The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-25-2018 STUDY SESSION AGENDACity Council Study Session P W C D S FA J une 25, 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 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 .Draft 2016 – 2017 State of Our S treets Report (Gaub) (20 Minutes) B .K ing County-Cities Climate Collaboration (Tate) (10 Minutes) P resentation of the initiative and options to support C.Code Enforcement P resentation (Tate) (20 Minutes) D.Temporary S igns (Tate) (10 Minutes) Overview of regulations that govern temporary signs 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 81 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Draft 2016 – 2017 State of Our Streets Report (Gaub) (20 Minutes) Date: June 7, 2018 Department: CD & PW Attachments: Draft 2016-2017 State of Our Streets Report Budget Impact: Current Budget: $0 Proposed Revision: $0 Revised Budget: $0 Administrativ e Recommendation: For discussion only. Background Summary: Attached for your information you will find the Draft 2016 – 2017 State of Our Streets Report. This report gives an executive summary of the previous work completed, describes the history of the Street Preservation Programs, talks about the pavement condition of Arterial, Collector and Local streets, how the City maintains streets, details the street selection process for the program, gives a description of the list of projects that were completed in 2016 and 2017, and a general overview of the projects that are going to be completed in the near future. Rev iewed by Council Committees: Councilmember:Staff:Gaub Meeting Date:June 25, 2018 Item Number: Page 2 of 81 DRAFT 2016-17 STATE OF OUR STREETS REPORT Mayor Nancy Backus Council members Bob Baggett Larry Brown Claude DaCorsi John Holman Yolanda Trout-Manuel Bill Peloza Largo Wales 25 West Main St. Auburn, WA 98001 Page 3 of 81 1 Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2 A Work in Progress ..................................................................................................................... 2 Keeping Auburn Moving ............................................................................................................ 3 The State of our Streets ............................................................................................................... 3 Next steps? .................................................................................................................................. 4 Project Spot Light and Roadway Preservation Programs ............................................................... 5 2017 Project Roster ..................................................................................................................... 5 2016 Project Roster ..................................................................................................................... 7 Preservation Programs Overview ................................................................................................... 8 Arterial Street Preservation Program .......................................................................................... 8 Arterial Street Preservation funding ........................................................................................... 8 Planned Arterial Street Preservation Projects ........................................................................... 10 Moving Forward ....................................................................................................................... 10 Local Street Preservation Program ........................................................................................... 11 Local Street Preservation Funding ............................................................................................ 11 Planned Local Street Preservation Projects .............................................................................. 12 Moving Forward ....................................................................................................................... 13 Page 4 of 81 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Work in Progress This report is to document the progress of the Arterial and Local Street Pavement Preservation Programs for the City, including reporting on the updated pavement condition ratings that were collected in the Summer of 2017, provide a current overview of the programs, and provide recommendations on program needs and challenges. City owned paved alleyways and gravel roads are maintained by the Maintenance & Operations Division and are not included in this report. Streets are classified based on the type of traffic they are intended to support. Major streets that are intended to support a large amount of traffic traveling to neighboring jurisdictions, to state highways and across the City of Auburn (City) are typically classified as arterial streets. Streets that are intended to support a moderate amount of traffic and connect neighborhoods and industrial/commercial areas to arterial streets or to other neighborhoods and industrial/commercial areas are generally classified as collector streets. Streets that are intended to support a low volume of traffic and connect local residences and businesses to an arterial or collector street are generally classified as local streets. The City manages the pavement infrastructure through two separate programs, the Arterial Streets Preservation Program and Local Streets Preservation Program. The Arterial Street Preservation Program is currently funded at approximately $1.6 to $1.8 million annually, and covers the Arterial and Collector roadways in the City. These major streets consist of approximately 69 centerline miles (201 lane miles) of Arterials and 34 centerline miles (71 lane miles) of Collectors roadways. The Local Street Preservation Program is funded at approximately $1.5 to $2.3 million annually, and is responsible for the non-arterial roadways, consisting of approximately 146 centerline miles (292 lane miles) of residential and non- residential local streets. The goal for the preservation programs is to maintain the entire street network at a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Score of 70 or greater on a 1-100 basis with 100 being new pavement. An average score of 70 was chosen because it provides for the most cost effective balance for the long term preservation of the roadway system where the majority of streets are at or above 70. The PCI of a street is an estimated measure of the amount of visible cracking, rutting and roughness of a particular segment of roadway. Every street in the network is rated periodically, and those scores are used to indicate when a particular street is in need of some sort of preservation, rehabilitation, or reconstruction. Please see Appendix A for more detail. The City’s street system was rated in the Summer of 2017, and the results showed an overall increase in the pavement condition versus the 2013 pavement rating survey. An increase in pavement condition rating was expected as a result of all the investments made into the street system network since 2013. The City worked on several miles of streets in our network with City and grant funds used to complete much needed work. The pavement rating data is the best metric to approximate the overall street system health, and helps inform decisions on when and where to invest to keep the City’s streets in good condition. The other metrics used in rating the