HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-27-2015 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDAAlityrB
URN
WASHINGTON
City Council Study Session
July 27, 2015 - 5:30 PM
Auburn City Hall
AGENDA
Watch the meeting LIVE!
Watch the meeting video
M eeti ng videos are not avai I abl e unti 172
hours after the meeting has concluded.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
11. ANNOUNCEMENTS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS
111. AGENDA ITEMS FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION
A. Mid -term Budget Correction Update (10 Minute Presentation /10 Minute
Q &A)* (Coleman)
B. Airport Master Plan Update (15 Minute Presentation /10 Minute Q &A)*
(Coleman)
C. Humane Society Update (10 Minute Presentation /10 Minute Q &A)* (Snyder)
D. Ordinance No. 6564 - Right -of -Way Vacation No. V4 -14 (10 Minute
Presentation /10 Minute Q &A)* (Snyder)
E. Resolution No. 5154 - Agreement with Ferguson Waterworks for
implementation of Contract Number 15 -11 for Project CP1317, Meter and
Billing System Improvements Project (10 Minute Presentation /20 Minute
Q &A)* (Snyder)
(Automated Metering Infrastructure)
F. Resolution No. 5158 - Amending the 2016 -2021 Transportation
Improvement Program (5 Minute Presentation /5 Minute Q &A)* (Snyder)
G. Resolution No. 5159 - WRIA 9 Interlocal Agreement (10 Minute
Presentation /10 Minutet Q &A* (Snyder)
IV. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS
V. ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City
website (http: / /www.auburnwa.gov), and via e -mail. Complete agenda packets are
available for review at the City Clerk's Office.
*Denotes attachments included in the agenda packet.
Page 1 of 91
Page 2 of 91
DI.A
AuBuRN 1YY CAF �
\VASHENG`Or,
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Date:
Mid -term Budget Correction Update (10 Minute July 15, 2015
Presentation /10 Minute Q &A)
Department:
Finance
Attachments:
Schedule
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
For review and discussion only.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:
Budget Impact:
$0
Staff: Coleman
Meeting Date: July 27, 2015 Item Number: DI.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 3 of 91
Month
July
August
September
October
November
December
•
Midterm Correction
Schedule
Internal Administration
and Review
1"— kickoff memo to
Directors
• 3rd — requests due to Finance
• 4t -21.x— Finance review
• 25th — Mayor /Director
Workshop #1
• 31.— Mayor /Director
Workshop #2
• 3rd — Mayor/Director
Workshop #3
• 4th — Mayoral
recommendations finalized
Ordinance A
BA #3
(final BA for 2015)
• 16th — Council 1. read
• 7th — Council 2nd read
and adoption
Ordinance B
BA#4
(Mid Biennial Review)
Ordinance C
(Setting 2016
Property Tax Levy)
• 5th — Council /Mayor work
session (tentative)
• 5th — Call for Public Hearing #1
(publication on October 8th)
• 19th— Public Hearing #1
• 2nd — Call for Public Hearing #2
(publication on November 5.1
• 16th— Public Hearing #2
• 16th — Council 1. read
• 7th — Council 2nd read
and adoption
DI.A Page 4 of 91
• 2nd — Council 1. read
• 16th — Council 2nd read and
adoption
DI.B
AuBuRN ITY Cdr •
wAs - IENGTo
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Date:
Airport Master Plan Update (15 Minute Presentation /10 July 15, 2015
Minute Q &A)
Department:
Finance
Attachments:
Airport Master Plan
Administrative Recommendation:
Budget Impact:
$0
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Developed in cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Airport
Master Plan is a comprehensive evaluation of facilities and future development
alternatives. The planning process leads to the selection of a preferred development
option for the airport that is integrated into the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and identifies
short -, intermediate -, and long -term capital needs of the Airport. A periodic update to
the master plan is required for the Airport to remain eligible for federal funding of
improvements through FAA programs. This study updates the 2002 Airport Master
Plan and addresses changes that have occurred in the interim including updated FAA
standards and trends in the aviation industry.
This presentation will provide an overview of the Airport Master Plan and the
associated Airport Layout Plan, which is separately approved by the FAA.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:
Staff: Coleman
Meeting Date: July 27, 2015 Item Number: DI.B
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 5 of 91
AUBURN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
DI.B Page 6 of 91
Airport Master Plan
Overview
The Airport Master Plan for the Auburn Municipal
Airport was developed in cooperation with the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Purpose:
• Perform a comprehensive evaluation of facilities,
conditions and FAA airport planning and design
standards.
• Define the current, short -term and long -term needs
of the Airport.
DI.B Page 7 of 91
Airport Master Plan
Why Needed?
• To remain eligible for federal funding of
improvements through FAA programs, airports
must periodically update their master plans.
• This project updates the 2002 Airport Master
Plan and addresses changing local conditions,
recently updated FAA standards, and current
trends within the aviation industry.
DI.B Page 8 of 91
Airport Master Plan
Contents
Introduction and Project Overview
Inventory of Existing Conditions
Aviation Activity Forecasts
Airport Facility Requirements
Airport Development Alternatives
Environmental Review
Financial and Development Program
Airport Layout Plan
Airport Land Use Compatibility
FAA Compliance Review
DI.B Page 9 of 91
Airport Master Plan
Timeline
• Five public meetings over 2% years:
Fall 2012 - Winter 2014.
• Draft report submitted to FAA October 2014.
• FAA approved in May 2015.
• Final report available June 2015.
DI.B Page 10 of 91
Airport Layout Plan
t.
4.111111.iI11 .IIiI1;II
1
tI:ID1.1 I ill l.[il . .F _1 }4 .
•
%t. •
•t __ L 7
t
- fie. 1 I, ,,,,,gli
• Incorporates preferred alternative for long -term development, including extensions at
both ends of the runway, additional exit taxiways, and a variety of facility upgrades.
• The ALP is separately approved by the FAA.
DI.B
Page 11 of 91
Preferred Development Elements
❑
o
P--4 u
U
0
HORTHENETAP RON
OEYIWYMtHI
L 1 c
U
8 8 �o ❑ a00 _ E
❑n❑ o fl u nm
I1E MnROM
RwoHasuLI aInon
`b Li
,0
Ill
fry ❑ �
�� II
°o
unEl
0
0
SIXITHEASFAPROH
RECONFIGURATION /
I1 DEVEInPNlErrt
0 0
4
SOUTH numwAv
csru
- LUruccrso n m ®loin
N ORTH RUNWAY
EX ,mSiuN W!
D ISPLACES THRESHOLD
FHTHREAWOS
C==.cgv.cr
INFO ANDS
AUBURN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN PRCFCRRED DEVELOPMENT ALTCRNATIVC ELI WAITS 1 FIG.5 -0
DI.B
Page 12 of 91
�GE NTL RAT WES%
Proposed Runway Enhancement
IVNWA V 'II (HP K 7 S' [FY ISTINf,
NOTE:
•� 1. THE IHIORMw nun 12r1.a:1 ur IT -
MU PAWN WA" 75'[6 MAIL AIR,VdE6 WTI 10 OR MDRF Sr ATS1
AUBURN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 1 AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
Ai i m •
RI INWAY 1 FNC;THS FOR PI ANNI NG 1 FIG. 4 -4
DI.B
e �7.,Rr w�sT
• Extension of the runway from 3,400' to 4,118' to accommodate larger airplanes and
provide greater safety distances.
Page 13 of 91
Proposed Runway Enhancement
DI.B
Will be able to takeoff /land using
enhanced runway under normal
conditions.
9
Page 14 of 91
� Fsa -��
B -I
12,500 ibs. orJess (Smal +)
A -II, B -II
12.500 lbs. or kss (rnaiJ,
..eik_22:- -kr �
ar
B -II
Greater than 12.5001bs.
A -I
12,5001bs. or less (sma +g
Beech Baron 55
Beech Bonanza
Cessna 182
Piper Archer
Piper Seneca
Beech Baron 58
Beech King Air 100
Cessna 402
Cessna 421
Piper Navajo
Piper Cheyenne
Cessna Citation I
Super King Air 200
Cessna 441
DHC Twin Otter
Cessna Caravan
King Air C90
Super King Air 300
Super King Air 350
Beech 1900
Citation 11
Citation CJ3
Can takeoff /land using existing runway.
Can takeoff /land
using existing
runway only under
ideal conditions.
Cannot
takeoff /land using
existing runway.
DI.B
Will be able to takeoff /land using
enhanced runway under normal
conditions.
9
Page 14 of 91
Existing Aircraft Fleet Mix
• Single Engine Piston (96 %)
• Multi Engine Piston (3 %)
• Helicopter (1 %)
• Turboprop (0 %)
• Business Jet (0 %)
• Light Sport Aircraft (0 %)
3% 1%
DI.B Page 15 of 91
Projected Future Aircraft Fleet Mix
3%
3% 1% 0% 4%
1
• Single Engine Piston (89 %)
• Multi Engine Piston (3 %)
Helicopter (3 %)
• Turboprop (1 %)
• Business Jet ( <1 %)
Light Sport Aircraft (4 %)
DI.B Page 16 of 91
11
Proposed Landside Development
East Terminal Area
LEGEND
NO00.0 DOW..
uxww,.■o•F
/COO= Wialalp
/WOMB IMICI
MONT MO I•3
MOM= MM. MAW UM
FEATURES
RS VENKIE PARKING STALLS (NEW)
• ALL DIMENSIONS MEET FAA STANDARDS
• 28 AIRCRAFTTIE DOWNS
• 3 TWIN ENGINE PARKING POSMONS
r
L
FBO OPERATIONS
III
H
H
H
H
;; •Sul
H
H
4
1 �
TERMINAL AREA
AUBURN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 1 AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
EAST TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT 1 FIG. 5-9
DI.B Page 17 of 91
vGErvTURY WFST
Poo BANDY
Proposed Landside Development
SE Terminal Area
LEND
••01070 4010.7
MORI. 04.11,41.411.
1141,60 Mel unt
PROMO 4.07 M.41.0 At
I �
I �
I I
Mt PI
FEATURES
• 132 VEHICLE PARKING STALLS (NEW)
• COMMERCIAL BUILDING SITE
• ALL DIMENSIONS MEET FAA STANDARDS
EXIST
1111111 11111111
oAJ
1 1111111111111
IMSEMI
SOUTH TERMINAL AREA
AUBURN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT I AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
At PN
SOUTHEASTTERMINAL DEVELOPMENT 1 FIG. 5-11
DI.B Page 18 of 91
i.11711,11F VEHICLE
�CENrVRr W¢gT
Proposed Landside Development
West (Helicopter) Area
AUBURN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 1 AIRPORT MASIER PLAN
At tist
WEST LANDSIDE HELICOPTER PADS 1 FIG. 5 -12
DI.B Page 19 of 91
VC9NTURY W9sT
Airport Capital Improvement Program
Prioritizes improvements and estimates project
development costs and funding eligibility for the
20 -year planning period.
COST ESTIMATE ($1000s):
Short Intermediate Long
TOTAL Term Term Term
FAA Grant Funding $30,739 $ 2,257 $ 8,883 $19,599
Local Costs (incl. State Grants) 9,188 749 5,311 3,128
Total Cost $39,927 $ 3,006 $14,194 $22,727
DI.B Page 20 of 91
Year Project Name
Airport Capital Improvement Program
SHORT TERM PROJECTS
(2015 to 2019)
$ 1,000s
Estimated Local Costs
Total FAA (incl.
Cost Grants State Grants)
2015 South T- Hangar Door Retrofit (Row 3) 357 357
Airport Obstruction Survey /AGIS Survey 210 189 21
Environmental Assessment - Runway Enhancement Project 161 145 16
Total 2015 728 334 394
2016 Runway Enhancement Project - Design 140 126 14
2017 N and S Runway Enhancements with Displaced Thresholds 1,064 958 106
Property Acquisition - Metro Park & Ride 420 378 42
Construct Fuel Farm for Jet A 140 140
Total2017 1,624 1,336 288
2018 [no projects scheduled] -
2019 Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) 269 242 27
Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) 140 126 14
Taxiway Sealcoat /Restripe 51 45 6
West Side Fencing 54 48 6
Total 2019 514 461 53
TOTAL (2015 -2020)
3,006 2,257 749
DI.B Page 21 of 91
Airport Capital Improvement Program
INTERMEDIATE TERM PROJECTS
(2020 to 2024)
SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS:
• Property acquisition for the Armstrong parcel
• Fixed Based Operator building and General Aviation terminal
• Main terminal area reconfiguration
• West helicopter parking pads (gravel), access road and paths
• Sealcoat and repaint markings (multiple areas)
• Property acquisition for the east industrial land and site remediation
COST ESTIMATE ($1000s):
FAA Grant Funding
Local Costs (incl. State Grants)
Total Cost
$ 8,883
5,311
$14,194
DI.B Page 22 of 91
Airport Capital Improvement Program
LONG TERM PROJECTS
(2025 to 2034)
SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS:
• Property acquisition, motel parcel and remainder of Metro Park and Ride lot
• South hangar taxilanes — overlay and repaint markings
• Aircraft tiedown apron (new north apron, east landside, phases 1 and 2)
• Runway 16/34 overlay and repaint markings
COST ESTIMATE ($1000s):
FAA Grant Funding
Local Costs (incl. State Grants)
Total Cost
$19,599
3,128
$22,727
DI.B Page 23 of 91
DI.B
WASHINGTON
Questions?
