HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-2018 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDACity Council Study Session P W C D S FA
April 23, 2018 - 5:30 P M
Council Chambers - City Hall
A GE NDA
Watch the meeting L I V E !
Watch the meeting video
Meeting videos are not available until 72
hours after the meeting has concluded.
I .C A L L TO O R D E R
A .Roll Call
I I .A NNO UNC E ME NT S , R E P O RT S , A ND P R E S E NTAT I O NS
I I I .A G E ND A I T E MS F O R C O UNC I L D I S C US S I O N
A .A irport Facilities Condition Assessment (Gaub) (30 Minutes)
B .C P1516 Airport Runway Enhancement Project Update (Gaub) (15 Minutes)
C.S olid Waste Contract P rocurement (Coleman) (15 Minutes)
D.Utility Rate S tudy P resentation (Coleman) (30 Minutes)
I V.P UB L I C W O R K S A ND C O MMUNI T Y D E V E L O P ME NT D I S C US S I O N I T E MS
A .P rivate S ervice L ine Warranty P rogram (Gaub) (10 Minutes)
B .Development I ncentives (Tate) (20 Minutes)
C.S E PA Categorical E xemptions (Tate) (10 Minutes)
V.O T HE R D I S C US S I O N I T E MS
V I .NE W B US I NE S S
V I I .MAT R I X
A .Matrix
V I I I .A D J O UR NME NT
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.
Page 1 of 48
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Airport Facilities Condition Assessment (Gaub) (30 Minutes )
Date:
April 17, 2018
Department:
CD & PW
Attachments:
Presentation Slides
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revis ion: $0
Revis ed Budget: $0
Adminis trative Rec ommendation:
For dis cus s ion only.
Background Summary:
To support the City in its c apital planning efforts , MENG Analys is c ompleted a c ondition s urvey and
as s es s ment of City-owned buildings and s upporting site infras tructure at the Auburn Municipal Airport.
MENG Analys is will present an exec utive level s ummary of the assessment findings.
Reviewed by Counc il Committees :
Counc ilmember:Staff:Gaub
Meeting Date:April 23, 2018 Item Number:
Page 2 of 48
COND
AIRPORT FACILITIES CONDITION
ASSESSMENT STUDY
April 18, 2018
Page 3 of 48
YOUR FCA TEAM
Sarah Partap
MENG Analysis
Project Manager
Doug Smith
MENG Analysis
Mechanical/Electrical/
Plumbing Assessment
Timothy Buckley
MENG Analysis
Civil/Structural/Architectural
Assessment
Page 4 of 48
ABOUT MENG ANALYSIS
Building Lifecycle
Construct
Operate &
Maintain
Major
Renovation
Retire
Design
Value
Engineering Constructability
Review
Commissioning
Retro-
commissioning
Performance
Engineering
Facility Condition
Assessment
Feasibility
Planning
Cost Estimating
Page 5 of 48
PIERCE COUNTY AIPRORT FCAs
Page 6 of 48
FCA CLIENTS
KEY TERMINOLOGY
Backlog of maintenance items (Observed Deficiencies)
short term needs (2017-2022)
Observed and cost estimated by surveyors
exceed $3,000 direct cost
Future Capital Needs (Predicted Renewals)
long term needs (2023-2036)
predictive occurrences based on industry average system life
costs based on proprietary cost models that are customized and
updated by certified Cost Estimator
FCI – Facility Condition Index
Ratio of maintenance backlog to current replacement value
Page 8 of 48
KEY FINDINGS – FCI (Facility Condition Index)
OVERVIEW
Facility FCI
Hangar Row C 0.20 Fair
Hangar Row D 0.20 Fair
Hangar Row E 0.23 Poor
Hangar Row F 0.21 Poor
Hangar Row G 0.21 Poor
Hangar Row H 0.13 Fair
Hangar Row J 0.21 Poor
Hangar Row Y (10)0.07 Good
Hangar Row Z (9)0.07 Good
Main Office 0.19 Fair
Spanaflight 0.18 Fair
Page 9 of 48
KEY FINDINGS – FCI (Facility Condition Index)
OVERVIEW
Facility FCI
Hangar Row C 0.20 Fair
Hangar Row D 0.20 Fair
Hangar Row E 0.23 Poor
Hangar Row F 0.21 Poor
Hangar Row G 0.21 Poor
Hangar Row H 0.13 Fair
Hangar Row J 0.21 Poor
Hangar Row Y (10)0.07 Good
Hangar Row Z (9)0.07 Good
Main Office 0.19 Fair
Spanaflight 0.18 Fair
Page 10 of 48
KEY FINDINGS – FCI (Facility Condition Index)
OVERVIEW
Facility FCI
Hangar Row C 0.20 Fair
Hangar Row D 0.20 Fair
Hangar Row E 0.23 Poor
Hangar Row F 0.21 Poor
Hangar Row G 0.21 Poor
Hangar Row H 0.13 Fair
Hangar Row J 0.21 Poor
Hangar Row Y (10)0.07 Good
Hangar Row Z (9)0.07 Good
Main Office 0.19 Fair
Spanaflight 0.18 Fair
Page 11 of 48
KEY FINDINGS
Common Issues
•Roofing, exposed beams, light fixtures eroding
•Moisture issues – no barrier under slab on grade
•Electrical
Page 12 of 48
KEY FINDINGS
Highest FCI Facilities – Row E
Page 13 of 48
KEY FINDINGS
Highest FCI Facilities – Row F
Page 14 of 48
KEY FINDINGS
Highest FCI Facilities – Row G
Page 15 of 48
KEY FINDINGS
Highest FCI Facilities – Row H
Page 16 of 48
KEY FINDINGS
Short Term
Across all buildings and sites, ODs (2017 – 2022) total just over $3M
Slab on grade
Exterior Walls
Exterior Doors
Electrical Service & Dist., Lighting & Branch
Wiring, rain water drainage, terminal & package
units, domestic water distribution, etc.