City’s pavements are rutting, and roughness. These are used Page 5 of 81 3 to help prioritize and differentiate between candidate streets during a selection process (please see Appendix A for more detail). Keeping Auburn Moving It is anticipated that further improvements to the street network will be realized after a number of grant funded paving projects are completed over the next several years through the year 2020. The City has been successful in securing federal grants to help the Arterial Street Preservation program improve the condition of many of the City’s major Arterials and this additional funding represents a major investment in the City’s Federally classified roadway infrastructure. The City has also completed the reconstruction of past problematic streets in the City’s street system, specifically B Street NW between 37th St NW and S 277th St; West Main Street between West Valley Highway and the Interurban Trail; and S 277th Street between Auburn Way N and L St NE. These streets were all previously in failing conditions and the City pooled funding and secured federal grants to address these major roads. Additionally, 2017 saw two other major grant funded paving projects be completed: Auburn Way North Preservation Project Phase I, and Lake Tapps Parkway Preservation Project; as well as the City Funded 2017 Local Street Reconstruction and Preservation Project. The State of our Streets Arterial and Collector Street Preservation Program The State of the Arterial and Collector Streets has improved with the investment in the infrastructure from these programs. In the next few years, many of the largest and most used corridors will be preserved, and the City will continue to see overall system improvement (see Table 1 below for recent pavement condition rating scores). The grant funding that has been secured through 2020 will help the City leverage existing funding and complete additional work that could not have otherwise been done. However in the long term, if budget levels continue at the current level of funding (approximately $1.6-1.8M/ year not including grant funding) the Pavement Management Database models predict that the City will lose ground as more of the Arterial and Collector streets that are in poor condition slide into the failure category and other streets that are currently in good condition degrade into fair condition. There are several major projects that will need to be completed within the next ten years for the City to maintain the condition of the network at its current average. Failing Arterial and Collector streets are extremely expensive to replace and will require several years’ worth of budget, at the current funding levels, to complete the reconstruction of a single project street. While many of the other major streets degrade into fair condition and will be in need of preservation. Local Street Preservation Program The State of Our Local Streets is improving steadily and shows that the City has adequately funded this portion of the preservation program. The Local Street Preservation Program provides for rebuilding as many streets with the available funding, and uses any remaining funds to preserve, by overlay, other streets in the Local Street Network. The backlog of local streets that need to be reconstructed is decreasing. If funding continues at its current level, the Local Street Preservation Program will have completed reconstruction of all streets that are currently rated as failing over the next 10 to 13 years, however a number of streets that are rated in poor condition that are not being worked on will begin to fail within that time frame and will need to be reconstructed as well. Page 6 of 81 4 2013 Pavement Rating 2015 Improvements 2017 Pavement Rating Centerline Miles Lane Miles Average Weighted PCI PCI Change All Streets in System 249 564 61 65 70 +5 Arterial & Collector Streets Combined 103 272 55 60 63 +3 Arterial Streets 69 201 55 59 61 +2 Collector Streets 34 71 57 64 70 +6 Local Streets 146 292 67 69 77 +8 Table 1 - Pavement Rating Data by Road Classification Next steps? In the next three to four years, the Street Preservation Programs will continue to deliver quality projects, and improve the street system health. In the next five to ten years, the road map to success will include pursuing additional funding for the Arterial and Collector Preservation Program which may include: · Continuing to compete for grant funding as available; · Consider options for additional funding as needed; and · Revising the City’s pavement management goals. The Pavement Management Database model predicts that the Arterial and Collector street system will need to be funded at approximately $3.5M to $3.9M annually to simply maintain the existing condition of the street network. The condition of the Arterial roads has improved slightly since 2013 due to the additional funding obtained through grants from 2013 to 2017. The models indicate that the condition of the street system will degrade faster than we can preserve it after the current secured grant funds have been expended. Currently, the Local Street Preservation is funded appropriately to improve the street network condition steadily. The Local Street Preservation fund will continue to rebuild as many streets that are identified as failing as funding allows and use any additional funds to do thin overlay treatments on streets that are in fair condition. The program has achieved an average rating that exceeds the program goal of 70 PCI and is currently at 77 PCI. Therefore the program will be transitioning to continue to maintain the network at or above the average of 70 PCI. Page 7 of 81 5 PROJECT SPOT LIGHT AND ROADWAY PRESERVATION PROGRAM S The City had several major paving projects in construction in 2016 and 2017, which were funded by the Local Street Preservation fund, Arterial Street Preservation fund, and other sources of City funds, as well as federal grant funds. are shown on Map 1 – 2017 Roadway Construction Projects Map. 2017 Project Roster 2017 was an incredibly busy year for roadway work in the City as we were able to address several of the worst streets. Overall, 9.48 lane-miles of pavement were reconstructed and 15.36 lane-miles of pavement were overlayed in 2017. This was a highly successful year of executing long standing plans for repairing and restoring the City of Auburn Streets. The major projects that were completed during 2017: · West Main Street Multi-Modal Corridor and ITS Improvements Project This project was a multiyear project that rebuilt and repurposed the existing four lane section of W Main St between W Valley Highway and the Interurban Trail. The project rebuilt 1.38 lane miles of pavement. The four lane roadway was narrowed down to accommodate two through lanes, a two-way turn lane, and bike lanes in each direction. The project also provided Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements along W. Main Street., West Valley Hwy, 15th Street SW, and C Street SW. This work was funded by Arterial Streets funds, federal grant funding, and Arterial Preservation funds. Construction of this project started in 2016, and was completed in the summer of 2017. · S 277th Street Corridor Capacity & Non-motorized Trail Improvement Project This project was a multiyear project and completed the widening and reconstruction of 2.92 lane miles of S 277th Street from the intersection of Auburn Way North to L Street NE, including the construction of a pedestrian