Page 24 of 91
DI.0
AuBuRN ITY OF �
\VASHENG`Or,
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Date:
Humane Society Update (10 Minute Presentation /10 Minute July 22, 2015
Q &A)
Department: Attachments: Budget Impact:
Community Development & AVHSUpdate $0
Public Works
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Please see the attached Memorandum.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:
Meeting Date: July 27, 2015
Staff: Snyder
Item Number: DI.0
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 25 of 91
900
0)
800
v
2 700
N
600
2 500
0
400
Lai
0
E
z
300
200
100
0
Pet Licenses Issued By Month
2015 vs 2014
Q fn Z 0
Month
2015 Licenses Issued
--a-- 2014 Licenses Issued
2015 Budget Goal: $240,000 or more
Year -to -Date Revenue 2015 (through June) = $ 73,605
Year -to -Date Revenue 2014 (through June) = $ 79,930
Year -to -Date Licenses 2015 (through June) = 2,565
Year -to -Date Licenses 2014 (through June) = 3,063
License Revenue
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000 -
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000 -
$0
Pet Licensing Revenue By Month
2015
r r
03 0 al CI
LL Q @ Q)
� Q cn
Month
U Z 0
O
2015 License Revenue
DI.0 Page 26 of 91
Licensing Summary Report - Auburn, WA
Activity from 6/1/15 through 6/30/15
Clinic Clinic Name
Juvenile License Late
Unaltered Altered Senior Disability Pet Service Total Replacement Fees Excep
PetData Corporate
AUB900 PETDATA MAIL 7 132 49 7 1 4 200 0 5 5
$420.00 $3,860.00 $745.00 $105.00 $15.00 $0.00 $5,145.00 $0.00 $90.00 $140.00
AUB901 PETDATA ONLINE LICENSES 6 75 9 1 6 0 97 0 5 6
$360.00 $2,130.00 $135.00 $15.00 $90.00 $0.00 $2,730.00 $0.00 $90.00 $180.00
Subtotal PetData Corporate 13 207 58 8 7 4 297 0 10 11
$780.00 $5,99000 $880.00 $120.00 $105.00 $0.00 $7,875.00 $0.00 $180.00 $320.00
Municipal Locations
AUB800 CITY HALL 18 70 45 4 4 2 143 3 8 0
$1,080.00 $2,105.00 $675.00 $60.00 $60.00 $0.00 $3,980.00 $15.00 $205.00 $0.00
Subtotal Municipal Locations 18 70 45 4 4 2 143 3 8 0
$1,080.00 $2,105.00 $675.00 $60.00 $60.00 $0.00 $3,980.00 $15.00 $205.00 $0.00
Veterinary & Other Locations
AUB020 GREEN RIVER VETERINARY H,
Subtotal Veterinary & Other Locations
0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
$0.00 $150.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $150.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
$0.00 5150.00 $0.00 $o.00 50.00 $0.00 5150.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
TOTAL REGISTRATIONS
DI.0
31 282 103 12 11 6 445 3 18 11
51,860.00 58,245.00 $1,555.00 $180.00 $165.00 $0.00 $12,005.00 $15.00 $385.00 $320.00
TOTAL REVENUE $12,725.00
Page 27 of 91
Licensing Summary Report - Auburn, WA
Activity from 5/1/15 through 5/31/15
Clinic Clinic Name
Juvenile License Late
Unaltered Altered Senior Disability Pet Service Total Replacement Fees Excep
PetData Corporate
AUB900 PETDATA MAIL
2 87 43 4 0 0 136 1 10
$60.00 $2,460.00 $640.00 $60.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,220.00 $5.00 $165.00
2
$30.00
AUB901 PETDATAONLINELICENSES 6 67 11 0 4 0 88 0 9 3
$360.00 $2,010.00 $150.00 $0.00 $6660.00 $0.00 $2,580.00 $0.00 $135.00 $75.00
Subtotal PetData Corporate 8 154 54 4 4 0 224 1 19 5
$420.00 $4,470.00 $790.00 $60.00 $60.00 $0.00 $5,800.00 $5.00 $300.00 $105.00
Municipal Locations
AUB800 CITY HALL
Subtotal Municipal Locations
13 67 35 2 3 0 120 2 3 0
$780.00 $2,010.00 $530.00 $30.00 $45.00 $0.00 $3,395.00 $10.00 $55.00 $0.00
13 67 35 2 3 0 120 2 3 0
$780.00 $2,010.00 $530.00 $30.00 $45.00 $000 $3,395.00 $10.00 $55.00 $0.00
TOTAL REGISTRATIONS
1
21 221 89 6 7 0 344 3 22
5
$1,200.00 $6,480.00 $1,320.00 $90.00 $105.00 $0.00 $9,195.00 $15.00 $355.00 $105.00
Page 28 of 91
TOTAL REVENUE 59,670.00
06/11/15 15:39:36
Licensing Summary Report - Auburn, WA
Activity from 4/1/15 through 4/30/15
Clinic Clinic Name
PetData Corporate
Juvenile License Late
Unaltered Altered Senior Disability Pet Service Total Replacement Fees Excep
AUB900 PETDATA MAIL 9 134 73 14 0 3 233 0 8 4
$480.00 $3,910.00 $1,100.00 $210.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,700.00 $0.00 $130.00 $120.00
AUB901 PETDATA ONLINE LICENSES 10 89 13 0 8 0 120 0 17 13
$600.00 $2,670.00 $195.00 $0.00 8120.00 $0.00 $3,585.00 $0.00 $255.00 $405.00
Subtotal PetData Corporate 19 223 86 14 8 3 353 0 25 17
$1,080.00 $6,580.00 $1,295.00 $210.00 $120.00 $0.00 $9,285.00 $0.00 $385.00 $525.00
Municipal Locations
AUB800 CITY HALL 13 74 36 10 2 7 142 5 13 0
$780.00 $2,220.00 $540.00 $150.00 $30.00 $0.00 $3,720.00 $25.00 $290.00 $0.00
Subtotal Municipal Locations
13 74 36 10 2 7 142 5 13 0
$780.00 $2.220.00 $540.00 $150.00 $30.00 $0.00 $3,720.00 $25.00 $290.00 $0.00
TOTAL REGISTRATIONS
bre
1
32 297 122 24 10 10 495 5 38 17
$1,860.00 $8,800.00 $1,835.00 $360.00 $150.00 $0.00 $13,005.00 $25.00 $675.00 $525.00
Page 29 of 91
TOTAL REVENUE
814,230.00
05/13/15 13:34:57
CITY OF
A EU
u
WASHINGTON
To: Mayor Nancy Backus
Deputy Mayor John Holman
Councilmember Rich Wagner
Councilmember Bill Peloza
Councilmember Largo Wales
Councilmember Wayne Osborne
Councilmember Yolanda Trout
Councilmember Claude DaCorsi
Interoffice Memorandum
From: Kevin Snyder, CDPW Director
Date: July 22, 2015
Re: Pet Licensing Program /AVHS Board Review
Attached are the charts summarizing the second quarter 2015 budget status for the shelter
operations, fund raising and thrift store activities.
Auburn Valley Humane Society
For the Period Ending 6/30/2015
YTD Actual YTD Actual as
Budget Budget YTD Over % of YTD
2014 2015 6/30/2015 (Under) Budget
1
Operations '
Revenue i — — � —
$ 447,126 t $ 223,563 1 $ 244,919 $ 21,356 ' 1.09.55%
Expense j 540,187 1 $ 270,094 1 269,9171-
(177)' 99.93%
$ (93,061) $ (46,531) $ (24,998)
Fundraising
Revenue $ 197,800 $ 98,900 ; $ 145,741
Expense 185,312 $ 92,656 j 92,958
$ 46,841. 147.36%
302 100.33%
$ 12,488 $ 6,244 $ 52,783
Thrift Store 1
Revenue $ 56,300 $ 28,150 1 $ 44,526 $ 16,376 i 158.17%
Expense ; $ 201,487 , $ 100,744 $ 109,523 a $ 8,780 108.71%
$(145,187) $ (72,594) $ (64,997)
Combined j !
Revenue . $ 701,226 $ 350,613: $ 435,186 j $ 84,573 ' 124.12%
Expense 926,986 463,493 i 472,398 { 8,905 i 101.92%
$(225,760) $(112,880) $ (37,212)
Page 1 of 2
DI.0 Page 30 of 91
Shelter revenue for operations, fund raising, and the thrift store for year to date (YTD)
totaled $435,186 representing 124% of the combined YTD revenue budget of $350,613.
Shelter operational expenses of $269,917 closed the period at 99.9% of the $270,094 YTD
operational budget. Fund raising expenses closed the period at $92,958, 100% of the
$132,936 budget. The thrift store began operations August 1, 2014.
Auburn Valley Humane Society
2014 to 2015 YTD Comparison
Increase
203.4
2015 (Decrease)
Operations
Revenue
$ 218,182
$ 244,919 $ 26,737
Expense
208,819 t
269,917 61,098
$ 9,363
$ (24,998)
Fundraising
Revenue
$ 118,409 ,
$ 146,741
$ 28,332
Expense
$ 70,313 '
$ 92,958
$ 22,645
$ 48,096
$ 53,783
Thrift Store ;
I
Revenue
$ -
$ 44,526 ; $ 44,526
Expense ,
$
$ 109,523 1 $ 109,523
$ -
$ (64,997)
Combined
i
Revenue
$__336,591
$ 436,186 $ 99,595
Expense
$ 279,132
$ 472,398 ! $ 193,266
$ 57,459
$ (36,212)
I have attached some reports for your information:
- Incoming and outgoing census reports;
- Spay neuter statistics;
- Volunteer hours; and
- Licensing sales by AVHS.
There are currently 12 board members:
- Dr. Don Edwards, President
- Suzanne Nagy, Vice President
- Marsha Goodwin, Secretary
- Rick Oliveira, Treasurer
- Dr. Bob Engeset, Member
- Kim Spooner, Member
- Dr. Eric Schneider, Member
- Kevin Snyder, Member
- Alexis R. Singletary, Member
- Linda Giles, Member
- Gina Lambert, Member
- David Jones, Member
Page 2 of 2
DI.0 Page 31 of 91
AVHS Monthly Census Report 2015
Jan Feb] March April MaylJuneI July Aug Sept Oct Nov jDec IYTDTotal
Incoming
incoming Disposal
DOGS
4
1
0
2
3
2
12
CATS
4
0
6
2
2
9
23
OTHER
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WILDLIFE
10
2
2
0
2
3
19'
TOTAL
18
3
8
4
7
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
Incoming Euth Requested
DOGS
5
7
1
5
25
CATS
3
3
3
6
2
2
19
OTHER
WILDLIFE
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
9
10
4
11
5
6
0
0
0
0
0
45
Incoming Owner Surrendered
DOGS
15
10
23
16
21
5
90
CATS
13
13
25
23
26
17
117
OTHER
0
0
1
2
0
0
3
WILDLIFE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
28
23
49
41
47
22
0 0
0
0
0
0
210
incoming Public Stray
DOGS
25
29
26
25
27
36
168
CATS
32
18
25
24
58
61
218
OTHER
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
WILDLIFE
0
2
0
1
0
0
3
TOTAL
57
49
51
50
85
102
0
0
0
0
0
0
394
Incoming ACO Stray
DOGS
14
10
16
8
9
12
69
CATS
7
5
4
5
8
4
33
OTHER
0
0
0
1
2
0
3
W ILDLIFE
TOTAL
Incoming Transfer
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
15
20
14
19
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
105
DOGS
17
47
2
16
21
22
125
CATS
0
0
0
2
2
4
8
OTHER
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
WILDLIFE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
17
47
2
18
24
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
134
Born in Shelter
DOGS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CATS
0
0
0
0
6
8
14
OTHER
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WILDLIFE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
0
0
0
0
6
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
Incoming Adoption Returned
DOGS
2
7
2
3
6
6
26
CATS
0
1
1
4
2
5
13
OTHER
WILDLIFE
TOTAL
Total Incoming
DOGS
CATS
0
0
2
0
0
8
0
0
3
0
0
7
0 0
0 0
8 11 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
39
82 111
70 75 90 87 0
0
0
0
0
59 40
64 66 106 110 0
0
0
0
0
OTHER
1
0
1
3
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
WILDLIFE
10
4
2
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
152 155
137 145 201 205
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
515
445
13
22
995'
-26-
DI.0
Page 32 of 91
AVHS Monthly Census Report 2015
Jan Feb 1 March 1 April 1 May ' June 1
July
1
Aug 1 Sept
Oct Nov 1 Dec (YID Total l
Out Going Animals
Claimed /RTO Animals
DOGS
CATS
OTHER
WILDLIFE
TOTAL
Adopted Animals
DOGS
27
4
0
0
31
20
4
0
24
30
20
20
2
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
32
22
24
CATS
OTHER
WILDLIFE
TOTAL
Eu hanlzed - Not Ado . table - Medical
DOGS
47
73
0
0
120
56
42
0
0
98
54
36
41
0
91
38
0
0
79
56
59
2
0
117
0
CATS
4
2
OTHER
WILDLIFE
TOTAL
Euthanized - Not Adoptable - Behavoral
DOGS
CATS
OTHER
WILDLIFE
TOTAL
0
0
4
0
0
2
31
4
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
41
39
0
0
80
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
5
0
6
3
3
2
D
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
1
Euthanized - Not Adoptable - Ferra!