Page 17 of 48
KEY FINDINGS
LONG TERM (2023 – 2036)
Across all building and sites PRs (2023– 2036) total $ 17.7M
2023 – Electrical Systems
2029 - Roofing
2031 – Exterior Closure
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Page 18 of 48
KEY FINDINGS
Longer-term (2023 – 2036)
Page 19 of 48
KEY FINDINGS
Replacement and Upgrade Opportunities
•Replace hangar building(s)
•Accommodate wider-span planes
•Closed hangars
•HVAC Systems
•Fire Alarm and Sprinkler Systems
Approx. demo and re-build $200/SF
($3 million for a new hangar building)
•Replace portable toilets with restrooms
•ADA Improvements
Page 20 of 48
Questions?
Page 21 of 48
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
CP1516 Airport Runway Enhancement Project Update (Gaub)
(15 Minutes)
Date:
April 17, 2018
Department:
CD & PW
Attachments:
Airport Mas ter Plan Map
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
CP1516, Airport Runway Enhancements, includes the enhancement of Runway 16/34 to be
consistent with the 2015 Approved Airport Layout Plan and Master Plan. This involves the
extension of the runway from 3,400 feet to approximately 4,000 feet, the relocation of the
taxiway connections to the runway, relocation of an airport storm facility, and pavement
markings.
As discussed previously with the Council, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
raised concerns regarding the justified runway length for the federal grant and is not currently
supportive of the full 4,000 foot runway length as identified in the Airport Master Plan. Based
on the identification of the “critical aircraft” from the Master Plan for the Airport the FAA
believes that only an extension to a total length of 3,600 feet is eligible under the Federal
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant. The Master Plan identified the 4,000 foot runway
based on a “warm/wet” factor of safety for the stopping distance of the “critical aircraft” which
added 15% to the length. At this time FAA has indicated that they do not support the use of
this factor of safety for the “critical aircraft”.
Given the FAA’s current position, the City has limited options to consider for moving forward
with the project. These options are being discussed with the Airport Advisory Board and
Airport Management and their input will be provided at the Council Study Session along with
the options to be considered.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Gaub
Meeting Date:April 23, 2018 Item Number:
Page 22 of 48
Page 23 of 48
r•
t
teuu .
L.,- 0 j ;I 'r i ,
u,
z
jiiiiii„..__
r
t } i.,11....11.11]...42.1 11 I•Flilllllllllk' '
RUNWAY 3400'X 75'(EXISTING)
i •"•
X
Mlill• MINIMt
till : i 1
1,_ L 1,fti1 t
41
1y _ !
1 1 .f• r ,fee ,.. AJ ... I t 1 h P.
1 I , , .4 _? . R_ _ _ X101
II ,
1(1 i ,- '`-,, [0.
3 I 1 t iiIll I I J 11 I I ani - '
4
i
1
k NOTE:
fi
s'7 =.ili.1,13:..,11-;111:14.. ,i= ...k.
v
1. THE INFORMATION DEPICTED IN THIS FIGURE IS FOR RUNWAY LENGTH -
ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT REFLECT A SPECIFIC RUNWAY 4060'X 75'(SMALL AIRPLANES WITH 10 OR MORE SEATS)
RECOMMENDATION OR RUNWAY CONFIGURATION.
AUBURN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT I AIRPORT MASTER PLAN RUNWAY LENGTHS FOR PLANNING I FIG.4-9
HCENTURV WEST
Page 24 of 48
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Solid Was te Contrac t Proc urement (Coleman) (15 Minutes)
Date:
March 20, 2018
Department:
Financ e
Attachments:
memo
Budget Impact:
Adminis trative Rec ommendation:
For cons ideration.
Background Summary:
The City of Auburn’s solid waste c ontract expires September 30, 2019. This pres entation c overs options
for the procurement of the next solid waste c ontract and rec ommended s ervic e options to cons ider. The
new c ontract would be effec tive Oc tober 1, 2019, and encompass the entire City. The City has one
more two-year c ontract extens ion to implement if we proceed with a reques t for proposal process.