trail, relocation of the floodway along S 277th Street, as well as installing a fish passage structure. This work was funded by Arterial Street funds, developer contributed funds, federal and Transportation Improvement Board grant funds, and Arterial Preservation funds. · B Street NW Reconstruction Project The B Street NW Reconstruction Project rebuilt 1.64 lane miles of B Street NW between 37th Street NW and 49th Street NW vicinity, replaced sanitary sewer main along 49th Street SW and installed new sewer main along B Street NW. This Project also repaired damaged sidewalk, curb and gutter, upgraded several driveways to be compliant with ADA requirements, replaced curb ramps to be compliant with ADA requirements, and addressed drainage issues along the corridor. This work was funded by Arterial Preservation funds. · Lake Tapps Parkway Preservation Project The purpose of this project was to rehabilitate and preserve the existing pavement on Lake Tapps Parkway between the Western City Limit near 8th Street E and Lakeland Page 8 of 81 6 Hills Way. The project completed a grind and overlay of 7.11 lane miles of pavement, upgraded eight curb ramps to meet current ADA standards, and upgraded vehicle detection loops. This work was funded by Arterial Preservation funds and federal grant funds. · Auburn Way N Preservation Project, Phase 1 The Auburn Way North Preservation Project (22nd Street NE to 45th Street NE) included grinding and overlaying 7.25 lane miles of asphalt pavement, replacement of curb/gutter and concrete flatwork, upgraded 26 curb ramps to meet current ADA standards, construction of storm drain pipe and structures, removal and replacement fire hydrant assemblies, installation of a new traffic signal at 37th Street NE, modifications to existing traffic and pedestrian signals, channelization, installation of induction loops, traffic control, right-of-way restoration, and signage. This work was funded by Arterial Preservation funds and federal grant funds. · M Street SE Utility Improvement Project The M Street SE Improvements (3rd St SE to East Main St) project constructed roadway and utility improvements on M Street SE from 3rd Street SE to East Main Street. Project improvements included 0.62 lane miles of new asphalt concrete pavement, cement concrete sidewalks and curb and gutter, installation of new storm drainage and sanitary sewer pipes, new water services, and ITS improvements. This work was funded by Arterial Preservation funds, Water Utility funds, Sewer Utility funds, and Storm Utility funds. · 2017 Local Street Reconstruction and Preservation Project The 2017 Local Street Reconstruction and Preservation Project included constructing street, storm drainage, and water main improvements – including excavation of existing roadway pavement and subgrade; 1.38 lane miles of reconstructed asphalt roadway pavement and subgrade; 1.00 lane miles of street overlay; curb and gutter reconstruction; driveway reconstruction; partial sidewalk reconstruction; replaced 16 curb ramps; installed new storm drainage collection, conveyance, treatment and infiltration systems; water main and residential service replacement; and other appurtenances. This work was funded by Local Street Preservation funds, Water Utility funds, and Storm Utility funds. Page 9 of 81 7 2016 Project Roster The City had two major paving projects in 2016, and several others that involved significant pavement restoration, as shown on Map 2 – 2016 Roadway Construction Projects Map: · Auburn Way South Flooding Improvements, Phase 2 Project The purpose of this project was to relieve stormwater flooding issues on Auburn Way South near the State Route 18 underpass by diverting stormwater flows from the flooding area to the existing storm drainage ponds located at 21st Street SE (near D Street SE) and 17th Street SE (west of A St SE). This project constructed a new storm line on 17th Street SE between A Street SE and K Street SE to divert stormwater to the pond on 17th Street SE. This project also replaced the deteriorate water main and sewer line on 17th Street SE between A Street SE and K Street SE, rebuilt the north half of the roadway and grind and overlayed the entire roadway which preserved 1.22 lane miles of roadway, replaced a total of 23 curb ramps, and expanded the existing storm pond on 17th Street SE to accommodate the increase in storm drainage flows. This work was funded by the Water, Sewer and Storm Utility funds. · 2016 Local Street Pavement Reconstruction Project This project reconstructed 1.18 lane miles of Local Streets including; 21st Street NE between I Street NE and Auburn Way N; F Street SE between East Main St and 4th Street SE; and 25th Street SE between M Street SE and R Street SE; as well as thin overlayed 1.40 lane miles of streets in the Westhill area. The Project also installed 2,741 lineal feet of 12-inch and 8-inch water mains, 2,589 lineal feet of 12-inch stormwater drainage main, new water services for 70 residents along the project streets, and replaced a total of 41 curb ramps at the project sites so they are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. This work was funded by the Local Street Preservation Program and Water Utility funds. · 30th Street NE Storm Improvement Project, Phase 1A This project replaced a 30-inch storm drainage line with a 42-inch line between the North west corner of the Auburn Airport and Auburn Way N. This project rebuild the trench limit, patched pavement and overlayed the full width of 30th Street NE – preserving 1.38 lane miles of roadway, and replaced a total of 6 curb ramps. This work was funded by the Storm Drainage Repair Program and Arterial Preservation Program funds. The City had several projects in 2016 delayed for various reasons as indicated below. Also, the order in which the federally funded grant projects will be delivered was updated to reflect the regional funding availability through the Puget Sound Regional Council. The Auburn Way North Preservation project, Phase 1 was moved from 2016 to 2017 because the initial bids in 2016 came in higher than the available budget. B Street NW was delayed in 2016 due to the need for additional funding to complete the project. To address this, the project was re-designed to use an innovative method of construction to rebuild the roadway at a much cheaper cost than estimated in 2016. Page 10 of 81 8 PRESERVATION PROGRAMS OVERVIEW Arterial Street Preservation Program The Arterial and Collector Preservation program is responsible for maintaining the overall condition of approximately 103 centerline miles (272 lane miles) of roadway that are vital to the City. These roads carry the vast majority of citizens, goods and services to and from the Regional Growth Center and connect the community to the greater Puget Sound Region. The Arterial Street Preservation Program has focused almost exclusively on preservation treatments given the lack of funding to complete much needed major reconstruction projects. However, favorable bids on several past projects, and the successful acquisition of federal grant funds generated sufficient capacity in the existing budget to program the reconstruction of B Street NW between 37th Street NW and 300 feet north of 49th Street NW, which was the worst arterial street segment in the network. Additionally other grant funds were secured for two other major reconstruction projects in the City that were constructed in 2017: The S 277th Street Corridor Capacity & Non-motorized