ~49 - East/West Corridor Auburn
Way N to Harvey Road.
Councilmember Singer questioned the method for obtaining right-of-way and the
cost to complete Project #-49.
City Engineer Dennis Dowdy clarified that Project ~49 would require right-of-way
acquisition and would be an expensive project. Project #-49 would be a very
long-term project and should be on the 2007-2020 list.
Mr. Young referred Councilmembers to Project #68 - Non-motorized link -
Transit Center to "A" Street SE.
Councilmember Singer pointed out that grant funding from Sound Transit is
anticipated for Project #68.
Councilmembers requested clarification from staff on whether the total amount of
the project still included property acquisition. Councilmembers concurred that
Project #68 should remain on the 2001-2006 CFP.
Mr. Young referred Councilmembers to Project #77 - Community Center
Expansion.
Councilmember Borden stated that she would like to keep Project #77 on the
plan but would like to remain open about the cost involved and how to achieve
the project. Councilmembers concurred.
Mayor Booth recessed the meeting at 5:50 PM for approximately 20 minutes.
Mayor Booth reconvened the meeting at 6:14 PM.
Mr. Young referred Councilmembers to Project #17 - GSA Park Redevelopment.
Director Coleman stated that Project #17 is offset 100% by grants.
Senior Center Supervisor Cheryl Sallee stated that grant funds in the amount of
$50,000 are anticipated for Project #17 by November, 2001 for development of a
ball field in conjunction with the Little League.
Special City Council Meeting Minutes September 25, 2001
Page 6
Councilmember Singer stated that she feels Project #17 is a lower priority with
regard to the other park projects listed. If the focus was narrowed down, other
projects, such as Olson Canyon Farm, might be completed sooner.
In response to questions from Councilmember Brothers, Ms. Sallee stated that
the $50,000 will be used to upgrade the ball field services.
Director Krauss stated that the additional funding for Project #17 includes lighting
and parking improvements as well as other amenities. The lack of a steady
source of revenue for grant matching, such as park impact fees, makes obtaining
grants for park projects difficult.
Councilmember Borden expressed concern that the funds might serve better if
used for other park projects and questioned the possibility of selling the GSA
Park property and using the proceeds to purchase property in another location.
Mayor Booth stated that the GSA Park property was among properties that were
deeded to the Auburn School District and the City of Auburn by GSA with
stipulations that it cannot be sold.
Councilmember Poe stated that he voted against most of the park projects as he
was unsure where the funding for the construction and maintenance of the parks
would come from.
VI. Revenue
Mr. Young referred Councilmembers to the Revenue Scorecard, Item #36 -
Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program.
Mr. Young stated that federal funding is available for replacement of standard
vehicle bridges. Federal funding is not available for foot bridges, but small grants
might be available at the state level.
Mr. Young referred Councilmembers to Item No. 31 - Transportation Benefit
District.
Mr. Young explained that the State of Washington enacted a law that allows
municipalities the ability to create a Transportation Benefit District (TBD). A TBD
has the ability to charge various fees, charges, and taxes, and also has the ability
to incur debt. The principal theory was to make a specific portion of a city subject
to special fees, such as impact fees or property taxes. TBD's can be multi-
Special City Council Meeting Minutes September 25, 2001
Page 7
jurisdictional, receive grants, enter into interlocal agreements, or establish a
Local Improvement District (LID). Mr. Young offered to provide additional
information to Councilmembers.
Mr. Young referred Councilmembers to Item #30 - Commercial Parking Tax.
Mr. Young stated that the Commercial Parking Tax is a source that requires an
entity to have commercial parking, such as a parking structure or lot, where a
taxable transaction is required. Mr. Young offered to provide additional
information for Councilmembers.
Mr. Young referred Councilmembers to item #32 - Road Improvement District.
Mr. Young explained that the Road Improvement District (RID) is an LID for mad
projects only.
Councilmember Poe expressed his disapproval of RID taxation and requested
additional information regarding Items #30, #31, and #32 to enable
Councilmembers to make comparisons.
Mr. Young referred Councilmembers to Item #56 - Water User Fees.
Mr. Young explained that Item #55 and also Item #49, Sewer User Fees, simply
set the rate to charge for usage.
Mr. Young referred Councilmembers to Item #11 - SEPA Mitigation Payments.
Mr. Young stated that SEPA mitigation payments provide for specific needs not
covered by impact fees. Some jurisdictions have adopted this method to set a
predictable mitigation fee for items not covered by the Growth Management Act
(GMA) under impact fees, such as law enforcement services. The GMA limits
use of impact fees to roads, parks, fire protection, and schools. Mr. Young cited
the City of Issaquah as an example.
V. Discussion
Councilmember Borden questioned the benefit of raising property tax to the limit
under Item #1, Property Tax and "Lid Lift".
Director Coleman stated that the City is limited as to what can be levied to $3.10
per $1,000. Over a six year period the additional $.11 would generate
Special City Council Meeting Minutes September 25, 2001
Page 8
approximately $2.8 million. This is calculated on the assumption of an estimated
4% assessed value growth. Under Referendum 47 a super majority vote of the
Council would be required to raise the tax beyond the Implicit Price Deflator
(IPD). If Initiative 747 passes in November, an annual increase would be limited
to IPD or 1%, whichever is less.
Councilmember Wagner asked what justification is needed to impose the
additional 1.5% under Item #7, Utility Tax. Director Coleman explained that the
City is allowed to levy up to 6% under the Revised Code of Washington (RCVV).
No other justification is necessary.
In response to questions from Councilmember Borden, Director Coleman
reported that, due to the loss of the motor vehicle excise tax, many of the cities
that relied heavily on the equalization sales tax have enacted a 6% utility tax.
Councilmember Singer expressed concern regarding raising the utility tax due to
the recent increase in electricity rates.
Councilmember Poe concurred and expressed concern regarding raising
property taxes as well. Councilmember Poe urged caution until such time as the
City can determine what impacts the recent events on September 11, 2001 might
have on the economy.
In response to questions regarding Item #58, Department of Health (Water)
grants from Councilmember Wagner, Mr. Young stated that these grants are
generally directed towards rural or small communities that are attempting to bring
their water systems up to federal and state standards. They can be quite large,
but are not normally granted to cities the size of Auburn.
Councilmember Singer requested that Council be provided with updates on the
City's various comprehensive plans.
Special City Council Meeting Minutes September 25, 2001
Page 9
VII. Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting
adjourned at 7:03 PM.
Approved this ~c.~',d,,-~ day of October, 2001.
C~dson, Deputy City Clerk
2001m09-255special.doc