Reviewed by Counc il Committees :
Counc ilmember:Staff:Coleman
Meeting Date:April 23, 2018 Item Number:
Page 25 of 48
Page 1 of 4
Interoffice Memorandum
To: City Council
From: Joan Nelson, Solid Waste Supervisor
CC: Nancy Backus, Mayor, Shelley Coleman, Finance Director,
Brenda Goodson-Moore, Utilities Customer Care Manager
Date: April 23, 2018
Re: Solid Waste Contract Procurement
Background
The City of Auburn’s current solid waste contract expires September 30, 2019. However,
the City still has the option for one extension of the existing contract for a period of up to
two years.
In 2016, the City solicited a Request for Bids (RFB). However, the City received only one
bid, from its current provider, Waste Management. Republic Services and Recology-
CleanScapes stated that they declined to bid because it was based on price only. They
believe they have innovative services and programs to offer and consider. Both expressed
interest in competing for the Auburn contract if it was a Request for Proposal (RFP).
At this point in time, the City has two options:
Negotiate a new contract with Waste Management. If negotiations are not
successful, the City can implement an RFP process.
Proceed with an RFP process. This will require the City to exercise its final contract
extension since RFP processes take one to two years to complete.
Proposed Negotiating Schedule*
May-August 2018 – Negotiate a draft contract with Waste Management
September-October 2018 – Draft of new Waste Management contract to City
Council for review
November 2018 – City executes new Waste Management Contract
Page 26 of 48
Page 2 of 4
October 1, 2019 – Start of new collection services
*Should negotiations be unsuccessful, the City will need to proceed with an RFP process
and exercise its final two-year contract extension. The City should begin an RFP process
no later than June 2019.
Current Services
Key services and provisions staff intend to maintain in the next solid waste contract
include:
City provides customer service and billing for solid waste services
Special events: Christmas Tree Recycling & Bulky Item Collection
Unlimited recycling capacity for residential and multifamily customers
Weekly garbage and compostables (yard and food waste) services
Garbage, recycling, and compostables service for all City facilities
Contractor mails annual single-family recycling guides
Contractor provides business and multifamily outreach
Next day recovery of missed pick-ups
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) contractor trucks
Performance fees for work stoppages and labor disruptions
Service Enhancements
Service and provision enhancements to include in the next solid waste contract:
Shift customer service to the contractor
Voucher program for bulky items
Unlimited recycling capacity for business customers
Contractor services city-owned public garbage and recycle cans
Cart tagging protocols for address recycling and compostables contamination
No limit on free carryout service for disabled residents (currently limited to 100)
Add 45-gallon garbage cart option
Change 10-gallon garbage can to 13-gallon garbage cart
Page 27 of 48
Page 3 of 4
Change container color for consistency:
o All recycle containers blue
o All garbage containers gray
o All compostables containers green
Additional Service Options
The following are services and provisions that are offered in other cities:
Weekly embedded compostables service for single-family residents
Weekly embedded recycle service for single-family residents
Retail store where customers can pay their bill, ask questions, and drop off hard-to
recycle items such as bicycles and car seats
No fee for extra yard waste after City-declared storm events
Garbage and recycle services at City parks
Curbside collection of compact fluorescent bulbs, cooking oil, motor oil, plastic
bags, rigid plastics, batteries, textiles, small propane canisters, and bicycles
Graffiti removal and illegal dumping clean-up service
Local customer service center
Other Cities
City of Kirkland
Prior to 2016, the City of Kirkland’s last competitive procurement process was in 2002. In
2011, Kirkland re-negotiated their contract with Waste Management to accommodate
annexations. In 2016, Kirkland chose an RFP process after a consultant’s study showed
cities were receiving a large array of services for relatively low costs. Kirkland staff were
also interested in creative and innovative solutions for their residents and businesses.
The City of Kirkland completed the RFP process in 2017. Kirkland received proposals
from: Recology CleanScapes, Republic Services, and Waste Management. The
proposals were evaluated based on pricing (70%) and qualitative elements (30%).
Kirkland’s evaluation included interviews, site visits, and reference checks. Republic
services received the best score because its rates were the lowest (5.8% overall increase).
Recology CleanScapes received the highest qualitative score, but its overall rate increase
was 17%. Waste Management proposed an overall 10.9% increase.
On June 20, 2017, Kirkland staff recommended awarding a new contract to Republic
Services or exercising the first of its contract extension options with Waste Management.
Page 28 of 48
Page 4 of 4
Kirkland City Council directed staff to exercise the first extension and enter into
negotiations with Waste Management. Kirkland staff are scheduled to report back to City
Council later this spring.
City of Federal Way
The City of Federal Way has just entered its first contract extension with Waste
Management. Federal Way also has a second, two-year extension option. Staff should
be presenting contract procurement options to the Federal Way City Council soon.
Discussion
City staff have heard from industry experts that contract prices are on the rise. Solid waste
haulers are expecting cities to use their extensions and are wary of submitting proposals
for contracts that still have extension options.
The City of Auburn still has two contractors providing service to residents and businesses.
The annexation areas on West Hill and Lea Hill receive similar services as the rest of the
City, but residents typically pay more in those areas.
Entering into negotiations with Waste Management, who submitted the only bid in 2016,
would make a new contract start of October 1, 2019, possible. This would allow the entire
City to be under the same solid waste contract.