Trail Improvements Project; and the West Main Street Multi-Modal Corridor and ITS Improvements Project. The Arterial and Collector Street Pavement Condition Indexes as of 2017 are shown on Map 3 – Arterial & Collector Pavement Conditions Map. The goal of the Arterial Preservation program is to improve the Arterial and Collector network to an average PCI of 70 (out of 100 scale rating). The current condition of the Arterial and Collector roadway network is in fair condition (PCI Rating of 61). Over the next several years, the City has secured federal grant funding for several projects, which will help leverage existing city funds to better improve the health of the arterial street system. Arterial Street Preservation funding The Arterial Street Preservation Program is funded by a 1% utility tax, which has supported annual budgets of approximately $1.8 Million since 2008. Figure 1 below shows the Arterial funding since the inception of the preservation program. Page 11 of 81 9 Figure 1: Arterial Street Funding through the years The City has successfully obtained federal grant funding for seven major preservation projects leveraging City funds for preserving our arterial system through 2020. The seven grant funded projects include the Auburn Way North Preservation phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 projects; A Street SE Preservation Project; 15th Street NW/NE Preservation Project; South 277th Street Preservation Project; and Lake Tapps Parkway Preservation Project. Federal grant funds are subject to competitive selection and cannot be relied upon as a stable source of funding beyond the currently funded projects. Also, there are a limited number of streets that are federally classified, and thus eligible for grant funding - limiting our potential for more grants in the future. The grant administrators in the region continue to discuss if preservation projects are the best use of their funds and are considering reprogramming the money to roadway capacity projects. The amount of City funding in the Arterial Preservation Program has remained relatively unchanged, and at its current level is insufficient to complete the reconstruction work needed to, not only reach the average system PCI goal of 70, but also maintain the current PCI rating of 61. $- $1,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $6,000,000.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 $560K $1.64M $750K $993K $1.75M $1.51M $1.58M $1.28M $1.47M $1.64M $223K $4.01M $795K $3.42M $2.75M $2.01M $2.32M $1.52M Arterial Preservation Spending Fund 105 Grant Funds City Funds $2.20M Total $5.06M Total $3.50M Total $3.00M Total $4.07M Total Page 12 of 81 10 Planned Arterial Street Preservation Projects The grant funded street reconstruction and preservation projects that start in 2018 and are expected to be completed through 2020, are detailed below in Table 2 – Future Grant Funded Street Projects, and City Funded projects are shown in Table 3 – City Funded Arterial Street Projects below. All of the future Arterial Preservation project streets are shown on Map 4 – Planned Preservation Projects Staff will be conducting street selection processes for the Arterial Street Preservation Program to identify additional streets that need to be addressed and to prepare a long range plan to meet those needs in budget years 2019 and 2020. Those streets will be prioritized and packaged each year. Additionally staff will be applying for additional federal grants in 2018 for potentially funding a project in 2021. TABLE 3 - CITY FUNDED ARTERIAL STREET PROJECTS Year Project Title From To 105 Funding Total Project Investment 2018 2018 Citywide Patch and Overlay Project Various Locations $1,700,000 $2,550,000 2018 2018 Arterial Crack Seal Project Various Locations $200,000 $200,000 TOTALS $1,900,000 $2,750,000 Moving Forward The City anticipates several issues that will need to be addressed and managed in the future. The pavement management database predicts the arterial system needs to be funded between $3.4M to $3.9M per year to maintain the current condition (PCI of 61) of Arterial/Collector roadways. TABLE 2 - FUTURE GRANT FUNDED STREET PROJECTS Year Project Title From To 105 Funding Grant Funding Total Project Investment 2018 15th Street NW/NE and Harvey Rd Preservation Project (Originally 2017) SR167 8th St NE $1,525,000 $815,000 $2,533,500 2018 S 277th Street Preservation Project SR167 Auburn W N Vicinity $662,380 $662,380 $1,324,760 2019 A Street SE Preservation Project East Main St 17th St SE $882,000 $882,000 $1,764,000 2020 Auburn Way North Preservation Project Phase 2 8th St NE Vicinity 22nd St NE $618,280 $889,720 $1,508,000 2020 Auburn Way North Preservation Project Phase 3 SR18 8th St NE Vicinity $975,000 $975,000 $1,950,000 2021 Lakeland Hills Way Preservation Project* Lake Tapps Parkway Pierce County Line $352,000* $748,000* $1,200.000* TOTALS $5,014,660 $4,972,100 $9,986,760 Page 13 of 81 11 If City funding levels remain at the current level of $1.6 to $1.8 million per year, the condition of the arterial and collector street system will begin to lose ground faster than can be preserved, once the available grant funding has been expended in 2020. Another concern, is that as the City continues to improve the streets that can be preserved by conventional methods (i.e. grind and overlay), there are more and more Arterial and Collector streets that are in various states of disrepair and will need to be reconstructed in the next several years. Many of the Arterial and Collector streets do not have adequate pavement structure to withstand the current level of traffic loading that uses them, so preserving these roads by overlay treatments only may not result in good long term performance. The lack of adequate pavement structure for these major roads likely contributes to an accelerated decline in pavement condition. The cost of rebuilding one of these roadways would require combining several years of funding in the Arterial and Collector Program at the current funding levels. Additional funding will need to be identified and prioritization of reconstruction of these major roadways will be needed to address the larger issues within the Arterial and Collector street network. Future pavement ratings and additional testing measures will become necessary in the next couple of years as well. System wide, the pavement rating survey results are one of the most useful tools to track the general condition of the street system as a whole, however a need for more advanced testing will be needed to evaluate the arterial and collector streets for their structural integrity. Local Street Preservation Program The Local Street Preservation Program is responsible for maintaining the pavement on approximately 146 centerline miles (292 lane miles) of roadways throughout the City. Each year that number grows with the construction of development driven projects. In the beginning years of the Local Street Preservation Program, formerly the “Save Our Streets Program”, the program focused on preserving streets that were in fair to poor condition. In 2009, after making significant progress on these roads, the City refocused the program to rebuilding streets that were in very poor to failing condition. The goal of the Local Street Preservation Program is to improve the Local Street system to an average PCI rating of 70 (out of 100 scale rating). As of 2017, the Local Street Preservation Program achieved its goal with an