DOGS
CATS
OTHER
0
0
0
0
0 0
WILDLIFE 0 0
TOTAL 0 0
Euthantzed - Not Adoptable -Owner Requested
DOGS 5 6
CATS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
OTHER
WILDLIFE
TOTAL
,EOtbanized- Adoptable
DOGS
CATS
OTHER
0
10
3
0
0
9
3
0
04
6
5
0
0
11
3
2
0
0
5
5
2
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WILDLIFE
TOTAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.Dtsvosal
DOGS
0
3
CATS
7
0
6
2
3
10
OTHER
0
0
0
0
0
0
WILDLIFE
10
2
2
0
3
TOTAL
Medin Shelter
DOGS
CATS
OTHER
WILDLIFE
TOTAL
21
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Transferred to Miscue
DOGS
0
2
0
0
2
CATS
OTHER
WILDLIFE
TOTAL
Total Outgoing
DOGS
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
0
3
3
3
0
0
6
0
4
4
0
8
148
19
1
0
168
295
287
3
0
585
01 0
0
0
0
01 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
2
18
0
21
3
5
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
26
19
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
13
28
0
18
59
2
5
0
2
9
8
12
6
0
26
84
86
8
73
84
81
0
0
0
497
CATS
94
52
54
58
74
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
393
OTHER
WILDLIFE
1
0
7
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
2
2
2
3
0
0
0
TOTAL
189
40
146
133 167
147
0
0
0
0
12
20
922
animals less OSLI & Disposal
Live Release Rate
158 128 134 117 156 124
0
0
0
0
0 817
96.84%
96.88%
95.52%
92.31%
98.72%
97 58%
#01V101
#o!VIO!
#DIV10!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
96.45%
Euthanasia Rate
3 16%
3.13%
4 48%
7.69%
1.28%
2.42%
#01V /01
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
• 3.55%
Claim Rate Dog
Claim Rate Cal
Total Claim Rate
69.23% 51.28% 71.43% 60.61% 55.56% 64.58% #0IV /01 #DIV /0! #DIV /0! #DIV /0! #DIV /D! #DIV /O! 62.45%
10 26%
17.39%
6.90%
6.90%
4 55%
6.15%
#DIV101
#011//0!
#011//0!
#DIV /01
#DIV/0!
#DIV /01
7.57%
39.74% 3750% 45.07% 34.38% 2308% 29.66% #DIV /01 #DIV /01 #011/10! #DIV /0! #0IV /0! #01V10! 33.67%
Adoption Rate Dogs
Adoption Rate Cats
Total Adoption Rate
66.20% 58.33% 80 60%
110.38% 116 67% 66.67%
97.56% 73.13% 74 59%
63.08%
70 37%
64.23%
71. 79 %
59.00%
64.64%
54.67%
41.497.
45.98%
#DIV /0!
#0IV10!
#DIV /0!
#DIV/O!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#0IV /0! #DIVI01
#00//0! #0IV /0!
#0IV /0! #DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0! 65.27%
#DIV /0' 73.59%
#DIV /0! 68.26%
-28-
DI.0 Page 33 of 91
2014 AVHS Spay /Neuter by Category
January February March April May June July August September October November December Total
Cat Spay Outsource
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Cat Neuter Outsource
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Dog Spay Outsource
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0 i 6
Dog Neuter Outsource
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0 g 2
Cat Spay Shelter
12
6
6
10
17
37
28
22
22
19
17
21 r 217
Cat Neuter Shelter
15
6
3
14
23
31
27
20
10
24
24
20 217
Dog Spay Shelter
19
4
7
13
9
7
3
7
10
6
8
9 02
Do. Neuter Shelter
14
12
8
5
14
14
2
8
6
8
9
10 10
646
January February March April Ma v June July August September October November December otal
Cat Spay SPOT
2
1
4
4
0
2
2
0
4
0
1
0
1
Cat Neuter SPOT
3
2
3
4
2
4
1
0
0
0
1
2
Cat TNR Spay
0
2
0
3
5
4
2
4
3
6
0
0
0
0 II
Cat TNR Neuter
0
3
0
3
4
3
2
2
1
0
2
Dog Spay SPOT
0
3
2
4
1
3
4
0
0
1
0
Dog Neuter SPOT
1
1
0
2
2
2
1
2
D
PaC� 34 of 01
DI.0
2013 AVHS Spay /Neuter by Category
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Cat Spay Outsource 2
7
10
16
18
10
28
15
0
0
0
0
Cat Neuter Outsource 0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dog Spay Outsource
2
3
8
5
6
4
10
12
0
0
0
0
Dog Neuter Outsource
4 5
11
9
13
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
Cat Spay Shelter
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
16
16
16
16
Cat Neuter Shelter
0
0
0
0
6
9
13
14
7
17
14
14
Dog Spay Shelter
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
9
13
7
Do. Neuter Shelter
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
17
19
10
21
9
January February March April
May June July August September October November December
Cat Spay SPOT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cat Neuter SPOT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cat TNR Spay
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cat TNR Neuter
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dog Spay SPOT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dog Neuter SPOT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2014 AVHS VolunteEr Hours by Category
2014
len
Feb
Mertb
April
May
lune
iuly
August
Sept
Oct
ION
Der
Total
•7'!�yyT'
.00 iuean
54209
61078
67779
-0 41
2305
70679
67.48
1673
®'8'
000
6 7
0r.
2.92
000
1563
000
a 48
'.00
47603
000
723348
10800
al ore
77 . 11
.6
249 93
19727
v ::
M
79.40
5070
267 20
1130
3.60
78.16
384 38
97 50
75 2
23768
at 02E9570
4407904 Special4
350
142
2917
7•r
1725
ei
650
966
300
24
0.00
.1
10.00
283
000
275
000
775
1 e5
650
000
150
9153
7992
Greeterlfronl
0080275,0 s
14513
15612
21678
14133
14] 02
15
12053
142.50
6125
7647
8557
7155
155500
Hn a
4yman64cas
1375
1533
821
000
750
200
250
250
200
17.00
1867
978
9724
Crene40Leundry
50mces
1
26546
31177
18287
19742
255.34
28206
2
26852
31237
33898
362.46
325078
Arkin services
Ouveach
27 50
1375
3642
5300
25 50
000
44 50
19 37
3225
11348 1348
51.25
14522
82 25
2850
91 25
5950
41 16
2877
42 50
1042
21 50
4980
25 75
5577
521 83
58278
(r44m4n5
22.16
1025
1050
997
300
69
107
1265
600
1025
2308
4100
14153
T18971
400
INMIEE■Ijj3
7505
a ..
.1 1.
8 BO
1 87
14 33
4. 5
80 36
.. .
haisinp/vp1
ovent
470
572
1000
140
11
231
097
1574
050
37.2S 2
336
106.75
11675
12848
11.45819/Computer
1099
1026
18 70
1500
1155
325
200
1735
529
4.83
500
2424
Nensfetler /Specal
7r9o145
60004E Functions
roam C,I Program
Foster Cal Pro956
2050
122.5(1
10442
8400
52,00
5200
5505
f 15.50
1000
31200
225
1515
4349
6587
2733
15419
Transport
P4e195r194ry
760
000
250
104
000
550
0.00
200
000
4.50
0.00
400
643
000
1291
2480
Event Volunteer
Tel
1942
5567
000
5183
0 00
15431
000
000
0.1'
1000
i-
1213
500
157
r r0
25545
577
r .25
4117
12.17
66858
2839
a.B Functions
Foster Cat 71...
6300
4550
6235
1100
5575
11
86 25
39350
68 50
6.3100
49 50
501.00
5050
389.00
44
32650
252,50
41750
1 5
35650
4850
22750
367804
Foster Ogg Program
Palcmat Cal Caro
900
0.00
0.''
..
Dee
7100
200®5
3982
3558
000
5158
000
4825
rre
4242
350
4142
350
4092
000
5125
18 's
C1her4 Services
553 Program
3933
18.42
3440
0.00
600
010
000
000
000
042
• 000
135
000
130
10055
807
Theft Volunteers
15.]5
N
35563
172 82
3s]1
41122
4W 83
2205 73
TOTAL
130928
165018
111.
210 .
3179
Ems®1E
2431.89
208250
263975
268772
241053
501105
4301138
92952418 53).21156 5 4046935 09895098 5 5226887 950.32566 5 49,167.12 5 5596997 S 4696336 559.52535 5 6060809 554 357.45 356533358
5.7 1a157e,0..,01?I 5,94387 544,09281 5 4].95305 5$6.131, 56193457 55987270 3592.5922 5 72315 i) 5 5564440 5]053412 5)t 0151 56/40936
-
2015 AVHS Volunteer Hours by Category
2015
Clog Waging
In
503]1
Feb
4]850
Marl]
68572
April
72308
May
61245
lune
61328
184
August
Sept
Ott
Nw
0er
Total
3616 97
nehaviPr
Azzeas
Cal Care 1.
61.10
32922
20462
5112
196.77
8575
21862
3832
236 07
8293
281.39
438 70
146680
Cal C442970
ABOPUms7 edalsl
1.00
9W
400
000
1] 00
Greemr1fm
Oesa41ans
HnePn8.4ung tts
8323
1333
1152
1168
83.25
125
4025
1025
1525
1623
5293
11]5
54552
9591
Clea6pl7aunary
445015
45857
25692
33310
14340
304 97
332.40
216526
4.876147 es
5181010
50 57
115
1092
10.25
2503
3380
3075
0706
10350
5000
5000
20100
20] 50
Oroanirg
3119
323
2593
10 75
1350
71
08.58
Inlergs
Treeing
58.27
71 W
2100
4858
26 63
50 67
0.35
24135
ruP
evanauay.a
/0empuur
22.16
1350
1850
11
6.50
1275
1315
--
8410
0916
Nebsue
Nrreems r /Special
Pr9Me
400
370
754Trar41y
E5900V
470
572
7350
140
11
231
097
1574
050
37.2S 2
336
401
VstSrvicesa
2393
1025
73 50
145
15874
900
1092
17.22
1050
950
225.32
3700
64302
88375
3742
60004E Functions
roam C,I Program
Foster Cal Pro956
2050
122.5(1
10442
8400
52,00
5200
5505
f 15.50
1000
31200
2400
152340
32542
177350
Foster Dog Program Care
P.A. m Cat Care
1673
12.1
3.1
13.08
4542
12.00
2310
3442
3610
5275
73 50
26160
bet Panby
TN9 Pro/a
200
200
000
000
1000
000
12.00
1440
t1
1213
6300
300
10148 Stara
33047
37155
30363
50445
46832
4500 85
11509.01
00044,
iOi.LL
232698
1911 IB
2371 65
230189
251.16
311.18
000
000
000
008
01
0011
7050614131 552,17340 5 43 171 52 5 53,48011 35197527 356,38537 .1710 17 5
5740126)tln701.31 56217691 551.15491 5 63 370 49 5 R 35666 50881229 5626011•
DI.0
5
5 s
8 . 5
s
- 5 327.195 44
- 5 387.702 39
Page 35 of 91
Licenses Sold at AVHS 2014
Current Month
unaltered pet
altered pet
Juvenile
Pet under 6
months
senior
citizen /alt pet
disabled
owner with at
pet
Service
Animal
Replace -
meet
tag
LICENSE
SUB TOTAL
Late fee
815
Late Fee
$20
Late Fees
$30
Jan.
2
23
1
21
1
0
0
48
5
$60.00
2
Feb
5
53
0
11
2
2
0
73
1
2
1
Mar.
5
45
2
19
3
0
1
75
1
1
2
Apr.
7
27
3
9
3
1
0
50
1
0
4
May
7
47
9
17
4
0
2
86
1
0
0
June
4
43
14
23
0
0
1
85
2
2
2
July
3
57
1
11
4
0
1
77
1
August
6
46
2
21
3
0
0
78
3
0
3
September
3
36
0
17
0
1
1
58
1
1
1
Oct.
9
43
2
13
4
0
0
71
5
0
2
November
6
48
3
12
1
1
0
71
0
0
3
Dec.
2
40
2
7
0
1
0
52
2
0
0
YTD
59
508
39
181
25
6
6
824
23
3
14
Current Month
$120.00
$1,200.00
$30.00
$105.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,455.00
$30.00
$0.00
$0.00
YTD
$3,540.00
$15,240.00
$585.00
$2,715.00
$375.00
$0.00
$30.00
$22,485.00
$345.00
$60.00
$420.00
Licenses Sold at AVHS 2015
Current Month
unaltered pet
altered pet
Juvenile
Pet under 6
months
senior
citizen /alt pet
disabled
owner with alt
pet
Service
Animal
Replacement
tag
Total
Late fees
(815)
Late fees
($20)
Late fees
(830)
Jan.
10
55
0
12
4
1
0
82
4
0
0
Feb
5
55
0
9
2
1
1
73
0
0
4
Mar
6
51
0
16
1
1
1
76
2
1
0
April
3
25
0
19
3
1
4
54
1
0
4
May
10
61
2
22
0
0
2
97
1
0
0
June
15
38
3
15
0
0
1
72
0
2
2
July
August
September
October
November
December
YTD
49
285
5
93
10
4
9
454
8
3
10
Current Month
$900.00
$1,140.00
$45.00
$225.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5.00
$2,315.00
$0.00
$40.00
$60.00
YTD
82,940.00
$8,550.00
875.00
$1,395.00
$150.00
$0.00
$45.00
$13,155.00
$120.00
$60.00
$300.00
DI.0
Page 36 of 91
DI.D
(Ark'
UBURN
wAs - IENGTo
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Date:
Ordinance No. 6564 - Right -of -Way Vacation No. V4 -14 (10 July 21, 2015
Minute Presentation /10 Minute Q &A)
Department:
CD & PW
Attachments:
Staff Report
ExhibitsA & B
Vicinity Map
Administrative Recommendation:
Budget Impact:
$0
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Hastings 10, LLC has applied to the City for vacation of the right -of -way of the south
side of South 318th Street, east of 56th Avenue South, shown on Exhibit "B ". The
applicant currently owns the adjacent parcel to the south and is proposing to
incorporate the right -of -way in the development of the adjacent property.