If negotiations with Waste Management are not successful, the City can use its second
extension option and initiate an RFP process.
Page 29 of 48
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Utility Rate Study Presentation (Coleman) (30 Minutes)
Date:
April 9, 2018
Department:
Finance
Attachments:
No Attachments Av ailable
Budget Impact:
Administrativ e Recommendation:
City Council to discuss results of cost of service study for water, sewer, and stormwater
utilities.
Background Summary:
The City of Auburn provides water, sewer, and stormwater services to its utility customers. In
2017, the City contracted with FCS Group to perform a Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Rate
Study to review the adequacy of existing rates and to propose new rates as appropriate.
The FCS study elements completed to date include:
1. A review of "revenue requirements" for each utility, which encompass the costs that the
City needs to recover on an ongoing basis from utility ratepayers; and
2. A cost of service analysis that determines the relative burden each customer class
places on the utility. A comparison of existing revenues with the cost of service results
then indicates whether each class of service is paying its fair share of costs for each
utility system.
The remaining task is to review the rate structures for each utility in the context of both the
cost of service findings and the City's rate policy objectives and develop a set of proposed
rates for 2019 and beyond.
This discussion will review the work performed by FCS Group, summarize their findings, and
identify potential modifications to existing rate structures to enhance rate equity among
customers and address other ratemaking criteria such as revenue stability and efficiency of
use.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Page 30 of 48
Councilmember:Staff:Coleman
Meeting Date:April 23, 2018 Item Number:
Page 31 of 48
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Private Service Line Warranty Program (Gaub) (10 Minutes)
Date:
April 16, 2018
Department:
CD & PW
Attachments:
No Attachments Av ailable
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
On March 28, 2018, Utility Service Partners (USP) made a presentation regarding their
Service Line Warranty Program (SLWP) to repair private water service lines and side sewers
for Auburn’s single-family property owners. To date, the program has been accepted in
Kenmore, College Place, Kelso, Sunnyside, and Dayton within Washington State.
Previously, Staff identified concerns regarding USP’s proposed program requirements.
Therefore, Staff has performed additional research into the program to address the
Councilmembers’ outstanding questions from March 28, 2018 and to explore how the
program has been implemented in the other five cities in Washington. The results of this
additional research will be presented at the Study Session.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Coleman/Gaub/Roscoe
Meeting Date:April 23, 2018 Item Number:
Page 32 of 48
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Development Incentives (Tate) (20 Minutes)
Date:
April 16, 2018
Department:
Community Development &
Public Works
Attachments:
Memorandum
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Please see the attached memorandum. Thank you.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:April 23, 2018 Item Number:
Page 33 of 48
Memorandum
To: City Council Members
From: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development
CC: Mayor Nancy Backus
Date: April 13, 2018
Re: Development Incentives
INCENTIVE OVERVIEW AND COMPARISON
Community Development consulted with Economic Development staff to evaluate the range of
incentives currently offered by the City of Auburn. Staff also looked at several other surrounding
jurisdictions in order to understand the range of incentives being offered by others. A table that
summarizes the jurisdictional comparison is attached to this memo.
The City of Auburn offers a mix of incentives that provide both financial relief and increased
utilization of land, as well as those that are both geographically applicable and those that are
available city wide. Note that there are programs and fees listed in the table that the City does
not implement or collect that are classified as incentives because they allow Auburn to market
itself as more business friendly over other municipalities (e.g. Auburn does not charge a
Business and Occupation tax while many other municipalities in the area do).
WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO STRUCTURE AN INCENTIVE PACKAGE?
The answer to this question requires that a separate question be answered first – “What city
objectives deserve to be incentivized?” The City has the choice to decide what objectives and
outcomes are of the highest priority and can therefore choose to incentivize the developments
and businesses that help are consistent with these goals. The City can choose to identify
geographic areas where certain incentives apply (e.g. in downtown as a way of promoting
transit oriented development), can choose to identify a broader public objective that is
incentivized (e.g. environmentally sustainable construction, or affordable housing), or can
choose to identify uses and activities that provide the City with a higher long term financial
return (e.g. retail over warehousing).
Page 34 of 48
It is important to consider a number of questions and thoughts when trying to assemble the best
incentive package that helps further the City's long term social and financial objectives.
1. Incentives should be focused on development activity and business activity that the City
believes has the greatest long term sustainable impact on the community.
2. Incentives should be tied directly to an outcome that the City desires to achieve.
3. Desired outcomes in one part of the City may be different than desired outcomes in other
parts of the City.
4. Incentives do not always have to be in the form of reduced financial contributions to the
City. They can come in the form of value that is added to the property, which helps the
customer realize a higher financial return.
5. Commercially zoned land is a limited commodity. Some development activities and
business activities yield a higher long-term return to the City than others do.
6. Due to the property taxing structure in Washington State, it is difficult, if not impossible, for
single family residential to pay for the services that it demands over the long term.
DISCUSSION:
1. Does Auburn offer a competitive package of development incentives?
2. Besides development incentives, are there other types of incentives that should be
researched and discussed (e.g. business retention and recruitment, but local or incentives
that draw more consumers)?
3. Should incentives be strategic and focused on certain types of development, uses and
businesses?