average PCI of 77. In reaching and exceeding this goal, the focus for this program continues to rebuild the local roadways that are in very poor to failed condition (PCI 0 to 25) as funding allows, and to maintain the average PCI level of 70 on the rest of the local street network. The Local street Pavement Condition Index scores are shown graphically on Map 5 – Local Street Pavement Conditions Map. The Pavement Management Database models indicate that $2.4M in needed annually to maintain the system at the goal of an average PCI of 70 or better. Local Street Improvements that are scheduled for 2018 and 2019 are also shown on Map 4 – Planned Preservation Projects. Local Street Preservation Funding In 2004 the public expressed concern over the condition of local streets, however funding for local streets had dropped dramatically in the preceding years and the City could not afford to Page 14 of 81 12 make the needed improvements (see Figure 2 below). In response to the situation, the City proposed a funding measure which was approved by Auburn citizens in the November 2004 General Election. The original funding measure allowed the City’s property tax levy to generate additional revenue for a dedicated local street fund which was used solely to fund a local street preservation and improvement program, formerly called the Save Our Streets (SOS) Program. At the end of 2012, the practice of funding the SOS Program from property taxes ended. In 2013, the City Council earmarked sales taxes from new construction to be dedicated to the Local Street Preservation Program, and all property taxes were retained in the General Fund. In 2005, the City had approximately 59 miles of local streets that were in need of repair (this mileage included streets that were later annexed into the City in 2008). Since 2005, the Program has improved the condition of 52 miles of those City streets, however as time passes other streets in the network age and their condition continues to deteriorate. In the next few years, additional streets will need to be maintained and/or rebuilt to keep the street system healthy. Planned Local Street Preservation Projects Projects in design or construction using Local Street Preservation Program funds are included below in Table 4. 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 $1.07M $652K $550K $560K $150K $150K $1.2M $1.8M $2.1M $2.6M $2.2M $1.5M $2.0M $2.0M $2,5M $1,8M $2,4M $2.36M $2.866M $2.55M$2.55M $1.50M $1.50M Figure 2: Local Street Funding through the years 2000: Loss of Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (Initiative 695) 2003 Loss of $15 Local Option Vehicle Excise Tax (Initiative 776) 2005 SOS Established Future Years Page 15 of 81 13 TABLE 4 - CITY FUNDED LOCAL STREET PROJECTS Year Project Title From To 103 Funding Total Project Investment 2018 2018 Citywide Patch and Overlay Project Various Locations $850,000 $2,550,000 2018 2018 Local Street Reconstruction Project Various Locations $1,700,000 $1,900,000 2019 2019 Local Street Reconstruction Project Various Locations $1,680,000 $3,545,000 2019 2019 Annual Pavement Project - TBD Various Locations $320,000 TBD TOTALS- > $1,900,000 $2,750,000 Moving Forward The list of Local Streets that need to be reconstructed is shrinking and will be prioritized to align with the City’s limited funding for associated public utility improvements. A lot of progress has been made on street reconstructions over the past several years under the Local Street preservation program. The program will transition its focus to a more balanced approach of rebuilding one or two local streets annually and preserving more segments of streets than in prior years. This more balanced approach between street reconstruction and street preservation overlays will continue to maintain and potentially continue to improve the condition of the Local Street network overall. Page 16 of 81 L A K ELAKETAPP STAPPS TS18 TS18 S 277TH ST 24TH ST E SE 2 74 TH S T PACIFIC AVE SJOVITABLVDE 132ND AVE SEELLINGSON RD SW SE 272ND ST 8TH ST E WESTVALLEYHWY140TH AVE E136TH AVE ES 272ND ST WEST VALLEY HWY S108TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NWM ILIT A R Y R D S STEWART RD SWWEST VALLEYHWYEVALENTINE AVE SE68TH AVE S124TH AVE SE116TH AVE SE142NDAVEESTEWART RD SE A ST SEWESTVALLEYHWYSSE 272ND ST WEST V A L L EYHWYSS 2 7 7T H S T 124TH AVE SE12TH ST EMILITARY RD SAUBURN-BLACKDIAMONDRDSE182ND AVE E9THST E S 288TH ST 2 1 0 T H A V E E 16 TH S T E S2 72N D WAY 214TH AVE EA U B U R N-E N U M C L A W R D SAUBURN WAY NMILITARYRDSTS167 TS167 A ST SEB ST NWI ST NEAUBURN W AY S C ST SWM ST SEAUBURN WAY NR ST SE124TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NS 277TH ST C ST NW15TH ST SW W MAIN ST 15TH ST NW SE 304TH ST E MA IN S T LAK E T A P PSPKW YS E 132ND AVE SE51ST AVE S29TH ST SE SE 312TH ST KE R SEYWAYSE 8T H ST N E 37TH ST NW LA K E L A NDHI LLSWAYSEORAVETZRDSESE 320TH STDSTNW104THAVESE WESTVALLEYHWYSS 316TH ST D ST NE112TH AVE SEEAST VALLEY HWY EAuburn AveSE304THWAYSE 281ST ST 17TH ST SE 6TH ST SE 112TH AVE SESE30 4 T H ST A ST SEC ST NE2ND ST E STUCK RIVER DR SE 53RD ST SE SE 288TH ST 37TH ST SE M ST NE4 6 TH P L S 4 1 ST ST SE 22ND ST NE 17TH ST SE S 296TH ST 25TH ST SE 12TH ST SE R ST NEPERIMETERRDSWD ST SE55TH AVE SEAST BLVD56TH AVE S110TH AVE SEPACIFIC AVE S51ST AVE S118TH AVE SEGRE E N RIVERRDSE N ST NEW ST NWS 287TH ST SCENIC D R S E 62NDST SE 4 9 T H ST NE K ST SE58TH AVE SS 331ST S T 144THAVESEEVERGRE E N W A Y S EF ST SEACADEMYDRSET ST SEDOGWOOD ST SEMONTEVISTADRSEPIKE ST NEBRIDGET AVE SEH ST SEG ST SE57THPLSS 324TH ST B ST SEFOSTER AVE SEJOHNREDDINGTONRDNE1 0 5 THPLSE140TH AVE SEMILLPONDDRSE52ND AVE S47TH ST SE 56TH ST SE S 305TH ST USTNW54TH AVE S28TH ST NE E MAIN ST 30TH ST NE 51S T S T N E 26TH ST SE 3 5 T H W A Y S E S 3 0 0 T H S T 3 2 N D S T SE 36T HSTSEOL I VEAVESES E 3 1 8 T H W A Y 29TH ST NW ASTE 24TH ST SE SE 298TH PL HEMLOCK ST SEFOREST R ID G E DR SE23RD ST SE 22ND ST SE85TH AVE S4TH ST SE S 288TH ST SE 282ND ST O ST SE64TH AVE S111THPLSE20 TH ST SE SE 286TH ST 108THAVESEHICR EST D RNW1 0 4 T H P L S E 16TH ST SE 148TH AVE SE42ND ST NE 7 3 R D S T S E 3 7 T H W A YSET ST NW57TH ST SES292NDST ELM ST SESE 285TH ST SE312T H W AY61ST STSE GINKGOSTSE15TH ST SET ST NE45TH S T NE S 303RD PL S 322ND ST 19TH ST SE 21ST ST SE 33RD ST SE 55TH ST SE RANDALL AVE SE63R D P L S E WARD AVE SE107TH PL SE55THWAYSE 43RD ST NE 63RD PL S59TH AVE S133RD AVE SEFIR ST SE66TH AVE SSE 314TH PL S 328TH ST S 329TH PL S 321ST ST S ST SE65TH ST SEJ PL NE57TH ST SE17THSTSE56TH AVE SGSTSE4 9 T H S T N E B ST SES 292ND ST EVERGREENWAYSEK ST SEN ST NER ST NE118TH AVE SEM U C K L E S H O O TMUCKLESHOOTCASINOCASINO T H E T H E O U T L E T O U T L E T C O L L E C T I O N C O L L E C T I O N K E N TKENT K I N GKINGCOUN T YCOUNTY P I E R C EPIERCECOUNTYCOUNTY P A C I F I CPACIFIC S U M N E RSUMNEREDGEWOODEDGEWOOD A L G O N AALGONA C i t y o f A u b u r n 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. Printed On: 5/11/2018Map ID: 1772 Page 17 of 81 L A K ELAKETAPP STAPPS TS18 TS18 S 277TH ST 24TH ST E SE 2 74 TH S T PACIFIC AVE SJOVITABLVDE 132ND AVE SEELLINGSON RD SW SE 272ND ST 8TH ST E WESTVALLEYHWY140TH AVE E136TH AVE ES 272ND ST WEST VALLEY HWY S108TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NWM ILIT A R Y R D S STEWART RD SWWEST VALLEYHWYEVALENTINE AVE SE68TH AVE S124TH AVE SE116TH AVE SE142NDAVEESTEWART RD SE A ST SEWESTVALLEYHWYSSE 272ND ST WEST V A L L EYHWYSS 2 7 7T H S T 124TH AVE SE12TH ST EMILITARY RD