The application has been reviewed by City staff and utility purveyors who have an
interest in this right -of -way. Through this review City staff has determined that the right
of way is no longer necessary to meet the needs of the City and could be vacated.
The Public Hearing for this Right -of -Way Vacation is set by Resolution No. 5152 for
August 3, 2015 at 7:00 pm. A staff presentation will be provided at the Public Hearing.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:
Meeting Date: July 27, 2015
Staff: Snyder
Item Number: DI.D
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 37 of 91
CITY OF
AUBURN
WASHINGTON
RIGHT -OF -WAY VACATION
STAFF REPORT
Right -of -Way (ROW) Vacation Number V4 -14
Applicant: Hastings 10, LLC
Property Location:
Right -of -Way located at the south side of South 318th Street, east of 56th Avenue
South.
Description of right -of -way:
This ROW proposed for vacation consists of the south five feet and the east 354.86 feet of South 318th Street,
east of 56th Avenue South. The proposed ROW is adjacent to Parcel 926280 -0055 on the south side and City
right -of -way on the west, north and east sides. The adjacent parcel is owned by the applicant. The proposed
area of ROW for vacation is approximately 1,774( + / -) square feet.
The ROW was Quit Claim deeded to King County for street purposes on March 28, 1944. The ROW was
annexed into the City of Auburn on January 1, 2008.
See Exhibits "A" and "B" for legal description and survey.
Proposal:
The Applicant proposes that the City vacate the above described right -of -way so that they can include the area in
development of the adjoining parcel.
Applicable Policies & Regulations:
• RCW's applicable to this situation - meets requirements of RCW 35.79.
• MUTCD standards - not affected by this proposal.
• City Code or Ordinances - meets requirements of ACC 12.48.
• Comprehensive Plan Policy - not affected.
• City Zoning Code - not affected.
Public Benefit:
• The vacated area may be subject to property taxes.
• The street vacation decreases the Right -of -Way maintenance obligation of the City.
Discussion:
The vacation application was circulated to Puget Sound Energy (PSE), Comcast, CenturyLink, Lakehaven Utility
District and City staff.
1. PSE — Comments and clarification of the location of existing facilities in S 318th Street were requested
from PSE several times but they have failed to respond with additional information. It appears that PSE's
existing facilities are well outside the proposed vacation area and there should be no reason that they can
not maintain their facilities from the street without the need for easements. Due to the location of the
facilities and PSE's failure to respond with additional information it has been determined that easements
over the proposed vacation area are not needed and will not be reserved for PSE facilities.
2. Comcast — Comcast has facilities attached to the PSE poles near the proposed area of vacation but as
long as the poles are not impacted by the vacation they do not require an easement.
3. CenturyLink — CenturyLink's existing facilities are located on the north side of S 318th Street and do not
require an easement in the proposed vacation area.
4. Lakehaven Utility District — Lakehaven has an existing 6" water main in this segment of S 318th Street that
is approximately 7 +/- feet north of the ROW centerline. No easement is required in the vacation area as
1 of 2
7/21/2015
V4 -14 Staff Report
DI.D
Page 38 of 91
there is more than sufficient room to stay on the north side of the ROW centerline should work need to be
done on the 6" line in S 318th Street.
5. Water — No comments on Auburn Water. This area is served by Lakehaven Utility District.
6. Sewer — Sewer does not need an easement reserved on the proposed vacation area.
7. Storm — Please retain a public drainage easement over the vacation area due to the presence of roadside
ditches.
8. Transportation — No comments.
9. Planning — No comments.
10. Fire — No comments
11. Police — No comments.
12. Streets — No comments.
13. Construction —No comments.
14. Innovation and Technology — No comments
Assessed Value:
ACC 12.48 states "The city council may require as a condition of the ordinance that the city be compensated for
the vacated right -of -way in an amount which does not exceed one -half the value of the right -of -way so vacated,
except in the event the subject property or portions thereof were acquired at public expense or have been part of
a dedicated public right -of -way for 25 years or more, compensation may be required in an amount equal to the full
value of the right -of -way being vacated. The city engineer shall estimate the value of the right -of -way to be
vacated based on the assessed values of comparable properties in the vicinity. If the value of the right -of -way is
determined by the city engineer to be greater than $2,000.00, the applicant will be required to provide the city with
an appraisal by an MAI appraiser approved by the city engineer, at the expense of the applicant. The city
reserves the right to have a second appraisal performed at the city's expense."
RCW 35.79.030 states the vacation "shall not become effective until the owners of property abutting upon the
street or alley, or part thereof so vacated, shall compensate such city or town in an amount which does not
exceed one -half the appraised value of the area so vacated. If the street or alley has been part of a dedicated
public right -of -way for twenty -five years or more, or if the subject property or portions thereof were acquired at
public expense, the city or town may require the owners of the property abutting the street or alley to compensate
the city or town in an amount that does not exceed the full appraised value of the area vacated."
The value of the right -of -way was determined to be greater than $2,000.00 and an appraisal, by an MAI appraiser,
of the subject right -of -way was required to be submitted by the applicant. The appraisal was reviewed and found
to be acceptable by the City Engineer. The appraisal values the right -of -way in an "as is" condition at $4,700.00.
The right -of -way has been right -of -way for more than 25 years and was acquired through Quit Claim deeded to
King County on March 28, 1944 and annexed into the City of Auburn on January 1, 2008.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the street vacation be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. A public utility /drainage easement shall be reserved for City of Auburn stormwater facilities along the
entire length and width of the vacated ROW.
2. That compensation for the value of the right -of -way be required in the full amount of the appraised value
of $4,700.00 since the right -of -way has been right -of -way for more than 25 years.
2 of 2
7/21/2015
V4 -14 Staff Report
DI.D Page 39 of 91
EXHIBIT `A'
RIGHT OF WAY VACATION
DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT 11 OF WEST AUBURN FIVE
ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 15 OF
PLATS, PAGE 12, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 88 °58'52" EAST,
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT, A DISTANCE OF 39.41 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 01 °01'08" EAST, 30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING A POINT ON
A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS
SOUTH 42 °25'43" EAST A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE
NORTHEASTERLY 14.45 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 41 °24'35" TO A POINT
25.00 FEET SOUTH OF AFORESAID NORTH LINE AS MEASURED PERPENDICULARLY;
THENCE NORTH 88 °58'52" EAST, PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF
341.73 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EASTERLY 260 FEET OF
AFORESAID TRACT 11; THENCE SOUTH 00 °02'35" EAST, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A
DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET TO A POINT 30.00 FEET SOUTH OF AFORESAID NORTH LINE
AS MEASURED PERPENDICULARLY AND BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THAT
PORTION OF AFORESAID TRACT 11 CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD
PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING
NUMBER 3376319; THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST LINE, SOUTH 88 °58'52" WEST,
PARALLEL WITH AFORESAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 354.8E FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING.
KENNETH W. SWINDAMAN, P.L.S.
WASHINGTON STATE REGISTRATION NO. 34130
2601 South 35th Street, Suite 200, Tacoma, Washington 98409
(253) 473-4494 Fax: (253) 473 -0599
I/ EX
DI.D Page 40 of 91
EXHIBIT 'B'
RIGHT OF WAY VACATION
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 11,
TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
NW CORNER OF TRACT 11,
WEST AUBURN FIVE ACRE TRACTS
50101'08 "E 30.00'
N88'58•52 °E
R= 20.00' L= 14.45'
6= 4174'35"
SOUTH 31871 -1 STREET
NORTH UNE OF TRACT 11
341.73'
354.86'
30'
P.O.B.
NEW RIGHT OF WAY
o
5.00' o
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
5' RIGHT OF WAY TRACT 11
VACATION ACRE TitAC3
Svc 03 VR 1.5
RIGHT OF WAY VACATION
APEX SOB NO: 32426 DATE: 08/04/2014
DRAWN BY: SSN CHECKED BY: KWS
DWG: 32426_ROW— VACATION I SCALE: 1 " =50
WEST UN OF EAST 260'
0l ACT 11
%
Engineeringa
2601 South 35th, Suite 200
TnComO, Washington 98409 -7474
(253) 473 -4494 FA %: (253) 473-0599
0 APEX ENGYNEERNNG PLLC 2014
DI .D
Page41 of 91
Right -of -Way Vacation #V4 -14 Vicinity Map
Printed Date:6/11/2015
Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS
Information shown is for general reference
purposes only and does not necessarily
represent exact geographic or cartographic
data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no
warranty as to its accuracy.
DI U
N
f age 42 of 91
DI.E
C=ITY or
AUBURN
WASHINGTO
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Date:
Resolution No. 5154 - Agreement with Ferguson Waterworks for July 21, 2015
implementation of Contract Number 15 -11 for Project CP1317,
Meter and Billing System Improvements Project (10 Minute
Presentation /20 Minute Q &A)
Department:
CD & PW
Attachments:
Memorandum RE: Automated Meterinq
Infrastructure, dated July 16, 2015
Memorandum RE: Mobile Radio M eterinq
Compared to Automated Metering Infrastructure
(AMI ), dated July 20, 2015
Administrative Recommendation:
Budget
Impact:
$0
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Staff presented details of the Meter and Billing System Improvement Project at the
July 13, 2015 Study Session. Discussion included the Contract for installation of the
system, Schedule for Implementation, Financing plan, and Public Education and
Communication plan.
The discussion generated several questions and requests for additional information.
Staff provided response to Council in memoranda dated July 16 and July 20, 2015
(attached). At the July 20, 2015 Council meeting, Council requested additional
information and time to review the project.
At the July 27, 2015 Study Session, Staff will present information regarding:
• Impact of AMI on reducing future water capital spending
• Additional analysis of Operations staff involvement in preparing meter boxes for
AMI implementation
In the interests of saving paper, the proposed AMI contract and other materials that
were provided at the July 13th Study Session have not been included in this packet.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 43 of 91
DI.E
Councilmember:
Meeting Date: July 27, 2015
Staff: Snyder
Item Number: DI.E
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 44 of 91
WASHINGTON
Memorandum
To: Mayor Nancy Backus
City Councilmembers
From: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Community Development and Public Works Director
CC: Ingrid Gaub, P.E., City Engineer /Assistant Director of Engineering Services
Susan Fenhaus, Water Utility Engineer
Lisa Tobin, Utilities Engineering Manager
Dani Daskam, City Clerk
Tamie Bothell, Executive Assistant to the Mayor
Date: July 16, 2015
Re: Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI)
At the City Council's July 13, 2015 Study Session on the Meter and Billing System Improvement
Project (Automated Metering Infrastructure), the Council requested additional information on the
topics listed below (in bold and italics). A summary of City staff's responses in a matrix format
are presented on the following table. Additional explanation for each of the topics is included
after the table.
Should Councilmembers have any additional questions or comments prior to the July 20 City
Council meeting, please email Mayor Backus and cc: Kevin Snyder so that staff can assemble
the appropriate response prior to the meeting.
Page 1 of 6
DI.E
AUBURN MORE THAN YOU IMAGIIge 45 of 91
Topic
Existing Manually -Read Meter
Reading System
Proposed AMI Meter
Reading System
Provide additional information on the cost/benefit analysis of the AMI project
Capital cost assumptions
Replace meters older than 20
years (currently 25 %)
Vehicle replacement for 1.5 -1.9
FTEs
No new capital costs for meter
infrastructure
Replace all meters
Vehicle replacement for 0.1
FTEs
New capital costs for AMI
infrastructure
Operating cost assumptions
Labor — 1.5 FTEs, increasing to
1.9 FTEs during 20 -year life
cycle cost analysis
Vehicle fuel costs based on
FTEs
Replace meter reading
equipment every 5 years
Labor — 0.1 FTE during 20-
year life cycle cost analysis
Vehicle fuel costs based on
FTEs
No replacement cost within
20 -year period
Net present value
$8.6 million
$9.3 million
Non - monetized factors
Need for increased meter
reading staff over 20 years
Meter reading subject to
potential inaccuracies
Data for water supply analysis,
conservation, and leak
detection available only every 2
months
Former meter reading staff
fulfill other staff needs
More accurate readings of
actual water use
Real -time water use data
promotes more efficient water
production, supports
conservation, and detects
leaks quickly
Compare the annual costs of meter reading under the current system (Scenario 0) and
under the AMI system (Scenario 7)
Annual Costs
$5.0 million (20 -year net
present value)
$3.3 million (20 -year net
present value)
Provide City staff costs associated with AMI implementation
Estimated Staff Costs
n/a
2015 —1 FTE ($90,000)
2016 — 2.8 FTE ($251,000)
2017 — 3.8 FTE ($404,000)
No additional staff needs
Will AMI delay the need for additional water supply projects?
n/a
Potential for reduced water
demands. Real -time data will
be used to evaluate
Why can't the Customer Access Portal on the Internet be implemented sooner?
n/a
Partial implementation as
customer meters are
converted may cause
confusion with existing
customer access to monthly
water use data
Page 2 of 6
DI .E
AUBURN MORE THAN YOU IMAGIIge 46 of 91
Additional information about the topics summarized in the matrix table above is presented below.
Provide additional information on the cost/benefit analysis of the AMI project.
In 2013, the City's consultant, HDR, prepared a study that compared 7 scenarios involving
different types of automated meter reading technologies to the City's current manually -read meter
reading system (Scenario 0). This study included a cost/benefit analysis of the eight scenarios
(0 -7) over a 20 -year planning horizons.