4. Is there a preference on financial incentives vs. intensity and density bonus incentives?
5. Over the last 15-20 years, there have been a number of actions outside the control of the
City of Auburn that have reduced local revenue streams (e.g. streamlined sales tax, caps on
property tax increases). These changes have made it increasingly difficult to establish
sustainable and consistent revenues. Land use policy and zoning are a tools that can be
considered when evaluating the appropriateness of different kinds of incentives.
Commercially zoned land offers greater potential for establishing activities that can
contribute to long term, sustainable, and consistent revenue streams. Commercial land is a
limited commodity. Commercial land use policy should be focused in a manner that
provides the greatest potential return.
Powerpoint Example of Land Use Exercise to Help Focus Incentive Efforts
Page 35 of 48
Business and Development Incentive Auburn Kent Renton Puyallup Sumner Federal
Way
Multi-Family Property Tax Exemption Program – 8 year tax exemption for market rate; 12 year exemption
for affordable housing
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Targeted Fee Reductions – ADUs (Renton), Reduced Parking Impact Fee near transit (Sumner), Small
Business (Auburn)
Yes Yes Yes
Construction Sales Tax Rebate – Up to 20% of paid construction sales tax not to exceed $100,000 Yes
Relief from Business and Occupation (B & O) Tax Yes Yes Yes
Relief from Business License Employee Fees (a.k.a. Head Fee) Yes Yes
WA State Local Infrastructure Financing Tool (LIFT) – Allows infrastructure improvements to be financed
through future, anticipated tax revenue
Yes Yes
Community Development Block Grants (low interest business loans) Yes
New Market Tax Credits – A federal program that allows below market loans and future tax credits Yes
Planned Action EIS – Allows for projects to be exempt from SEPA review in certain parts of the City, such
as the downtown
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Expedited Permit Review – Certain projects may have expedited review, but such review is done by third
party and paid for by the applicant
Yes
Development Agreements – Allows for more flexibility on larger projects, such as modified setbacks,
density, landscaping, etc.
Yes Yes Yes
Density Bonuses – Increases in density in exchange for a public benefit Yes Yes
Page 36 of 48
EB-5 Zone – Allows for foreign investors to gain American Citizenship through investing in certain area Yes
Innovation Partnership Zone (IPZ) – Provides grant eligibility for the promotion of sustainable industrial
development
Yes
Business Incubator – Subsidized low cost office and meeting space for startup businesses Yes
Fee and Tax Reductions
Fee and Tax Burdens
Loans and Financing
Permitting Process Related
Development Standard Flexibility
Miscellaneous
Page 37 of 48
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
SEPA Categorical Exemptions (Tate) (10 Minutes)
Date:
April 16, 2018
Department:
Community Development &
Public Works
Attachments:
Memorandum
Attachment A
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Please see the attached memorandum. Thank you.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:April 23, 2018 Item Number:
Page 38 of 48
Memorandum
To: City Council Members
From: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development
CC: Mayor Nancy Backus
Date: April 13, 2018
Re: SEPA Categorical Exemptions
PURPOSE
During prior City Council Study Session discussions, the subject of SEPA Categorical
Exemptions has come up with respect to the options that exist within State law for how a city
can modify its local code to meet local conditions. More specifically, the options that exist when
establishing thresholds for projects that trigger SEPA review and those that are exempt. The
purpose of this memo is to provide background information regarding SEPA, to describe the
minimum thresholds established under SEPA, and the options for modifying the minimum
thresholds.
GENERAL SEPA OVERVIEW – RCW 43.21C, WAC 197-11, & ACC 16.06
The State Legislature enacted the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) in 1971. It was
established prior to cities and counties adopting critical areas ordinances, impact fee
ordinances, shoreline management programs, stormwater management requirements, and
many other types of development regulations that are designed to address the potential impacts
of development activity. The legislature’s initial action and subsequent amendments are
contained in RCW 43.21C.
RCW 43.21C.110 required that rules and regulations be established that implement SEPA.
WAC 197-11 is the State’s administrative code that sets forth the details related to SEPA
requirements, procedures, exemptions, definitions, and application forms. Certain portions of
WAC 197-11 also establish options for how and when a local municipality conducts SEPA
review.
Because the City can make certain choices within the construct of WAC 197-11 the City is
required to adopt a local city code that implements SEPA. ACC 16.06 is the local chapter of city
code that implements the requirements of SEPA.
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS – OVERVIEW OF EXISTING THRESHOLDS AND OPTIONS
WAC 197-11-800 outlines specific “Categorical Exemptions” which exempts certain actions from
SEPA threshold determinations and EIS requirements. ACC 16.06.055 modifies the categorical
exemption thresholds. The table below helps describe WAC 197-11-800 and ACC 16.06.055.
Page 39 of 48
2
Table 1 – Existing Regulations/Threshold Limits
SEPA Categorical Exemption Language
(WAC 197-11-800)
Existing City Code Language
(ACC 16.06.055)
4 residential dwelling units or less 20 residential dwelling units or less.
For office, school, commercial, recreational,
service or storage buildings, buildings of 4,000
square feet or less and with associated
parking facilities designed for 20 or less
automobiles.