SAUBURN-BLACKDIAMONDRDSE182ND AVE E9THST E S 288TH ST 2 1 0 T H A V E E 16 TH S T E S2 72N D WAY 214TH AVE EA U B U R N-E N U M C L A W R D SAUBURN WAY NMILITARYRDSTS167 TS167 A ST SEB ST NWI ST NEAUBURN W AY S C ST SWM ST SEAUBURN WAY NR ST SE124TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NS 277TH ST C ST NW15TH ST SW W MAIN ST 15TH ST NW SE 304TH ST E MA IN S T LAK E T A P PSPKW YS E 132ND AVE SE51ST AVE S29TH ST SE SE 312TH ST KE R SEYWAYSE 8T H ST N E 37TH ST NW LA K E L A NDHI LLSWAYSEORAVETZRDSESE 320TH STDSTNW104THAVESE WESTVALLEYHWYSS 316TH ST D ST NE112TH AVE SEEAST VALLEY HWY EAuburn AveSE304THWAYSE 281ST ST 17TH ST SE 6TH ST SE 112TH AVE SESE30 4 T H ST A ST SEC ST NE2ND ST E STUCK RIVER DR SE 53RD ST SE SE 288TH ST 37TH ST SE M ST NE4 6 TH P L S 4 1 ST ST SE 22ND ST NE 17TH ST SE S 296TH ST 25TH ST SE 12TH ST SE R ST NEPERIMETERRDSWD ST SE55TH AVE SEAST BLVD56TH AVE S110TH AVE SEPACIFIC AVE S51ST AVE S118TH AVE SEGRE E N RIVERRDSE N ST NEW ST NWS 287TH ST SCENIC D R S E 62NDST SE 4 9 T H ST NE K ST SE58TH AVE SS 331ST S T 144THAVESEEVERGRE E N W A Y S EF ST SEACADEMYDRSET ST SEDOGWOOD ST SEMONTEVISTADRSEPIKE ST NEBRIDGET AVE SEH ST SEG ST SE57THPLSS 324TH ST B ST SEFOSTER AVE SEJOHNREDDINGTONRDNE1 0 5 THPLSE140TH AVE SEMILLPONDDRSE52ND AVE S47TH ST SE 56TH ST SE S 305TH ST USTNW54TH AVE S28TH ST NE E MAIN ST 30TH ST NE 51S T S T N E 26TH ST SE 3 5 T H W A Y S E S 3 0 0 T H S T 3 2 N D S T SE 36T HSTSEOL I VEAVESES E 3 1 8 T H W A Y 29TH ST NW ASTE 24TH ST SE SE 298TH PL HEMLOCK ST SEFOREST R ID G E DR SE23RD ST SE 22ND ST SE85TH AVE S4TH ST SE S 288TH ST SE 282ND ST O ST SE64TH AVE S111THPLSE20 TH ST SE SE 286TH ST 108THAVESEHICR EST D RNW1 0 4 T H P L S E 16TH ST SE 148TH AVE SE42ND ST NE 7 3 R D S T S E 3 7 T H W A YSET ST NW57TH ST SES292NDST ELM ST SESE 285TH ST SE312T H W AY61ST STSE GINKGOSTSE15TH ST SET ST NE45TH S T NE S 303RD PL S 322ND ST 19TH ST SE 21ST ST SE 33RD ST SE 55TH ST SE RANDALL AVE SE63R D P L S E WARD AVE SE107TH PL SE55THWAYSE 43RD ST NE 63RD PL S59TH AVE S133RD AVE SEFIR ST SE66TH AVE SSE 314TH PL S 328TH ST S 329TH PL S 321ST ST S ST SE65TH ST SEJ PL NE57TH ST SE17THSTSE56TH AVE SGSTSE4 9 T H S T N E B ST SES 292ND ST EVERGREENWAYSEK ST SEN ST NER ST NE118TH AVE SEM U C K L E S H O O TMUCKLESHOOTCASINOCASINO T H E T H E O U T L E T O U T L E T C O L L E C T I O N C O L L E C T I O N K E N TKENT K I N GKINGCOUN T YCOUNTY P I E R C EPIERCECOUNTYCOUNTY P A C I F I CPACIFIC S U M N E RSUMNEREDGEWOODEDGEWOOD A L G O N AALGONA C i t y o f A u b u r n 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. Printed On: 5/11/2018Map ID: 1772 Page 18 of 81 L A K ELAKETAPP STAPPS TS18 TS18 S 277TH ST 24TH ST E JOVITA BLVDE SE 2 74 T H S T PACIFIC AVE S132ND AVE SESE 272ND ST MI LI TARYR D S ELLINGSON RD SW 8TH ST E WESTVALLEYHWY140TH AVE E136TH AVE ES 272ND ST WEST VALLEY HWY S108TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NWSTEWART RD SWWEST VALLEYHWYEVALENTINE AVE SE68TH AVE S124TH AVE SE116TH AVE SE142NDAVEESTEWART RD SE A ST SEWESTVALLEYHWYSSE 272ND ST WEST V A L L EYHWYSS 2 7 7T H S T 124TH AVE SE12TH ST EMILITARYRDS182ND AVE EAUBURN-BLACKDIAMONDRDSES 288TH ST 9THST E 2 1 0 T H A V E E 16 TH S T E S2 72N D WAY A U B U R N -E N U M C L A W R D S 214TH AVE ES 272ND ST AUBURN WAY NMILITARYRDSTS167 TS167 A ST SEB ST NWI ST NEAUBURN WAY S C ST SWM ST SEAUBURN WAY NR ST SE51ST AVE S124TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY N132ND AVE SES 277TH ST C ST NW15TH ST SW W MAIN ST 15TH ST NW SE 304TH ST E M AIN S T LAK E T A P PSPKW YS E 29TH ST SE SE 312TH ST KE R SEYWAYSE 8T H ST NE 37TH ST NW LA K E L A N DHI LLSWAYSEORAVETZRDSESE 320TH ST P E A S L EYCANYON RD S DSTNW104THAVESEWESTVALLEYHWYSS 316TH ST 3 21ST ST S AUBURN-BLACKDIAMOND RD SED ST NE112TH AVE SEEAST VALLEY HWY ESE304THWAYSE 281ST ST 17TH ST SE 6TH ST SE SE30 4 T H ST112TH AVE SEA ST SEC ST NE2ND ST E STUCK RIVER D R SE 53RD ST SE SE 288TH ST 37TH ST SE M ST NE4 1 ST ST SE 22ND ST NE 17TH ST SE S 296TH ST 25TH ST SE 12TH ST SE R ST NEPERIMETERRDSWD ST SE55TH AVE SEAST BLVD56TH AVE S110TH AVE SEPACIFIC AVE S51ST AVE S118TH AVE SEGRE E N RIVERRDSE N ST NEW ST NWS 287TH ST SCENIC D R S E 62NDST SEA ST NE4 9 T H ST NE K ST SE58TH AVE S144THAVESEEVERGRE E N W A Y S EF ST SEACADEMYDRSET ST SEDOGWOOD ST SEMONTEVISTADRSEPIKE ST NEBRIDGET AVE SEH ST SEG ST SE57THPLSB ST SEFOSTER AVE SEJOHNREDDINGTONRDNE1 0 5 THPLSE140TH AVE SEMILLPONDDRSE52ND AVE S47TH ST SE 56TH ST SE S 305TH ST USTNW54TH AVE S28TH ST NE E MAIN ST 30TH ST NE 51S T S T N E 26TH ST SE 3 5 T H W A Y S E S 3 0 0 T H S T B ST NE3 2 N D S T SE 36T HSTSEO L I V EAVESES E 3 1 8 T H W A Y 29TH ST NW ASTE 24TH ST SE SE 298TH P L HEMLOCK ST SEFOREST R ID G E D R SE23RD ST SE 22ND ST SE85TH AVE SS 288TH ST O ST SESE 282ND ST 64TH AVE S111THPLSE20 TH ST S E SE 286TH ST 108THAVESEHICR EST D RNW1 0 4 T H P L S E 16TH ST SE 148TH AVE SE42ND ST NE 7 3 R D S T S E 3 7 T H W A YSET ST NW57T H S T SES292NDST SE 285TH ST ELM ST SESE312T H W AY61ST STSE GINKGOSTSE15TH ST SET ST NE45TH S T NE S 303RD PL 19TH ST SE S 302ND PL 21ST ST SE 33RD ST SE 55TH ST SE RANDALL AVE SE63R D P L S E WARD AVE SE55THWAYSE 43RD ST NE 63RD PL S59TH AVE S133RD AVE SEFIR ST SE66TH AVE SSE 314TH PL S 328TH ST S 321ST ST S ST SE65TH ST SEJ PL NEK ST SESE 282ND ST B ST SE57TH ST SE S 292ND ST R ST NE56TH AVE S17T H S T S E GSTSE118TH AVE SE4 9 T H S T N E N ST NEEVERGREENWAYSEM U C K L E S H O O TMUCKLESHOOTCASINOCASINO T H E T H E O U T L E T O U T L E T C O L L E C T I O N C O L L E C T I O N K E N TKENT K I N GKINGCOUN T YCOUNTY P I E R C EPIERCECOUNTYCOUNTY P A C I F I CPACIFIC S U M N E RSUMNEREDGEWOODEDGEWOOD A L G O N AALGONA A r t e r i a l & C o l l e c t o r P a v e m e n t C o n d i t i o n s I n f o r m a t i o n s h o w n i s f o r g e n e r a l r e f e r e n c e p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t e x a c t g e o g r a p h i c o r c a r t o g r a p h i c d a t a a s m a p p e d . T h e C i t y o f A u b u r n m a k e s n o w a r r a n t y a s t o i t s a c c u r a c y. P r i n t e d O n : 3 /2 7 /2 0 1 8Map I D : 5 9 7 50 - 2 5 V e r y P o o r 2 6 - 5 0 P o o r 5 1 - 6 9 F a i r 7 0 - 1 0 0 G o o d Page 19 of 81 L A K ELAKETAPP STAPPS TS18 TS18 S 277TH ST 24TH ST E SE 2 74 TH S T PACIFIC AVE SJOVITABLVDE 132ND AVE SEELLINGSON RD SW SE 272ND ST 8TH ST E WESTVALLEYHWY140TH AVE E136TH AVE ES 272ND ST WEST VALLEY HWY S108TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NWM ILIT A R Y R D S STEWART RD SWWEST VALLEYHWYEVALENTINE AVE SE68TH AVE S124TH AVE SE116TH AVE SE142NDAVEESTEWART RD SE A ST SEWESTVALLEYHWYSSE 272ND ST WEST V A L L EYHWYSS 2 7 7T H S T 124TH AVE SE12TH ST EMILITARY RD SAUBURN-BLACKDIAMONDRDSE182ND AVE E9THST E S 288TH ST 2 1 0 T H A V E E 16 TH S T E S2 72N D WAY 214TH AVE EA U B U R N-E N U M C L A W R D SAUBURN WAY NMILITARYRDSTS167 TS167 A ST SEB ST NWI ST NEAUBURN W AY S C ST SWM ST SEAUBURN WAY NR ST SE124TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NS 277TH ST C ST NW15TH ST SW W MAIN ST 15TH ST NW SE 304TH ST E MA IN S T LAK E T A P PSPKW YS E 132ND AVE SE51ST AVE S29TH ST SE SE 312TH ST KE R SEYWAYSE 8T H ST N E 37TH ST NW LA K E L A NDHI LLSWAYSEORAVETZRDSESE 320TH STDSTNW104THAVESE WESTVALLEYHWYSS 316TH ST D ST NE112TH AVE SEEAST VALLEY HWY EAuburn AveSE304THWAYSE 281ST ST 17TH ST SE 6TH ST SE 112TH AVE SESE30 4 T H ST A ST SEC ST NE2ND ST E STUCK RIVER DR SE 53RD ST SE SE 288TH ST 37TH ST SE M ST NE4 6 TH P L S 4 1 ST ST SE 22ND ST NE 17TH ST SE S 296TH ST 25TH ST SE 12TH