The Scenarios were defined as folllows:
0 - Auburn's existing manually -read water meter system
1 - Drive -by reading of retrofitted existing meters
2 - "Standard" radio system with retrofitted existing meters
3 - "High power" radio system with retrofitted existing meters (fewer antenna required than
a standard radio system)
4 - Mesh radio system (data transmitted from meter to meter) with retrofitted existing
meters
5 - Valley -only AMI system, with manual read continuing in rest of City
6 - Standard radio system with all new meters
7 - High power radio system with all new meters
At the Committee of the Whole meeting in June 2014, the City Council concurred with staff's
recommendation to further evaluate the Sensus Flexnet AMI system (Scenario 7) for potential
implementation. Following negotiation of a draft contract with a detailed scope of work and
pricing matrix with Ferguson WaterWorks (the local Sensus representative), HDR revised the
cost/benefit analysis with Ferguson's contract costs for Scenario 7b.
The key parameters analyzed in the cost/benefit analysis for Scenario 0 (current manual system)
and for Scenario 7 (AMI system) are summarized below:
Capital costs
• Meter replacement — Scenario 0 included all meters being replaced as they reach 20
years of age (25% are already older than 20 years). Scenario 7 included all meters
being replaced as part of implementation.
• New meter installation — Both options included estimates of new customers being
added through the implementation period
• Vehicles — One vehicle per full -time equivalent (FTE) meter reader was assumed,
replaced every 6 years. Scenario 7 requires much less meter - related labor than
Scenario, dramatically reducing vehicle capital costs for Scenario 7.
• AMI components — Scenario 0 did not include these costs. Scenario 7 included costs
for programming, software, training, collectors, antennae, and other AMI
infrastructure.
Page 3 of 6
DI .E
aSource: Section 4.0 of "City of Auburn, Draft Water Utility Meter and Billing System Improvements ", August 28,
2013, HDR.
bSource: Memorandum from Jeff Hansen, HDR to Susan Fenhaus and Lisa Tobin, City of Auburn, "Water Utility
Meter and Billing System Improvements Project", July 8, 2015.
AUBURN MORE THAN YOU IMAGIIge 47 of 91
Operating Costs
• Meter reader staff labor — Scenario 0 included 1.5 meter reader FTE based on tasks
specifically related to meter reading (2 meter readers for 3 -4 days per week),
increasing to 1.9 FTE within the 20 -year planning period due to the projected
increase in number of customers. The number of meter reader FTEs was reduced to
0.1 FTE in Scenario 7 during the 20 -year planning period and reflected the reduced
labor requirements for an automated meter system.
• Fuel costs — Both scenarios included fuel costs and were based on the number of
FTEs.
Additional Economic Model Assumptions
• Escalation factors — Inflation was included in the costs evaluated for each scenario
(salary 3 %, fuel 8 %, vehicle maintenance 3 %, vehicle cost 3.5 %, meter 3 %).
• Discount rate to calculate present value (PV) was 6 %.
• Manual meter reading equipment (Scenario 0) was assumed to have a usable
service life of 5 years.
• Capital costs for the primary AMI equipment components occurred only once in the
20 -year planning period.
A hardcopy of HDR's report is available for review on the counter by the Councilmembers'
mailboxes in City Hall.
The results indicate that the 20 -year net present value of the two scenarios is comparable: $8.6
million for the existing manually -read system (Scenario 0) and $9.3 million for the Sensus Flexnet
system (Scenario 7).
As HDR noted in their memorandum,
"This finding is consistent with what many other utilities have observed in their own AMI
system implementation. Full system -wide deployment of AMI rarely results in a payback
significantly less than 20 years, due to the substantial upfront capital investment.
However, the operational cost savings over the life of the system (associated with fewer
meter reading costs) typically essentially offsets this capital outlay. It is this finding,
coupled with the other non - monetized benefits of AMI (e.g., increased water consumption
data to support customer service activities, proactively identify leaks, and evaluate water
usage trends) that often drives utilities to implementation of AMI."
HDR's study included a qualitative assessment of these non - monetized factors:
Page 4 of 6
DI .E
• Freeing up of staff resources — Through the AMI implementation process, the meter
reading requirements will gradually reduce and allow the staff resources to be utilized for
other areas of need which could include readying the remaining meter boxes for AMI
installation; responding to customer requests regarding leaks, pressure, or water quality;
performing water main flushing or water sampling; providing utility locating services;
installing new meters; and repairing damaged meters. These additional staff resources
will delay the need for future staff increases as Auburn's customer base continues to
grow, and would free up more experienced staff for other water utility duties.
AUBURN MORE THAN YOU IMAGIIge 48 of 91
• Meter reliability and read accuracy — Increased meter reliability will enable the City to
recoup its costs for water actually delivered to its customers, and will reduce staff time for
resolving inaccurate readings.
• Data availability for water supply analysis — Currently, water usage data lags behind
water production data by two months (time between meter reading cycles). Water
personnel must make operating decisions to increase or decrease supply in a reactive
mode to declining reservoir levels or diminished pressure. With real -time water use data,
Water personnel can be proactive to match the water produced with the current
demands.
• Support of conservation activities and leak adjustment processes — Customers can
monitor their water use to achieve desirable or required conservation goals, and can
identify leaks more quickly (saves money and water).
• Billing process efficiency — Current process involves generating and analyzing meter
reading reports; these processes would be automated with AMI, freeing up time for
customer service representatives to perform other customer service tasks.
• Meter reader safety — Meters that are located in difficult access and high traffic locations
pose safety risks to meter readers.
• Public perception of technology — There is a general public perception that manual meter
reading is less accurate than a more automated approach.
• Environmental impact — Elimination of manual meter reading will reduce fuel use and
vehicle emissions.
Compare the annual costs of meter reading under the current system (Scenario 0) and
under the AMI system (Scenario 7)
From HDR's memorandum, the 20 -year net present value (PV) of the operating costs of the
existing system is $5.0 million, while the net PV of the AMI system is $3.3 million. As noted
above, the current meter readers will be re- assigned to other water utility tasks, deferring the
need for increased staff to complete current work requirements.
Provide City staff costs associated with AMI implementation
The estimated labor costs for City staff members involved in the AMI implementation from 2015-
2017 are summarized below. Note that these labor costs are already included in each
department's 2015 -2016 budget and will not be charged to the AMI project.
Department
2015
2016
2017
FTEs
$
FTEs
$
FTEs
$
Finance
0.04
$6,000
0.04
$6,000
0.04
$6,000
Customer Service
0.38
$40,000
1.00
$100,000
1.00
$100,000
Innovation & Technology
0.34
$20,000
0.07
$7,000
0.10
$11,000
Water Maintenance & Operation
0.09
$7,000
1.55
$130,000
2.51
$275,000
Water Utility Engineering
0.15
$17,000
0.09
$8,000
0.12
$12,000
TOTAL
1.00
$90,000
2.75
$251,000
3.77
$404,000
Page 5 of 6
DI .E
AUBURN MORE THAN YOU IMAGIIge 49 of 91
Will AMI delay the need for additional water supply projects?
There is the potential for reduced water demands as customers begin to better manage their
water usage. This could result in a reduction in the capital expenditures over each planning
cycle, but the exact numbers are difficult to estimate until actual reduction in use is achieved.
The AMI system will also provide staff with the real -time data that is not currently available to
analyze daily peak water use for water supply planning.
Why can't the Customer Access Portal on the Internet be implemented sooner?
Currently, customers have access to monthly data online. Implementation of a Customer Access
Portal for only a portion of our customers as the AMI system is implemented over a 2 -year period
may cause confusion as to which system a customer should use to access their data.
Staff recommends fully implementing and integrating the Sensus system into the City's business
and billing processes before initiating the Customer Access Portal. Part of the future Public
Information Program will include publicizing the availability of the Portal to encourage widespread
customer use. To insure the system meets our customers needs, staff recommends that it be
fully operational and tested before opening up the access to the customer. As the City Council
suggested, a small group of customers could be selected to help define and test the system
before it goes "live ".
Page 6 of 6
DI .E
AUBURN MORE THAN YOU IMAGIIge 50 of 91
WASHINGTON
Memorandum
To: Mayor Nancy Backus
City Councilmembers
From: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Community Development and Public Works Director
CC: Ingrid Gaub, P.E., City Engineer /Assistant Director of Engineering Services
Susan Fenhaus, Water Utility Engineer
Lisa Tobin, Utilities Engineering Manager
Dani Daskam, City Clerk
Tamie Bothell, Executive Assistant to the Mayor
Date: July 20, 2015
Re: Mobile Radio Metering Compared to Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI)
In response to City staff's memorandum dated July 16, 2015, the Council requested the following
additional information comparing the City's partially- implemented mobile radio read system with
the proposed AMI system (the questions are shown in bold and italics).
Approximately 40% of the City's water meters are read via a mobile radio read system
using a Badger Model CE transmitter. Why wasn't this information presented at the last
study session?
At the June 2014 Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting, City staff presented potential AMI
options for the Council's consideration, including the fact that the City's existing meter reading
system was 60% manual and 40% mobile radio. Staff discussed the inefficiencies involved with
processing the meter reading data for use in the Springbrook customer billing system, and
showed that the operating costs for an AMI system were less than for the mobile radio read
system. The Council authorized staff to continue to investigate AMI.
Would it be cheaper to convert the other 60% to the current Badger Model CE transmitter?
HDR's Scenario 1 (completion of the remaining 60% of the partially- implemented radio read
Badger system using the Orion CE transmitter) has a 20 -year present value slightly less ($8.9
million) than that of Scenario 7, the AMI system ($9.3 million). However, staff does not
recommend continuing to utilize the Badger radio read system. After the City began installing the
Badger radio read meters in 2004, Staff found that the batteries in the Badger units failed after 5
Page 1 of 3
DI.E
AUBURN MORE THAN YOU IMAGIIge 51 of 91
years, requiring replacement of the entire meter at the City's cost. The City received very poor
customer support from Badger to resolve these battery problems and other issues that arose.
The City suspended installation of the Badger mobile radio read system in 2012, pending
completion of the HDR report on AMI alternatives and further direction from Council.
HDR's report states that a single meter reader can read 5000 - 10,000 of these units in a
day; in other words a single meter reader at the low end could read the whole city in three
days. City staff could acquire the data needed for analysis because of the short time to
read the meters.
Using a mobile radio read system, the meter readers would routinely collect readings only once
per billing cycle, which would only provide a snapshot of water usage and would not provide
information about water usage by all customers during a specific day that is needed for water
supply analysis. AMI obtains readings of the water being used by all customers during any given
period, allowing Water Operations staff to use these data to proactively tailor its water supply
strategies to meet the current demand.
Reviewing "Qualitative Analysis Summary" every criterion for mobile radio read was
positive except Utility "Visibility" to Customer which was negative; however for AMI it was
rated Strongly Negative.
Utility "visibility" refers to maintaining a visible presence in the community while City staff are
collecting meter readings. Currently, the meter readers rarely have any interaction with
customers during their meter reading rounds. With a mobile read system, the community may
observe a City vehicle driving by; with the AMI system, meter readers would not routinely be
seen. However, the AMI system would enable the meter readers to perform more focused
customer service activities, including assistance with leak detection, responding to water quality
or water pressure concerns, and assisting with maintenance of the water system.
Page 2 of 3
DI .E
AUBURN MORE THAN YOU IMAGIIge 52 of 91
What are the options, costs and benefits of the mobile radio read system, as compared to
the AMI system that is proposed?
The following comparison of the mobile radio read system and the AMI system is summarized
from HDR's "City of Auburn, Draft Water Utility Meter and Billing System Improvements ", August
28, 2013.
Topic
Mobile Radio -Read Meter
System (Scenario 1)
AMI Meter Reading
System (Scenario 7)
Options
Replace 60% of existing meters
with Badger Recordall meters
and Orion CE transmitters
Replace existing meters with
Sensus iPerl, retrofit 55
existing large commercial
Badger meters with new
Sensus register and radio.
New meters installed since
Fall 2014 are Sensus iPerls
(will only need to install the
radio for AMI implementation)
20 -year Net Present Value
$8.9 million
$9.3 million
Comparison of Parameters
Meter reading labor
0.2 FTE
0.1 FTE
Operating Costs
$3.4 million (20 -year net
present value)
$3.3 million (20 -year net
present value)
Customer service processing
meter reading data into
Springbrook billing system
3 -6 hours per day
<1 hour per day
Leak detection
Same as manual system (once
per billing cycle)
Daily
Remote shutoff
Not available, requires field visit
Integral with iPerl, no field visit
required
Tamper and theft of service
Identified at next meter reading
Identified same day
Customize reading /billing
dates
Account must stay within
designated billing cycle
Complete flexibility to
establish billing cycle to meet
account needs
Re -read due to billing dispute
Requires field visit
No field visit required
Consumption profiles for high
bill investigations
Available up to last meter
reading
Daily information available
Monitoring for compliance
with watering restrictions and
conservation goals
Requires special reading
Able to monitor remotely
Support for unaccounted -for
water studies, hydraulic
modeling, cost of service rate
modeling, resource planning
Information based on frequency
of meter reading
Daily, detailed data available
Page 3 of 3
DI.E
AUBURN MORE THAN YOU IMAGIIge 53 of 91
DI.F
AuBuRN ITY Cdr •
wAs - IENGTo
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Date:
Resolution No. 5158 - Amending the 2016 -2021 July 21, 2015
Transportation Improvement Program (5 Minute
Presentation /5 Minute Q &A)
Department:
CD & PW
Attachments:
Existing TI P #69
Budget Impact:
$0
Proposed M edified TI P #69
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
The purpose of this discussion item is to review Staff's proposed modification to the
2016 -2021 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to update a project for which
the City was awarded $200,000.00 in design phase funding on June 22, 2015, by the
State Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grant Program. The project is required to be in
the City's TIP consistent with the award in order to obligate the grant funds and
proceed with the project.