For office, school, commercial, recreational,
service or storage buildings, buildings of
12,000 square feet or less and with associated
parking facilities designed for 40 or less
automobiles.
Parking lots of 20 or fewer automobile spaces. Parking lots of 40 or fewer automobile spaces.
Fill and excavations of 100 cubic yards or less. Fill and excavations of 500 cubic yards or less.
* In 2005 the Auburn City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5908, which increased the categorical
exemption threshold limits from what is shown in the left hand column to what is shown in the
right hand column. As an example, prior to 2005, a residential subdivision of 5 lots was subject
to SEPA environmental review; after 2005, any residential subdivision of 20 lots or less was no
longer subject to SEPA environmental review.
The reason that SEPA rules allow a municipality to increase its threshold limits is because most
cities are now required to have critical areas ordinances, shoreline regulations, stormwater
requirements, and a variety of other types of development regulations that adequately address
the impacts of a development proposal.
In 2012 the State Legislature passed 2ESSB 6406, the Natural Resoreces Reform Bill which
intended to streamline regulatory process while at the same time maintaining current levels of
natural resource protection. In response to 2ESSB 6406 the Washington State Department of
Ecology updated the SEPA administrative rules which created an allowance for municipalities to
increase their thresholds even further. The new rules took effect on May 10, 2014. The table
below adds a third column that highlights what is now allowed under SEPA:
Page 40 of 48
3
Table 2 – Existing and Allowed Regulations/Threshold Limits
SEPA Categorical
Exemption Language
(WAC 197-11-800)
Existing City Code
Language
(ACC 16.06.055)
2014 Updates to the SEPA
Categorical Exemption
Language
(WAC 197-11-800)
4 residential dwelling units or
less
20 residential dwelling units or
less.
30 residential dwelling units or
less.
For office, school,
commercial, recreational,
service or storage buildings,
buildings of 4,000 square feet
or less and with associated
parking facilities designed for
20 or less automobiles.
For office, school,
commercial, recreational,
service or storage buildings,
buildings of 12,000 square
feet or less and with
associated parking facilities
designed for 40 or less
automobiles.
For office, school,
commercial, recreational,
service or storage buildings,
buildings of 30,000 square
feet or less and with
associated parking facilities
designed for 90 or less
automobiles.
Parking lots of 20 or fewer
automobile spaces.
Parking lots of 40 or fewer
automobile spaces.
Parking lots of 90 or fewer
automobile spaces.
Fill and excavations of 100
cubic yards or less.
Fill and excavations of 500
cubic yards or less.
Fill and excavations of 1,000
cubic yards or less.
* The first two columns repeat what was shown in Table 1. The third column identifies how the
City could modify its exemption thresholds through Ordinance action.
INCREASING SEPA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION THRESHOLDS
WAC 197-11-800(1)(c) establishes the procedures that a local municipality must follow in order
to raise its threshold limits. Attachment A provides the full text of this section of the WAC. In
sum, there are four requirements that must be met in order to increase the threshold limits.
They are as follows:
(i) Documentation that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and
mitigation for impacts to elements of the environment have been adequately addressed
for the development exempted. The requirements may be addressed in specific adopted
development regulations, and applicable state and federal regulations.
(ii) Description in the findings or other appropriate section of the adopting ordinance or
resolution of the locally established notice and comment opportunities for the public,
affected tribes, and agencies regarding permitting or development projects included in
these increased exemption levels.
(iii) Before adopting the ordinance or resolution containing the proposed new exemption
levels, the agency shall provide a minimum of sixty days notice to affected tribes,
agencies with expertise, affected jurisdictions, the department of ecology, and the public
and provide an opportunity for comment.
(iv) The city, town, or county must document how specific adopted development regulations
and applicable state and federal laws provide adequate protections for cultural and
historic resources when exemption levels are raised. The requirements for notice and
opportunity to comment for the public, affected tribes, and agencies in (c)(i) and (ii) of
this subsection and the requirements for protection and mitigation in (c)(i) of this
Page 41 of 48
4
subsection must be specifically documented. The local ordinance or resolution shall
include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Use of available data and other project review tools regarding known and likely
cultural and historic resources, such as inventories and predictive models
provided by the Washington department of archaeology and historic
preservation, other agencies, and tribal governments.
b. Planning and permitting processes that ensure compliance with applicable laws
including chapters 27.44, 27.53, 68.50, and 68.60 RCW.
c. Local development regulations that include at minimum pre-project cultural
resource review where warranted, and standard inadvertent discovery language
(SIDL) for all projects.
The following table helps break down the above steps into the work efforts and action items that
would be required if the City were to move forward with increasing the SEPA exemption
thresholds:
WAC Citation Action Items Resource
Commitment
Documentation that the requirements for
environmental analysis, protection and
mitigation for impacts to elements of the
environment have been adequately
addressed for the development exempted.
The requirements may be addressed in
specific adopted development regulations,
and applicable state and federal
regulations.
1. Research codes from other
local municipalities.
2. Draft a new chapter of city
code that outlines
procedures, exemptions,
standards, and
requirements related to
cultural resource protection.