ST SE R ST NEPERIMETERRDSWD ST SE55TH AVE SEAST BLVD56TH AVE S110TH AVE SEPACIFIC AVE S51ST AVE S118TH AVE SEGRE E N RIVERRDSE N ST NEW ST NWS 287TH ST SCENIC D R S E 62NDST SE 4 9 T H ST NE K ST SE58TH AVE SS 331ST S T 144THAVESEEVERGRE E N W A Y S EF ST SEACADEMYDRSET ST SEDOGWOOD ST SEMONTEVISTADRSEPIKE ST NEBRIDGET AVE SEH ST SEG ST SE57THPLSS 324TH ST B ST SEFOSTER AVE SEJOHNREDDINGTONRDNE1 0 5 THPLSE140TH AVE SEMILLPONDDRSE52ND AVE S47TH ST SE 56TH ST SE S 305TH ST USTNW54TH AVE S28TH ST NE E MAIN ST 30TH ST NE 51S T S T N E 26TH ST SE 3 5 T H W A Y S E S 3 0 0 T H S T 3 2 N D S T SE 36T HSTSEOL I VEAVESES E 3 1 8 T H W A Y 29TH ST NW ASTE 24TH ST SE SE 298TH PL HEMLOCK ST SEFOREST R ID G E DR SE23RD ST SE 22ND ST SE85TH AVE S4TH ST SE S 288TH ST SE 282ND ST O ST SE64TH AVE S111THPLSE20 TH ST SE SE 286TH ST 108THAVESEHICR EST D RNW1 0 4 T H P L S E 16TH ST SE 148TH AVE SE42ND ST NE 7 3 R D S T S E 3 7 T H W A YSET ST NW57TH ST SES292NDST ELM ST SESE 285TH ST SE312T H W AY61ST STSE GINKGOSTSE15TH ST SET ST NE45TH S T NE S 303RD PL S 322ND ST 19TH ST SE 21ST ST SE 33RD ST SE 55TH ST SE RANDALL AVE SE63R D P L S E WARD AVE SE107TH PL SE55THWAYSE 43RD ST NE 63RD PL S59TH AVE S133RD AVE SEFIR ST SE66TH AVE SSE 314TH PL S 328TH ST S 329TH PL S 321ST ST S ST SE65TH ST SEJ PL NE57TH ST SE17THSTSE56TH AVE SGSTSE4 9 T H S T N E B ST SES 292ND ST EVERGREENWAYSEK ST SEN ST NER ST NE118TH AVE SEM U C K L E S H O O TMUCKLESHOOTCASINOCASINO T H E T H E O U T L E T O U T L E T C O L L E C T I O N C O L L E C T I O N K E N TKENT K I N GKINGCOUN T YCOUNTY P I E R C EPIERCECOUNTYCOUNTY P A C I F I CPACIFIC S U M N E RSUMNEREDGEWOODEDGEWOOD A L G O N AALGONA C i t y o f A u b u r n 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. Printed On: 5/11/2018Map ID: 1772 Page 20 of 81 L A K ELAKETAPP STAPPS TS18 TS18 S 277TH ST 24TH ST E JOVITA BLVDE SE 2 74 T H S T PACIFIC AVE S132ND AVE SESE 272ND ST MI LI TARYR D S ELLINGSON RD SW 8TH ST E WESTVALLEYHWY140TH AVE E136TH AVE ES 272ND ST WEST VALLEY HWY S108TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NWSTEWART RD SWWEST VALLEYHWYEVALENTINE AVE SE68TH AVE S124TH AVE SE116TH AVE SE142NDAVEESTEWART RD SE A ST SEWESTVALLEYHWYSSE 272ND ST WEST V A L L EYHWYSS 2 7 7T H S T 124TH AVE SE12TH ST EMILITARYRDS182ND AVE EAUBURN-BLACKDIAMONDRDSES 288TH ST 9THST E 2 1 0 T H A V E E 16 TH S T E S2 72N D WAY A U B U R N -E N U M C L A W R D S 214TH AVE ES 272ND ST AUBURN WAY NMILITARYRDSTS167 TS167 A ST SEB ST NWI ST NEAUBURN WAY S C ST SWM ST SEAUBURN WAY NR ST SE51ST AVE S124TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY N132ND AVE SES 277TH ST C ST NW15TH ST SW W MAIN ST 15TH ST NW SE 304TH ST E M AIN S T LAK E T A P PSPKW YS E 29TH ST SE SE 312TH ST KE R SEYWAYSE 8T H ST NE 37TH ST NW LA K E L A N DHI LLSWAYSEORAVETZRDSESE 320TH ST P E A S L EYCANYON RD S DSTNW104THAVESEWESTVALLEYHWYSS 316TH ST 3 21ST ST S AUBURN-BLACKDIAMOND RD SED ST NE112TH AVE SEEAST VALLEY HWY ESE304THWAYSE 281ST ST 17TH ST SE 6TH ST SE SE30 4 T H ST112TH AVE SEA ST SEC ST NE2ND ST E STUCK RIVER D R SE 53RD ST SE SE 288TH ST 37TH ST SE M ST NE4 1 ST ST SE 22ND ST NE 17TH ST SE S 296TH ST 25TH ST SE 12TH ST SE R ST NEPERIMETERRDSWD ST SE55TH AVE SEAST BLVD56TH AVE S110TH AVE SEPACIFIC AVE S51ST AVE S118TH AVE SEGRE E N RIVERRDSE N ST NEW ST NWS 287TH ST SCENIC D R S E 62NDST SEA ST NE4 9 T H ST NE K ST SE58TH AVE S144THAVESEEVERGRE E N W A Y S EF ST SEACADEMYDRSET ST SEDOGWOOD ST SEMONTEVISTADRSEPIKE ST NEBRIDGET AVE SEH ST SEG ST SE57THPLSB ST SEFOSTER AVE SEJOHNREDDINGTONRDNE1 0 5 THPLSE140TH AVE SEMILLPONDDRSE52ND AVE S47TH ST SE 56TH ST SE S 305TH ST USTNW54TH AVE S28TH ST NE E MAIN ST 30TH ST NE 51S T S T N E 26TH ST SE 3 5 T H W A Y S E S 3 0 0 T H S T B ST NE3 2 N D S T SE 36T HSTSEO L I V EAVESES E 3 1 8 T H W A Y 29TH ST NW ASTE 24TH ST SE SE 298TH P L HEMLOCK ST SEFOREST R ID G E D R SE23RD ST SE 22ND ST SE85TH AVE SS 288TH ST O ST SESE 282ND ST 64TH AVE S111THPLSE20 TH ST S E SE 286TH ST 108THAVESEHICR EST D RNW1 0 4 T H P L S E 16TH ST SE 148TH AVE SE42ND ST NE 7 3 R D S T S E 3 7 T H W A YSET ST NW57T H S T SES292NDST SE 285TH ST ELM ST SESE312T H W AY61ST STSE GINKGOSTSE15TH ST SET ST NE45TH S T NE S 303RD PL 19TH ST SE S 302ND PL 21ST ST SE 33RD ST SE 55TH ST SE RANDALL AVE SE63R D P L S E WARD AVE SE55THWAYSE 43RD ST NE 63RD PL S59TH AVE S133RD AVE SEFIR ST SE66TH AVE SSE 314TH PL S 328TH ST S 321ST ST S ST SE65TH ST SEJ PL NEK ST SESE 282ND ST B ST SE57TH ST SE S 292ND ST R ST NE56TH AVE S17T H S T S E GSTSE118TH AVE SE4 9 T H S T N E N ST NEEVERGREENWAYSEM U C K L E S H O O TMUCKLESHOOTCASINOCASINO T H E T H E O U T L E T O U T L E T C O L L E C T I O N C O L L E C T I O N K E N TKENT K I N GKINGCOUN T YCOUNTY P I E R C EPIERCECOUNTYCOUNTY P A C I F I CPACIFIC S U M N E RSUMNEREDGEWOODEDGEWOOD A L G O N AALGONA L o c a l P a v e m e n t C o n d i t i o n s I n f o r m a t i o n s h o w n i s f o r g e n e r a l r e f e r e n c e p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t e x a c t g e o g r a p h i c o r c a r t o g r a p h i c d a t a a s m a p p e d . T h e C i t y o f A u b u r n m a k e s n o w a r r a n t y a s t o i t s a c c u r a c y. P r i n t e d O n : 3 /2 3 /2 0 1 8Map I D : 5 9 7 60 - 2 5 V e r y P o o r 2 6 - 5 0 P o o r 5 1 - 6 9 F a i r 7 0 - 1 0 0 G o o d Page 21 of 81 L A K ELAKETAPP STAPPS TS18 TS18 S 277TH ST 24TH ST E JOVITA BLVDE SE 2 74 T H S T PACIFIC AVE S132ND AVE SESE 272ND ST MI LI TARYR D S ELLINGSON RD SW 8TH ST E WESTVALLEYHWY140TH AVE E136TH AVE ES 272ND ST WEST VALLEY HWY S108TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NWSTEWART RD SWWEST VALLEYHWYEVALENTINE AVE SE68TH AVE S124TH AVE SE116TH AVE SE142NDAVEESTEWART RD SE A ST SEWESTVALLEYHWYSSE 272ND ST WEST V A L L EYHWYSS 2 7 7T H S T 124TH AVE SE12TH ST EMILITARYRDS182ND AVE EAUBURN-BLACKDIAMONDRDSES 288TH ST 9THST E 2 1 0 T H A V E E 16 TH S T E S2 72N D WAY A U B U R N -E N U M C L A W R D S 214TH AVE ES 272ND ST AUBURN WAY NMILITARYRDSTS167 TS167 A ST SEB ST NWI ST NEAUBURN WAY S C ST SWM ST SEAUBURN WAY NR ST SE51ST AVE S124TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY N132ND AVE SES 277TH ST C ST NW15TH ST SW W MAIN ST 15TH ST NW SE 304TH ST E M AIN S T LAK E T A P PSPKW YS E 29TH ST SE SE 312TH ST KE R SEYWAYSE 8T H ST NE 37TH ST NW LA K E L A N DHI LLSWAYSEORAVETZRDSESE 320TH ST P E A S L EYCANYON RD S DSTNW104THAVESEWESTVALLEYHWYSS 316TH ST 3 21ST ST S AUBURN-BLACKDIAMOND RD SED ST NE112TH AVE SEEAST VALLEY HWY ESE304THWAYSE 281ST ST 17TH ST SE 6TH ST SE SE30 4 T H ST112TH AVE SEA ST SEC ST NE2ND ST E STUCK RIVER D R SE 53RD ST SE SE 288TH ST 37TH ST SE M ST NE4 1 ST ST SE 22ND ST NE 17TH ST SE S 296TH ST 25TH ST SE 12TH ST SE R ST NEPERIMETERRDSWD ST SE55TH AVE SEAST BLVD56TH AVE S110TH AVE SEPACIFIC AVE S51ST AVE S118TH AVE SEGRE E N RIVERRDSE N ST NEW ST NWS 287TH ST SCENIC D R S E 62NDST SEA ST NE4 9 T H ST NE K ST SE58TH AVE S144THAVESEEVERGRE E N W A Y S EF ST SEACADEMYDRSET ST SEDOGWOOD ST SEMONTEVISTADRSEPIKE ST NEBRIDGET AVE SEH ST SEG ST SE57THPLSB ST SEFOSTER AVE SEJOHNREDDINGTONRDNE1 0 5 THPLSE140TH AVE SEMILLPONDDRSE52ND AVE S47TH ST SE 56TH ST SE S 305TH ST USTNW54TH AVE S28TH ST NE E MAIN ST 30TH ST NE 51S T S T N E 26TH ST SE 3 5 T H W A Y S E S 3 0 0 T H S T B ST NE3 2 N D S T SE 36T HSTSEO L I V EAVESES E 3 1 8 T H W A Y 29TH ST NW ASTE 24TH ST SE SE 298TH P L HEMLOCK ST SEFOREST R ID G E D R SE23RD ST SE 22ND ST SE85TH AVE SS 288TH ST O ST SESE 282ND ST 64TH AVE S111THPLSE20 TH ST S E SE 286TH ST 