TIP #69, 22nd & I St NE Intersection, was originally programmed in the 2015 -2020 TIP
after review and consideration by the Public Works and the Planning & Community
Development Committees. There was a subsequent update with the 2016 -2021 TIP
adoption on June 15, 2015, and is proposed to be modified now to reflect the secured
grant award.
Both project name and description were revised to be consistent with the grant agency
requirements.
A Public Hearing and a Resolution for adoption of the proposed modifications are
currently scheduled for the August 3rd City Council meeting.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:
Meeting Date: July 27, 2015
Staff: Snyder
Item Number: DI.F
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 54 of 91
DI.F
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 55 of 91
Existing TIP #69
City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program
Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)
TIP# 69
Project Title:
Project No:
Project Type:
Project Manager:
I Street NE & 22nd Street NE Roundabout Safety Improvement
cpxxxx
Capacity (Safety)
TBD
STIP# AUB -N /A
LOS Corridor ID# 21
Description:
This project includes the design and construction of a roundabout at the 22nd Street NE intersection with I Street NE. This is currently a all -way stop controlled intersection.
Progress Summary:
Preliminary Design was initiated in 2015. Final design and construction are dependant on securing full funding.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
There is no impact to the street maintenance budget.
Activity: 2015 YE
Budget
Forecast Project Cost
Funding Sources: Prior to 2015 Estimate
2016 2017 2018
2019 2020 2021 Beyond 2021
Total Project Cost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - -
Unsecured Grant - -
- - -
- 100,000 940,000
- - - -
- - - -
1,040,000
Traffic Impact Fees - 50,000
50,000 50,000 235,000
- - - -
385,000
Other - -
- - -
- - - -
-
Total Funding Sources: - 50,000
50,000 150,000 1,175,000
- - - -
1,425,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 50,000
50,000 150,000 -
- - - -
250,000
Right of Way - -
- - -
- - - -
-
Construction - -
- - 1,175,000
- - - -
1,175,000
Total Expenditures: - 50,000
50,000 150,000 1,175,000
- - - -
1,425,000
DI.F
Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 65
Page 56 of 91
Proposed Modified TIP #69
City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program
Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)
TIP# 69
Project Title:
Project No:
Project Type:
Project Manager:
22nd Street NE & I Street NE intersection
CP1513
Capacity (Safety)
TBD
STIP# AU B -xx
LOS Corridor ID# 21
Description:
This project will design a modern roundabout at the 22nd Street NE and I Street NE intersection in place of the existing all -way stop - control. The proposed design will
improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and ADA accessibility.
Progress Summary:
State grant was awarded for design in 2015. Construction phase is dependant on securing future grants or other local funding.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
There is no impact to the street maintenance budget.
Activity: 2015 YE
Budget
Forecast Project Cost
Funding Sources: Prior to 2015 Estimate
2016 2017 2018
2019 2020 2021 Beyond 2021
Total Project Cost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - -
- - -
- - - -
-
Secured State Grant - 160,000
40,000 - -
- - - -
200,000
Unsecured Grant - -
- 940,000 -
- - - -
940,000
Traffic Impact Fees - 40,000
15,000 235,000 -
- - - -
290,000
Other - -
- - -
- - - -
-
Total Funding Sources: - 200,000
55,000 1,175,000 -
- - - -
1,430,000
Capital Expenditures:
Pre - Design - 5,000
- - -
- - - -
5,000
Design - 195,000
55,000 - -
- - - -
250,000
Right of Way - -
- - -
- - - -
-
Construction - -
- 1,175,000 -
- - - -
1,175,000
Total Expenditures: - 200,000
55,000 1,175,000 -
- - - -
1,430,000
DI.F
Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement 7 1 Projects 65
DI.G
AUBURN
WASH o
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Date:
Resolution No. 5159 - WRIA 9 Interlocal Agreement (10 July 22, 2015
Minute Presentation /10 Minutet Q &A
Department: Attachments:
Community Development & Resolution Na 5159
Public Works ExhibitA
Administrative Recommendation:
Budget Impact:
$0
Background Summary:
RCW 39.34 authorizes cities and counties to enter into interlocal agreements, as
necessary, to work together on issues requiring joint action of parties. Since 2000, the
City of Auburn has been entering into interlocal agreements or amendments or
extensions thereto for participation in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 for the
purposes described therein, more specifically authorized through the approvals of
Resolution Nos. 3276 (November 6, 2000), 3376 (August 6, 2001), 3921 (October 17,
2005) and 4118 (December 4, 2006). The current WRIA 9 ILA expires on December
31, 2015. At its meeting on May 14, 2015, the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum
(WEF) unanimously approved a final WRIA 9 ILA for 2016 — 2025 for consideration by
each WRIA 9 city and county.
Please find attached Resolution No. 5159 that would give the Mayor the authority to
execute the 2016 -2025 ILA. Please also find attached the 2016 -2025 ILA.
The City's continued participation in the WRIA 9 interlocal agreement affords the City
the opportunity to address shared interests in and responsibilities with neighboring
jurisdictions pertaining to long -term watershed planning and conservation of the
aquatic ecosystems and floodplains of the Green River, Duwamish River, and Central
Puget Sound Watersheds. More specifically, since 2001, the seventeen (17) local
governments in the WRIA 9 interlocal agreement have interacted in a forum of local
governments that has provided a mechanism and governance structure for the joint
funding, development, review, and approval of the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan,
Making Our Watershed Fit for a King The Salmon Habitat Plan is the blueprint for
meeting the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act and recovering the
Threatened Green River Chinook salmon population. As documented in the WRIA 9
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 58 of 91
DI.G
Implementation Progress Report (March 2015), $137 million in capital funding has
been obtained to implement the Salmon Habitat Plan.
The cost -share of the City's participation in WRIA 9 is identified in the 2016 -2025
interlocal agreement. It identifies a 2016 cost -share of $22,686.00 that has been
previously appropriated by the City Council in its approval of the City of Auburn 2015-
2016 Biennial Budget. Future costs for the City's participation for the years 2017 -2015
will need be addressed through the City Council's approval of biennial City budgets.
The ILA has been reviewed and informed by several ILA Parties over the course of its
development, including by the WRIA 9 Management Committee and WEF, and the
King County Prosecuting Attorney provided legal review. Community Development
and Public Works Department have reviewed the ILA to insure conformity and
consistency with applicable City goals and policies and have recommended to Mayor
Backus its review at the City Council's July 27, 2015 study session and placement on
the Council's August, 2015 regular meeting agenda for possible action. In addition, the
City Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved the ILA.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Other: Leglal, Planning
Councilmember: Staff: Snyder
Meeting Date: July 27, 2015 Item Number: DI.G
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 59 of 91
RESOLUTION NO. 5 1 5 9
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (ILA)
AMONG THE PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS WITHIN
THE GREEN RIVER, DUWAMISH RIVER AND CENTRAL
PUGET SOUNDS WATERSHEDS WITHIN THE
GEOGRAPHIC PLANNING AREA OF WATER RESOURCE
INVENTORY AREA (WRIA) 9
WHEREAS, RCW 39.34 authorizes cities and counties to enter into interlocal
agreements, as necessary, to work together on issues requiring joint action of parties;
and
WHEREAS, since 2000, the City of Auburn has been entering into interlocal
agreements or amendments or extensions thereto for participation in WRIA 9 for the
purposes described therein, more specifically authorized through the approvals of
Resolution Nos. 3276 (November 6, 2000), 3376 (August 6, 2001), 3921 (October 17,
2005) and 4118 (December 4, 2006); and,
WHEREAS, the current WRIA 9 ILA expires on December 31, 2015; and,
WHEREAS, at its meeting on May 14, 2015, he WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem
Forum (WEF) unanimously approved a final WRIA 9 ILA for 2016 — 2025 for
consideration by each WRIA 9 city and county; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn wishes to continue participating with neighboring
jurisdictions on matters beneficial to the Green River, Duwamish River and Central
Puget Sound Watersheds, particularly within the geographic planning area of Water
Resource Inventory Area 9 (which includes portions of Water Resource Inventory Areas
8, 10 and 15); and,
Resolution No. 5159
July 20, 2015
DI.G Page 1 of 3
Page 60 of 91
WHEREAS, through its continued participation in the ILA attached hereto, the
City of Auburn will address shared interests in and responsibilities with neighboring
jurisdictions pertaining to long -term watershed planning and conservation of the aquatic
ecosystems and floodplains of the Green River, Duwamish River, and Central Puget
Sound Watersheds through collectively providing for planning, funding and
implementation of various activities and projects therein; and,
WHEREAS, the cost -share of the City's participation in WRIA 9 is identified in the
2016 -2015 interlocal agreement attached hereto with a 2016 cost -share of $22,686.00
that has been previously appropriated by the City Council in its approval of the City of
Auburn 2015 -2016 Biennial Budget; and,
WHEREAS, future costs for the City's participation for the years 2017 -2015 will
be addressed through the City Council's future approval of biennial City budgets.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a new interlocal
agreement (ILA) between the City and the other participating jurisdictions within the
WRIA 9 (Green /Duwamish and Central Puget Sound basin) in a form in substantial
compliance with the agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and the Mayor is further
authorized to negotiate the amounts of future year contributions on behalf of the City
during the term of the ILA.
Section 2. That the Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative
procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
Resolution No. 5159
July 20, 2015
DI.G Page2of3
Page 61 of 91
Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon
passage and signatures hereon.
Dated and Signed this day of , 2015.
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
Resolution No. 5159
July 20, 2015
DI.G Page3of3
CITY OF AUBURN
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
Page 62 of 91
Exhibit A
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
For the Green River, Duwamish River, and Central Puget Sound Watersheds
within the geographic planning area of Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (which
includes portions of Water Resource Inventory Areas 8, 10, and 15)
PREAMBLE
THIS AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW by
and among the eligible county and city governments signing this Agreement that are located in
King County or Pierce County, lying wholly or partially within or having a major interest in the
Green River, Duwamish River, and Central Puget Sound Watersheds and within the planning and
management area of Watershed Resource Inventory Area 9, which includes portions of WRIA 8,
10, and 15, ( "WRIA 9 ") all political subdivisions of the State of Washington (individually, for those
signing this agreement, "Party ", and collectively "Parties ");
WHEREAS, the planning and management area of WRIA 9 includes all of the area
recognized by the State of Washington as WRIA 9 and portions of WRIA 8, 10, and 15;
WHEREAS, the Parties share interests in and responsibility for addressing long -term
watershed planning and conservation of the aquatic ecosystems and floodplains of the Green
River, Duwamish River, and Central Puget Sound Watersheds and wish to collectively provide for
planning, funding and implementation of various activities and projects therein; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have participated in an Interlocal Agreement for the years 2001-
2005 to develop "Making Our Watershed Fit for a King" as approved in 2005 and since amended
( "Salmon Habitat Plan "), contributed to the federally- approved Puget Sound Salmon Recovery
Plan, and desire to continue providing efficient participation in the implementation of such plans;
and
WHEREAS, the Parties took formal action in 2005 and 2006 to ratify the Salmon Habitat
Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Parties have participated in an extension of the 2001 -2005 Interlocal
Agreement and an Interlocal Agreement for the years 2007 -2015 in implementing the Salmon
Habitat Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have demonstrated in the Salmon Habitat Plan that watershed
ecosystem services are worth billions of dollars of value to local people in terms of stormwater
management, pollution treatment, recreational value, and other expensive and difficult to replace
services; and
WHEREAS, the Parties seek information on watershed conditions and salmon
conservation and recovery needs to inform local decision - making bodies regarding actions in
response to listings under the Endangered Species Act ( "ESA "); and
WHEREAS, the Parties have prioritized and contributed resources and funds for
implementing projects and programs to protect and restore habitat; and
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 1
DI.G Page 63 of 91
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to monitor and evaluate implementation of the Salmon
Habitat Plan through adaptive management; and
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to continue to use adaptive management for identifying,
coordinating and implementing basin plans and water quality, flood hazard reduction, water
quantity, and habitat projects in the watersheds; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have a strong interest in participating on the Puget Sound
Salmon Recovery Council because of the contributions of the Green River, Duwamish River, and
Central Puget Sound Watersheds to the overall health of Puget Sound; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have a strong interest in participating on the Washington Salmon
Coalition and other groups associated with the Salmon Recovery Funding Board to collectively
seek funding to implement the Salmon Habitat Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have a strong interest to implement the Puget Sound Partnership
Action Agenda to restore the Puget Sound to health and sustain that health by 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have a strong interest in participating on the Puget Sound
Salmon Recovery Council and other entities associated with Puget Sound salmon recovery and
Puget Sound South Central Action Area Caucus Group to collectively seek funding to implement
the Salmon Habitat Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have a strong interest to achieve multiple benefits by integrating
salmon recovery planning and actions; and
WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that identification of watershed issues, and
implementation of salmon conservation and recovery actions may be carried out more efficiently if
done cooperatively than if carried out separately and independently; and
WHEREAS, individual Parties are taking separate and independent actions to improve
the health of the Green River, Duwamish River, and the Central Puget Sound Watersheds and
the overall health of Puget Sound;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto do mutually covenant and agree as follows:
MUTUAL CONVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS
1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning
provided for below:
1.1
1.2
ELIGIBLE COUNTY AND CITY GOVERNMENTS: The local governments eligible for
participation in this Agreement as parties are King County, and the Cities of Algona,
Auburn, Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent,
Maple Valley, Normandy Park, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle, Tacoma, Tukwila, and any
newly incorporated city that lies fully or partially within the boundaries of WRIA 9.