3. Administer the legislative
process for Planning
Commission, SEPA review,
State agency review, and
City Council.
250 hours of
staff time
Description in the findings or other
appropriate section of the adopting
ordinance or resolution of the locally
established notice and comment
opportunities for the public, affected
tribes, and agencies regarding permitting
or development projects included in these
increased exemption levels.
1. Development of notification
procedures (codified or via
policy).
2. Coordinate with MIT on the
procedures to ensure that
they adequately address
tribal concerns.
75 hours of staff
time
Before adopting the ordinance or
resolution containing the proposed new
exemption levels, the agency shall
provide a minimum of sixty days notice to
affected tribes, agencies with expertise,
affected jurisdictions, the department of
1. Administration of rule
adoption public notification.
2. Distribution of notices,
responding to inquiries
received during the
process, modification of
75 hours of staff
time
Page 42 of 48
5
ecology, and the public and provide an
opportunity for comment.
rules and procedures in
response to comments.
The city, town, or county must document
how specific adopted development
regulations and applicable state and
federal laws provide adequate protections
for cultural and historic resources when
exemption levels are raised. The
requirements for notice and opportunity to
comment for the public, affected tribes,
and agencies in (c)(i) and (ii) of this
subsection and the requirements for
protection and mitigation in (c)(i) of this
subsection must be specifically
documented. The local ordinance or
resolution shall include, but not be limited
to, the following:
a. Use of available data and other
project review tools regarding
known and likely cultural and
historic resources, such as
inventories and predictive models
provided by the Washington
department of archaeology and
historic preservation, other
agencies, and tribal governments.
b. Planning and permitting processes
that ensure compliance with
applicable laws including chapters
27.44, 27.53, 68.50, and 68.60
RCW.
c. Local development regulations
that include at minimum pre-
project cultural resource review
where warranted, and standard
inadvertent discovery language
(SIDL) for all projects.
1. This step will require heavy
coordination with the State
Office of Archeology and
Historic Preservation, MIT,
and other parties who have
cultural resource data and
have an interest in
protecting resources.
2. Development of data
sharing agreements as well
as standard operating
procedures and interlocal
agreements on how data
will be used, shared (or not
shared) with the public and
outside agencies, etc.
3. Coordination with City and
external GIS experts
regarding mapped data,
associated metadata,
frequency of map updates,
retention of archived
mapped data and hard copy
maps, etc.
4. Revisions to City
development application
forms, templates for staff
reports, templates for the
findings of fact utilized by
Planning Commission and
City Council and
development of permitting
SOP’s.
400 hours of
staff time
Page 43 of 48
6
OVERVIEW OF PROJECTS IN THE LAST 5 YEARS THAT WOULD HAVE BENEFITED
FROM AN INCREASED THRESHOLD LIMIT
Residential Subdivisions
(Subdivisions of more than 20
lots but less than 31 lots)
Commercial (Projects
that were more than
12,000 square feet but
less than 30,001 square
feet and that were more
than 40 parking space
but less than 91 parking
spaces)
Grade and Fill (Projects with
more than 500 cubic yards of
grade or fill but less than
1,001 cubic yards)
4 (out of 14 submittals) 5 (out of 40 submittals) 0 (out of 146 submittals)
QUESTIONS:
1. Does this briefing memo provide adequate information? Or are there additional
questions?
2. Should City staff pursue an increase in SEPA exemption thresholds?
3. If yes on question 2, given the time commitment (approximately one person working half
time over a 12-month period) what is the priority level for this work? The staff that is
assigned to a project like this is a Planner. The City’s Planners are dedicated primarily
to reviewing development proposals submitted by private developers. Committing a
Planner to working on this assignment will result in a decreased level of service to
development customers.
Page 44 of 48
ATTACHMENT A – WAC 197-11-800(1)(c)
(c) Cities, towns or counties may raise the exempt levels up to the maximum specified in (d)
of this subsection by implementing ordinance or resolution. Such levels shall be specified in the
agency's SEPA procedures (WAC 197-11-904). Separate maximum optional thresholds are
established in (d) of this subsection applying to both incorporated areas and unincorporated
urban growth areas in fully planning jurisdictions under RCW 36.70A.040; other unincorporated
areas in fully planning counties; and jurisdictions in all other counties. Agencies may adopt the
maximum level or a level between the minimum and maximum level. An agency may adopt a
system of several exempt levels, such as different levels for different geographic areas, and
mixed use projects.
At a minimum, the following process shall be met in order to raise the exempt levels.
(i) Documentation that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and
mitigation for impacts to elements of the environment (listed in WAC 197-11-444) have been
adequately addressed for the development exempted. The requirements may be addressed in
specific adopted development regulations, and applicable state and federal regulations.
(ii) Description in the findings or other appropriate section of the adopting ordinance or
resolution of the locally established notice and comment opportunities for the public, affected
tribes, and agencies regarding permitting of development projects included in these increased
exemption levels.
(iii) Before adopting the ordinance or resolution containing the proposed new exemption
levels, the agency shall provide a minimum of sixty days notice to affected tribes, agencies with
expertise, affected jurisdictions, the department of ecology, and the public and provide an
opportunity for comment.