WRIA 9 ILA PARTIES: The Parties to the WRIA 9 Interlocal Agreement are the
Parties who sign this Agreement and are the Parties responsible for implementing this
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 2
DI.G Page 64 of 91
Agreement. The Parties to this ILA shall each designate a representative and alternate
representative to the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum.
1.3 WRIA 9 WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM FORUM: The WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem
Forum referred to herein is the cooperative body comprised of the designated
representatives of the WRIA 9 ILA Parties and a balance of Stakeholder
representatives and any other persons who are deemed by the Parties to this Agreement
to be appropriate members for the implementation of the Salmon Habitat Plan. The
WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum shall be an advisory body responsible for
making recommendations for implementing the Salmon Habitat Plan including
substantive plan amendments recommended as a result of adaptive management or
other changed conditions.
1.4 GREEN /DUWAMISH AND CENTRAL PUGET SOUND WATERSHED WATER
RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA 9 SALMON HABITAT PLAN: The Green /Duwamish
and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Salmon
Habitat Plan (2005 Salmon Habitat Plan or Salmon Habitat Plan) is the plan
developed by the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum and ratified by all of the
parties to an interlocal agreement for its development and implementation. The Salmon
Habitat Plan recommends actions that should be taken to protect and restore salmon
habitat, using an ecosystem approach, in the Green /Duwamish and Central Puget Sound
Watersheds. The Salmon Habitat Plan may be amended from time to time according to
the procedure in Section 6 herein and approved amendments shall be considered
integral parts of the Salmon Habitat Plan. Efforts under the Salmon Habitat Plan are
intended to complement habitat improvements in other parts of Puget Sound and
hatchery and harvest actions to recover Puget Sound Chinook salmon, steelhead, and
bull trout, and when implemented achieve multiple ecosystem benefits. The Salmon
Habitat Plan constitutes a chapter of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan.
1.5 MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE: The Management Committee as referred to herein
consists of seven (7) elected officials or their designees. The seven officials of the
Management Committee are chosen by the WRIA 9 ILA Parties, according to the
voting procedures in Section 5 herein, charged with certain oversight and administrative
duties on the WRIA 9 ILA Parties' behalf.
1.6 SERVICE PROVIDER: The Service Provider, as used herein, means that agency,
government, consultant, or other entity which supplies staffing or other resources to and
for the WRIA 9 ILA Parties, in exchange for payment. The Service Provider may be a
Party to this Agreement.
1.7 FISCAL AGENT: The Fiscal Agent refers to that agency or government which performs
all accounting services for the WRIA 9 ILA Parties as it may require, in accordance with
the requirements of Chapter 39.34 RCW.
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 3
DI.G Page 65 of 91
1.8 STAKEHOLDERS: Stakeholders refers to those public and private entities within WRIA
9 who reflect the diverse interests integral to implementing the Salmon Habitat Plan,
and may include but is not limited to environmental and business interests.
2. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Agreement include the following:
2.1 To provide a mechanism to protect and restore the ecological health of the
Green /Duwamish Rivers and Central Puget Sound Watersheds.
2.2 To provide a mechanism, through an annually agreed upon work plan, for implementing
and coordinating local efforts to address issues with watershed -wide or basin
implications, including but not limited to flood hazard reduction, floodplain management,
surface and groundwater quality, water quantity, and habitat.
2.3 To provide information for WRIA 9 ILA Parties to inform land use planning, regulations,
environmental programs, education, and enforcement of applicable codes.
2.4 To provide a mechanism and governance and funding structures for jointly implementing
the Salmon Habitat Plan.
2.5 To develop and take actions on key issues during the implementation of the Salmon
Habitat Plan.
2.6 To provide a mechanism for cooperative review and implementation of recommended
policies and regulations needed for response to listings under the Endangered Species
Act.
2.7 To provide a venue for the ongoing participation of citizens and other stakeholders in
salmon recovery and other watershed efforts and to ensure continued public outreach
efforts to educate and garner support for current and future watershed and Endangered
Species Act listed species response efforts by local governments and in accordance with
the Salmon Habitat Plan.
2.8 To provide a mechanism for securing technical assistance and any available funding from
federal, state, and other sources to implement the Salmon Habitat Plan.
2.9 To provide a mechanism for implementing other multiple benefit habitat, surface and
groundwater quality, water quantity, floodplain management, and flood hazard reduction
projects with other local, regional, tribal, state, federal and non - profit funds as may be
contributed to or secured by the WRIA 9 ILA Parties and Watershed Ecosystem
Forum.
2.10 To annually recommend WRIA 9 administrative support, projects, and programs for
funding by the King County Flood Control District through the District's Cooperative
Watershed Management grant program.
2.11 To annually recommend projects for implementation of planning, engineering, permitting
and construction tasks for the Green /Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project in
partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 4
DI.G Page 66 of 91
2.12 To provide a framework for cooperating and coordinating among the Parties on issues
relating to WRIA 9 to meet the requirement of a commitment by any Party to participate in
WRIA 9 planning and implementation, to prepare or implement a basin plan, or to
respond to any state or federal law which may require these actions as a condition of any
funding, permitting or other program of state or federal agencies. Participation is at the
discretion of such Party to this Agreement.
2.13 To provide a mechanism to approve and support, through resources and funding from
grant sources or other means, implementation of restoration and protection projects and
programs.
2.14 To provide a mechanism for on -going monitoring and adaptive management of the
Salmon Habitat Plan as defined in the Plan and agreed to by the WRIA 9 ILA Parties
and Watershed Ecosystem Forum.
It is not the purpose or intent of this Agreement to create, supplant, preempt or supersede the
authority or role of any jurisdiction, governmental entity or water quality policy bodies including
the Regional Water Quality Committee.
3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM. This Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by at
least five (5) of the eligible local governments within WRIA 9 representing at least seventy
percent (70 %) of the affected population within the geographic area of WRIA 9, as authorized by
the legislative body of each local government, and further provided that after such signatures this
Agreement has been filed by King County in accordance with the terms of RCW 39.34.040 and
.200. Once effective, this Agreement shall remain in effect for an initial term of ten (10) years;
provided, however, that this Agreement may be extended for such additional terms as the Parties
may agree to in writing with such extension being effective upon its execution by at least five (5)
of the eligible local governments within WRIA 9 representing at least seventy percent (70 %) of
the affected population within the geographic area of WRIA 9, as authorized by the legislative
body of each local government, and further provided that after such signatures this Agreement
has been filed by King County in accordance with the terms of RCW 39.34.040 and .200. Such
extension shall bind only those Parties executing the extension.
4. ORGANIZATION AND MEMBERSHIP. The Parties to this Agreement serve as the formal
governance structure for carrying out the purposes of this Agreement.
4.1 Each Party to this Agreement except Tacoma shall appoint one (1) elected official to
serve as its primary representative, and one (1) alternate representative to serve on the
WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. The alternate representative may be a different
elected official or senior staff person. Tacoma's representative shall be the Tacoma
Water Superintendent or designee, which designee shall be a senior staff position.
4.2 Upon the effective execution of this Agreement and the appointment of representatives to
the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum, the appointed representatives of the WRIA
9 ILA Parties shall meet and choose from among its members, according to the
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 5
DI.G Page 67 of 91
provisions of Section 5 herein, seven (7) officials or their designees, to serve as a
Management Committee to oversee and direct the scope of work, funds, and personnel
agreed to and contributed under this Agreement, in accordance with the adopted annual
budget and work program and such other directions as may be provided by the WRIA 9
ILA Parties. Representatives of the Fiscal Agent and Service Provider may serve as
non - voting ex officio members of the Management Committee. The Management
Committee shall act as the executive subcommittee of the WRIA 9 ILA Parties,
responsible for oversight and evaluation of any Service Providers or consultants,
administration of the budget and work plan, and for providing recommendations on
administrative matters to the WRIA 9 ILA Parties for action, consistent with other
subsections of this section. The appointed representatives of the WRIA 9 ILA Parties
shall consider new appointments or reappointments to the Management Committee
every two years following its initial appointments.
4.3 The services cost - shared under this agreement shall be provided to the WRIA 9 ILA
Parties and the Watershed Ecosystem Forum by the Service Provider, which shall
be King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, unless selected otherwise
by the WRIA 9 ILA Parties. The Management Committee shall prepare a Memorandum
of Understanding to be signed by a representative of the Service Provider, and the
Chair of the WRIA 9 Management Committee., and this Memorandum of Understanding
shall set out the expectations for services so provided. Services should include, without
limitation, identification of and job descriptions for dedicated staff, description of any
supervisory role retained by the Service Provider over any staff performing services
under this Agreement, and a method of regular consultation between the Service
Provider and the Management Committee concerning the performance of services
hereunder.
4.3.1 A subset of the Parties to this Agreement may purchase and cost share services
from the Service Provider in addition to the annual cost - shared services agreed
to by all Parties pursuant to Section 4.3 herein.
4.3.2 The Management Committee shall prepare a Memorandum of Understanding to
be signed by a representative of the Service Provider, and the Chair of the
WRIA 9 Management Committee, which shall set out the expectations for the
additional services to be provided to the subset of the Parties to this Agreement.
4.4 The WRIA 9 ILA Parties by September 1 of each year shall establish and approve an
annual budget that provides for the level of funding and total resource obligations of the
Parties for the following calendar year. Such obligations are to be allocated on a
proportional basis based on the average of the population, assessed valuation and area
attributable to each Party to this Agreement, in accordance with the formula set forth in
Exhibit A, which formula and accompanying data shall be updated every third year by the
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 6
DI.G Page 68 of 91
WRIA 9 Management Committee. Individual Party cost shares may change more
frequently than every three years for Parties involved in an annexation that changes the
area, population, and assessed value calculation of such Party to the extent that the cost
shares established by the formula set forth in Exhibit A would be changed by such
annexation. Tacoma's cost share will be determined on an annual basis by the
Management Committee, and will be included in the annual updates to Exhibit A. The
weight accorded Tacoma's vote for weighted voting pursuant to Section 5 herein shall
correspond to Tacoma's cost share for each year relative to the cost shares contributed
by the other Parties.
4.4.1 The level of funding, total resource obligations, and allocation of obligations for
those members of the Parties that agree to cost share additional services
pursuant to Subsection 4.3.1 herein shall be negotiated and determined by those
Parties purchasing the additional services.
4.5 The WRIA 9 ILA Parties shall incorporate the negotiated additional cost share and
incorporate the services in the annual budget and work plan. The WRIA 9 ILA Parties
shall oversee and administer the expenditure of budgeted funds and shall allocate the
utilization of resources contributed by each Party or obtained from other sources in
accordance with the approved annual work program.
4.6 The WRIA 9 ILA Parties shall review and evaluate the duties to be assigned to the
Management Committee hereunder and the performance of the Fiscal Agent and
Service Provider to this Agreement, and shall provide for whatever actions are
necessary to ensure that quality services are efficiently, effectively and responsibly
delivered in the performance of the purposes of this Agreement. The performance of the
Service Provider shall be assessed every year.
4.7 The Parties to the WRIA 9 Interlocal Agreement may contract with similar watershed
forum governing bodies such as the Puget Sound Partnership or any other entities for
any lawful purpose related to the purposes provided for in this Agreement. The Parties
may choose to create a separate legal or administrative entity under applicable state law,
including without limitation a nonprofit corporation or general partnership, to accept
private gifts, grants or financial contributions, or for any other lawful purpose consistent
with the purposes provided for herein.
4.8 The WRIA 9 ILA Parties shall adopt other rules and procedures that are consistent with
its purposes as stated herein and are necessary for its operation.
5. VOTING. The WRIA 9 ILA Parties shall make decisions, approve scopes of work, budgets,
priorities, and any other actions necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement as follows:
5.1 Decisions shall be made using a consensus model as much as possible. Each Party
agrees to use its best efforts and exercise good faith in consensus decision - making.
Consensus may be reached by unanimous agreement of the Parties. If unanimous
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 7
DI.G Page 69 of 91
agreement of members cannot be reached then the Parties to this agreement may reach
consensus by a majority recommendation with a minority report. Any Party who does not
accept a majority decision may request weighted voting as set forth below.
5.2 In the event consensus cannot be achieved, as determined by rules and procedures
adopted by the Parties to the WRIA 9 Interlocal Agreement , the WRIA 9 ILA Parties
shall take action on a dual- majority basis, as follows:
5.2.1 Each Party, through its appointed representative, may cast its weighted vote in
connection with a proposed WRIA 9 action.
5.2.2 The weighted vote of each Party in relation to the weighted votes of each of the
other Parties shall be determined by the percentage of the annual contribution
made by each Party as set in accordance with Section 4.4 herein in the year in
which the vote is taken.
5.2.3 For any action subject to weighted voting to be deemed approved, valid and
binding, an affirmative vote must be cast by both a majority of the Parties to this
Agreement and by a majority of the weighted votes of the Parties to this
Agreement.
6. IMPLEMENTATION and ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OF THE SALMON HABITAT PLAN. The
Salmon Habitat Plan shall be implemented consistent with the following:
6.1 The WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum shall provide information to the WRIA 9 ILA
Parties regarding progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the Salmon Habitat
Plan. Recommendations of the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum are to be
consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. The WRIA 9 ILA Parties may authorize
additional advisory bodies to the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum such as a
technical committee and adaptive management work group. The Watershed Ecosystem
Forum shall develop and approve operating and voting procedures for its deliberations,
but such procedures do not affect the voting provisions contained in this Agreement for
the WRIA 9 ILA Parties .
6.2 The WRIA 9 ILA Parties shall act to approve or remand any substantive changes to the
Salmon Habitat Plan based upon recommendations by the WRIA 9 Watershed
Ecosystem Forum within ninety (90) days of receipt of the proposed changes, according
to the voting procedures of Section 5 herein. In the event that the Salmon Habitat Plan
changes are not so approved, the recommended changes shall be returned to the WRIA
9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum for further consideration and amendment and
thereafter returned to the WRIA 9 ILA Parties for decision.
6.3 The WRIA 9 ILA Parties shall determine when ratification is needed of substantive
changes to the Salmon Habitat Plan. The changes shall be referred to the Parties for
ratification prior to the submission to any regional, state, or federal agency for further
action. Ratification means an affirmative action, evidenced by a resolution, motion, or
ILA_ WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 8
DI.G Page 70 of 91
ordinance of the local government's legislative body, by at least five Parties representing
at least seventy percent (70 %) of the total population within the geographic planning and
management area of WRIA 9.
6.4 Upon remand for consideration of any portion or all of the changes to the Salmon
Habitat Plan by any regional, state or federal agency, the WRIA 9 ILA Parties shall
undertake a review for consideration of the remanded changes to the plan. The WRIA 9
ILA Parties may include further referral to the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum
for recommendation or amendments thereto.
6.5 The Parties agree that any changes to the Salmon Habitat Plan shall not be forwarded
separately by any Party to any regional, state or federal agency unless the changes have
been approved and ratified as provided herein.
7. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES; BUDGET; FISCAL AGENT; RULES.
7.1 Each Party shall be responsible for meeting only its individual obligations hereunder as
established in the annual budget adopted by the WRIA 9 ILA Parties under this
Agreement, including all such obligations related to the WRIA 9 ILA Parties and WRIA 9
Watershed Ecosystem Forum funding, technical support and participation in related
planning and implementation of projects, and activities as set forth herein. It is
anticipated that separate actions by the legislative bodies of the Parties will be necessary
from time to time in order to carry out these obligations.
7.2 The maximum funding responsibilities imposed upon the parties during each year of this
Agreement shall not exceed the amounts that are established annually pursuant to
Section 4.4 herein.
7.3 No later than September 1 of each year of this Agreement, the WRIA 9 ILA Parties shall
adopt a budget, including its overhead and administrative costs, for the following calendar
year. The budget shall propose the level of funding and other (e.g., staffing)
responsibilities of the individual parties for the following calendar year and shall propose
the levels of funding and resources to be allocated to specific prioritized planning and
implementation activities within WRIA 9. The Parties shall thereafter take whatever
separate legislative or other actions as may be necessary to address such individual
responsibilities under the proposed budget, and shall have done so no later than
December 1 of each year. Parties may elect to secure grant funding to meet their
individual obligations.
7.4 Funds collected from the Parties or other sources on behalf of the WRIA 9 ILA Parties
shall be maintained in a special fund by King County as Fiscal Agent and as ex officio
treasurer on behalf of the WRIA 9 ILA Parties pursuant to rules and procedures
established and agreed to by the WRIA 9 ILA Parties. Such rules and procedures shall
set out billing practices and collection procedures and any other procedures as may be
necessary to provide for its efficient administration and operation.
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 9
DI.G Page 71 of 91
7.5 Any Party to this Agreement may inspect and review all records maintained in connection
with such fund at any reasonable time.
8. LATECOMERS. A county or city government in King County lying wholly or partially within the
management area of or with a major interest in WRIA 9 which has not become a Party to this
Agreement within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this Agreement may become a Party
by obtaining written consent of all the Parties to the Agreement. The provisions of Section 5
herein otherwise governing decisions of the WRIA 9 ILA Parties shall not apply to this section.
The Parties of the Agreement and any governments seeking to become a Party shall jointly
determine the terms and conditions under which a government may become a new Party. The
terms and conditions shall include payment of an amount by the new Party to the WRIA 9 Fiscal
Agent. The amount of payment is determined jointly by the existing WRIA 9 ILA Parties and the
new Party. The payment of the new Party is to be a fair and proportionate share of all costs
associated with activities undertaken by the WRIA 9 ILA Parties as of the date the government
becomes a new Party. Any government that becomes a Party pursuant to this section shall
thereby assume the general rights and responsibilities of all other Parties.
9. TERMINATION.
9.1 Termination can only occur on an annual basis, beginning on January 1 of each calendar
year, and then only if the terminating Party, through action of its governing body, provides
at least sixty (60) days' prior written notice of its intent to terminate. The terminating Party
shall remain fully responsible for meeting all of its funding and other obligations through
the end of the calendar year in which such notice is given, together with any other costs
that may have been incurred on behalf of such terminating Party up to the effective date
of such termination. It is possible that the makeup of the Parties to this Agreement may
change from time to time. Regardless of any such changes, the Parties choosing not to
exercise the right of termination shall each remain obligated to only meet their respective
share of the obligations of the WRIA 9 ILA Parties as reflected in the annual budget.
The shares of any terminating Party shall not be the obligation of any of the Parties not
choosing to exercise the right of termination.
9.2 This Agreement may be terminated in its entirety at any time by the written agreement of
all of the Parties. In the event this Agreement is terminated all unexpended funds shall
be refunded to the Parties pro rata based on each Party's cost share percentage of the
total budgeted funds and any real or personal property acquired to carry out the purposes
of this Agreement shall be returned to the contributing Party if such Party can be
identified, and if the Party cannot be identified, the property shall be disposed of and the
proceeds distributed pro rata as described above for unexpended funds.
10. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent permitted by state law as to city
and county governments, and federal law as governing to tribes, and for the limited purposes set
forth in this Agreement, each Party shall protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 10
DI.G Page 72 of 91
Parties, their officers, elected officials, agents and employees, while acting within the scope of
their employment as such, from and against any and all claims (including demands, suits,
penalties, liabilities, damages, costs, expenses, or losses of any kind or nature whatsoever)
arising out of or in any way resulting from such Party's own negligent acts or omissions related to
such Party's participation and obligations under this Agreement. Each Party to this Agreement
agrees that its obligations under this subsection extend to any claim, demand and /or cause of
action brought by or on behalf of any of its employees or agents. For this purpose, each Party, by
mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with respect to the other Parties only, any immunity that would
otherwise be available against such claims under the industrial insurance act provisions of Title
51 RCW. In the event that either Party incurs any judgment, award, and /or cost arising
therefrom, including attorneys' fees, to enforce the provisions of this Section, all such fees,
expenses, and costs shall be recoverable from the responsible Party to the extent of that Party's
culpability. The provisions of this Section shall survive and continue to be applicable to Parties
exercising the right of termination pursuant to Section 9 herein.
11. NO ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY. In no event do the Parties to this Agreement intend to assume
any responsibility, risk or liability of any other Party to this Agreement or otherwise with regard to
any Party's duties, responsibilities or liabilities under the Endangered Species Act, or any other
act, statute, regulation or ordinance of any local municipality or government, the State of
Washington, or the United States.
12. VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT. This Agreement is voluntary and is acknowledged and agreed that
no Party is committing to adopt or implement any actions or recommendations that may be
contained in the Salmon Habitat Plan.
13. NO PRECLUSION OF ACTIVITIES OR PROJECTS. Nothing herein shall preclude any one or
more of the Parties from choosing or agreeing to fund or implement any work, activities or
projects associated with any of the purposes hereunder by separate agreement or action,
provided that any such decision or agreement shall not impose any funding, participation or other
obligation of any kind on any Party which is not a party to such decision or agreement.
14. NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall it be
construed to, create any rights in any third party, including without limitation the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, any agency
or department of the United States, or the State of Washington, or to form the basis for any
liability on the part of the WRIA 9 ILA Parties or any of the Parties, or their officers, elected
officials, agents and employees, to any third party.
15. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be amended, altered or clarified only by the unanimous
consent of the Parties to this Agreement, and requires authorization and approval by each Party's
governing body.
16. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 11
DI.G Page 73 of 91
17. APPROVAL BY PARTIES' GOVERNING BODIES. The governing body of each Party must
approve this Agreement before any representative of such Party may sign this Agreement.
18. FILING OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall be filed by King County in accordance with the
provisions of RCW 39.34.040 and .200 and with the terms of Section 3 herein.
19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement among the Parties, and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, oral or otherwise, regarding
the specific terms of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated below:
Approved as to form: CITY OF ALGONA:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 12
DI.G Page 74 of 91
Approved as to form: CITY OF AUBURN:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 13
DI.G Page 75 of 91
Approved as to form: CITY OF BLACK DIAMOND:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 14
DI.G Page 76 of 91
Approved as to form: CITY OF BURIEN:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 15
DI.G Page 77 of 91
Approved as to form: CITY OF COVINGTON:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 16
DI.G Page 78 of 91
Approved as to form: CITY OF DES MOINES:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 17
DI.G Page 79 of 91
Approved as to form: CITY OF ENUMCLAW:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 18
DI.G Page 80 of 91
Approved as to form: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 19
DI.G Page 81 of 91
Approved as to form: CITY OF KENT:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 20
DI.G Page 82 of 91
Approved as to form: KING COUNTY:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 21
DI.G Page 83 of 91
Approved as to form: CITY OF MAPLE VALLEY:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 22
DI.G Page 84 of 91
Approved as to form: CITY OF NORMANDY PARK:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 23
DI.G Page 85 of 91
Approved as to form: CITY OF RENTON:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 24
DI.G Page 86 of 91
Approved as to form: CITY OF SEATAC:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 25
DI.G Page 87 of 91
Approved as to form: CITY OF SEATTLE:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 26
DI.G Page 88 of 91
Approved as to form: CITY OF TACOMA:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 27
DI.G Page 89 of 91
Approved as to form: CITY OF TUKWILA:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
ILA_WRIA9_2016- 2025_05- 14- 2015.docx Page 28
DI.G Page 90 of 91
Exhibit A
WRIA Based Cost Share: WRIA 9
Regional Watershed Funding
For 2016
Total: $424,320
Note: Beginning with the 2017 cost shares, jurisdictional area, population, and assessed value are to be recalculated every three years or if there is a
significant annexation per the WRIA 9 interlocal agreement for 2016 -2025.
Watershed Ecosystem Forum Approved May 14, 2015
WRIA 9 Jurisdiction
Population
(Pop) %
Adjusted
Pop
Assessed
Value (AV)
%
Adjusted AV
Area %
Adjusted
Acres
Cost -Share Amount
(Average of Pop, AV,
Area)*
WRIA 9 Jurisdiction
1 Algona*
0.23%
1,543
0.19%
$197,378,600
0.16%
363.06
0.19%
$784
1 Algona
2 Auburn*
6.06%
40,956
5.06%
$5,318,451,800
5.67%
12,550.28
5.59%
$22,686
2 Auburn
3 Black Diamond
0.61%
4,120
0.57%
$595,345,385
1.95%
4,308.20
1.04%
$4,219
3 Black Diamond
4 Burien
6.51%
44,006
5.10%
$5,356,038,587
2.86%
6,340.17
4.82%
$19,554
4 Burien
5 Covington
2.54%
17,190
1.86%
$1,954,508,239
1.70%
3,773.03
2.04%
$8,252
5 Covington
6 Des Moines
4.30%
29,090
2.66%
$2,792,105,100
1.78%
3,951.55
2.91%
$11,817
6 Des Moines
7 Enumclaw*
0.65%
4,366
0.55%
$573,979,500
0.62%
1,380.31
0.61%
$2,453
7 Enumclaw
8 Federal Way*
9.01%
60,918
5.06%
$5,316,134,126
3.63%
8,048.27
5.90%
$23,925
8 Federal Way
9 Kent*
16.35%
110,605
12.06%
$12,671,122,513
9.84%
21,781.73
12.75%
$51,698
9 Kent
10 King County*
15.04%
101,701
10.66%
$11,206,469,402
53.44%
118,333.97
26.38%
$106,972
10 King County
11 Maple Valley*
1.67%
11,299
1.77%
$1,863,263,500
1.37%
3,034.15
1.60%
$6,507
11 Maple Valley
12 Normandy Park
0.95%
6,435
1.23%
$1,289,320,500
0.72%
1,593.21
0.97%
$3,917
12 Normandy Park
13 Renton*
4.47%
30,221
4.09%
$4,299,847,610
2.75%
6,096.59
3.77%
$15,291
13 Renton
14 SeaTac
3.78%
25,530
2.78%
$2,918,228,100
1.85%
4,092.51
2.80%
$11,354
14 SeaTac
15 Seattle*
25.18%
170,297
42.49%
$44,654,964,773
9.00%
19,919.60
25.55%
$103,624
15 Seattle
16 Tukwila
2.66%
18,000
3.90%
$4,096,959,014
2.65%
5,867.21
3.07%
$12,448
16 Tukwila
100.0%
676,277
100.0%
$105,104,116,749
100.0%
221,433.83
100.0%
$405,500
SUBTOTAL
+Tacoma
$18,820
$424,320
TOTAL
NOTES: Cost shares reflect 2009 annexations of North Highline to Burien and Kent NE to Kent. No annexations or incorporations have occurred since these two major
annexations.
DATA SOURCES:
• 2007 Puget Sound Regional Council population estimates by census tract.
• 2009 King County Assessor's data. Assessed value of parcels owned by Port of Seattle Aviation Division is excluded from the analysis.
• Adjusted Acres excludes the Upper Green River subwatershed from King County's area and excludes Port of Seattle Aviation Division properties (airport and residential buyouts)
from Burien, Des Moines, and SeaTac shares.
* Cost share amount is an averaging of the population, assessed value, and area percentage of each jurisdiction within WRIA 9
(% population + % assessed value + % area divided by 3 = Cost Share)
DI.G
W RI A9 -I LA- cost -sh ares2016.x Isx
Page91 of 91