(iv) The city, town, or county must document how specific adopted development regulations
and applicable state and federal laws provide adequate protections for cultural and historic
resources when exemption levels are raised. The requirements for notice and opportunity to
comment for the public, affected tribes, and agencies in (c)(i) and (ii) of this subsection and the
requirements for protection and mitigation in (c)(i) of this subsection must be specifically
documented. The local ordinance or resolution shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Use of available data and other project review tools regarding known and likely cultural and
historic resources, such as inventories and predictive models provided by the Washington
department of archaeology and historic preservation, other agencies, and tribal governments.
• Planning and permitting processes that ensure compliance with applicable laws including
chapters 27.44, 27.53, 68.50, and 68.60 RCW.
• Local development regulations that include at minimum preproject cultural resource review
where warranted, and standard inadvertent discovery language (SIDL) for all projects.
Page 45 of 48
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Matrix
Date:
April 18, 2018
Department:
City Counc il
Attachments:
Special Focus Areas Key
Matrix
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revis ion: $0
Revis ed Budget: $0
Adminis trative Rec ommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Counc il Committees :
Counc ilmember:Staff:
Meeting Date:April 23, 2018 Item Number:
Page 46 of 48
Revised 01-08-2018
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES FINANCE & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC WORKS & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES
HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING CITY BUDGET & AMENDMENTS UTILITIES POLICE
PUBLIC WELLNESS RISK MANAGEMENT ZONING, CODES & PERMITS SCORE JAIL
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SERVICES EQUIPMENT RENTAL INNOVATION & TECHNOLOGY DISTRICT COURT
HOMELESSNESS SERVICES FACILITIES TRANSPORTATION PARKS & RECREATION
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CITY REAL PROPERTY STREETS ANIMAL CONTROL
COMMUNITY SERVICES LEGAL ENGINEERING SOLID WASTE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES CAPITAL PROJECTS EMERGENCY PLANNING
MEDICAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SUSTAINABILITY AIRPORT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AIRPORT BUSINESSES
CULTURAL ARTS & PUBLIC ARTS SISTER CITIES
PLANNING MULTIMEDIA
Councilmember Trout-Manuel, Chair Councilmember Holman, Chair Councilmember DaCorsi, Chair Councilmember Brown, Chair
Councilmember Wales, Vice Chair Councilmember Brown, Vice Chair Deputy Mayor Baggett, Vice Chair Councilmember Peloza, Vice Chair
2018 MEETING DATES 2018 MEETING DATES 2018 MEETING DATES 2018 MEETING DATES
January 22, 2018 February 12, 2018 February 26, 2018 January 8, 2018
March 26, 2018 April 9, 2018 April 23, 2018 March 12, 2018
May 29, 2018 June 11, 2018 June 25, 2018 May 14, 2018
July 23, 2018 August 13, 2018 August 27, 2018 July 9, 2018
September 24, 2018 October 8, 2018 October 22, 2018 September 10, 2018
November 26, 2018 December 10, 2018 December 24, 2018 November 13, 2018
SPECIAL FOCUS AREAS
Page 47 of 48
Updated 04-16-2018
NO.TOPIC Chair STAFF LEAD(S)STUDY SESSION REVIEW
DATE(S)
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
SUMMARY ACTION DATE
1
Capital Projects Update and
Featured Capital Project
Discussion
Chair DaCorsi
Vice Chair Deputy Mayor
Baggett
Asst. Director Gaub 5/14/2018
2
Community Sustainability
Series: Economic and
Statutory Considerations for
Municipalities
Chair DaCorsi
Vice Chair Deputy Mayor
Baggett
Asst. Director Tate 6/25/2018
3 Sign Requierments
Chair DaCorsi
Vice Chair Deputy Mayor
Baggett
Asst. Director Tate 6/25/2018
4 Court Fees Chair Brown
Vice Chair Peloza City Attorney Heid 5/14/2018
5 Multi-year Budgets Chair Brown
Vice Chair Peloza Finance Director Coleman 6/11/2018
6 Homelessness Update Chair Trout-Manuel
Vice Chair Wales Director Hinman 5/29/2018
7 Multicare Behavioral Health
Facility Update
Chair Trout-Manuel
Vice Chair Wales Director Hinman 5/29/2018
8
Update on Court-DV
Filings/Hearings and DV
Model Firearms Program
Chair Trout-Manuel
Vice Chair Wales City Attorney Heid
TBD
9 One Table Presentation Chair Trout-Manuel
Vice Chair Wales
Pat Bailey and City
Attorney Heid
5/29/2018
10
Cost of Service Study -
Planning and Development
Fees
Chair Holman
Vice Chair Brown Finance Director Coleman
TBD
11 Livable Cities Update Chair Holman
Vice Chair Brown Asst. Director Tate 6/11/2018
12 Annexations (islands and
peninsulas)
Chair Holman
Vice Chair Brown City Attorney Heid TBD
13 Council Rules of Procedure Deputy Mayor Baggett City Attorney Heid 4/30/2018
COUNCIL MATRIX
Page 48 of 48