108THAVESEHICR EST D RNW1 0 4 T H P L S E 16TH ST SE 148TH AVE SE42ND ST NE 7 3 R D S T S E 3 7 T H W A YSET ST NW57T H S T SES292NDST SE 285TH ST ELM ST SESE312T H W AY61ST STSE GINKGOSTSE15TH ST SET ST NE45TH S T NE S 303RD PL 19TH ST SE S 302ND PL 21ST ST SE 33RD ST SE 55TH ST SE RANDALL AVE SE63R D P L S E WARD AVE SE55THWAYSE 43RD ST NE 63RD PL S59TH AVE S133RD AVE SEFIR ST SE66TH AVE SSE 314TH PL S 328TH ST S 321ST ST S ST SE65TH ST SEJ PL NEK ST SESE 282ND ST B ST SE57TH ST SE S 292ND ST R ST NE56TH AVE S17T H S T S E GSTSE118TH AVE SE4 9 T H S T N E N ST NEEVERGREENWAYSEM U C K L E S H O O TMUCKLESHOOTCASINOCASINO T H E T H E O U T L E T O U T L E T C O L L E C T I O N C O L L E C T I O N K E N TKENT K I N GKINGCOUN T YCOUNTY P I E R C EPIERCECOUNTYCOUNTY P A C I F I CPACIFIC S U M N E RSUMNEREDGEWOODEDGEWOOD A L G O N AALGONA C i t y w i d e R i d e Q u a l i t y (P C I -I M S ) 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. Printed On: 3/6/2018Map ID: 59740 -20 Very Poor // Uncomfortable with constant bumps or depressions 20 - 40 Poor .. Uncomfortable with frequest bumps or depressions 40 - 60 Fair .. Comfortable with intemittent bumps or de pressions 60 - 80 Good // Smooth with a few bumps or depressions 80 -100 Exce llent // Ve ry Smooth Page 22 of 81 APPENDIX A 1 PAVEMENT INVENTORY & RATING Pavement condition surveys that are conducted by the consulting service providers every few years use a semi-autonomous process where technicians drive over each road in the street system to rate the condition. The vehicle is equipped with high grade Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment as well as a laser measuring device to measure the depth of rutting present in each lane and to measure the roughness of the ride. All of this is done as one of the technicians visually rates each segment of pavement based on the amount of surface distress that is present, the amount of damage and distress is called the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), while the GPS is used to tie all of the data collected in the field to the street network maps of the City of Auburn’s Geographic Information System (GIS). The PCI ratings, rut depths, and roughness of ride are all measures that help to determine when a stretch of pavement is due for rehabilitation or replacement. The three metrics are used to rate a pavement segment as very good, good, fair, poor, or very poor. A good condition pavement is smooth with few defects while a poor condition pavement is characterized by cracking, patching, rutting and roughness. Pavement segments are prioritized for rehabilitation based on the condition survey, along with input from several of the City’s departments to determine which streets are packaged into a particular street project. A caveat to street ratings is that there are always several streets that do not receive any pavement treatments between when pavement ratings are completed, and these streets show an increase in PCI scoring despite not having work done on them. There are always variations between ratings that can result in a several PCI point increase from one rating to the next. Different pavement rating technicians will look at a segment of pavement and have differing opinions about the condition of the roadway. Also something as simple as an overcast day may affect the way a pavement is rated visually, because the flat light makes it difficult to see hairline cracking, and other distresses. The pavement rating process has been automated to record a lot of the distresses that factor into a pavement score, however there are several distresses that are continue to be rated visually by a technician. That makes the process somewhat subjective and dependent upon a person’s judgment. Ratings can be skewed by something as simple as rating pavements during an overcast day while the low light level makes it much more difficult to distinguish pavement distresses (such as hairline cracking) that would normally be seen in full daylight. Additionally, there will always be variation in what different pavement rating technicians see and how they quantify severity of different pavement distresses. Additionally the way pavement rating services rate Page 23 of 81 APPENDIX A 2 chip seal streets has changed. They modified their protocol for the way they performed their survey to be more consistent with industry standards and practice. The pavement rating service no longer factors in pavement “raveling” as a distress in chip seal pavements. The existing chip seal pavements were rated more harshly than they should have been in 2013, and showed a large increase in PCI rating (approximately 15 PCI points) in 2017 as a result of that different rating methodology. The City of Auburn, like most cities, utilizes a Pavement Management Database to track pavement condition, manage the street system, and model overall system performance. In the case of the Arterial and Collector Street conditions, we are aware that many of our aging Arterial and Collector Streets, while constructed to the standards at the time, are inadequate for the amount of vehicle loading that they carry today. Having more accurate information allows us to make better projections of future conditions and budget needs for long range planning. HOW WILL THE CITY IMPROVE IN THE FUTURE? Additional testing methods to test the strength of the pavements in the network will be used to determine the structure of the pavements in the street system. These tests may include: · Falling Weight Deflectometer testing to test pavement strength and subsoil bearing capacity. · Ground Penetrating Radar to determine network pavement thicknesses on a mass scale. The City has learned expensive lessons on recent projects where the project was intended to grind and overlay a section of roadway only to discover that the pavement was extremely thin, and needed to be completely rebuilt instead. This could have been planned for if we had known the pavement structure in advance of the project. · Core sample testing for streets to determine if the pavement structure is adequate for the existing pavement loading. Core samples are collected with a special drill that allows a cylindrical sample of the pavement to be extracted from the roadway. This is especially useful because we will be able to excavate to see what the underlying pavement foundation consists of. Additionally, the use of a pavement rating service provider that employs a fully automated pavement rating process would be beneficial to have all of the load related pavement distresses rated objectively, and would provide City staff with a data set that can be relied upon. Using a more objective pavement rating method would create more assurance in the data set, and be a more reliable starting point in the street selection process. The City needs to be able to focus energy on the correct projects at the correct times to maximize the use and benefit of available funding. WHAT DO THE NUMBERS MEAN? Pavement Condition Index (PCI) The City measures pavement condition using the PCI for each street in the network. PCI values represent pavement condition based on a scale from 0 to 100 with 100 being newly constructed pavement and 0 indicating a pavement that has failed. The City’s goal for the Arterial Street Page 24 of 81 APPENDIX A 3 Preservation Program and Local Street Preservation Program is to reach and maintain a PCI at or above 70. PCI values generally indicate surface condition and are useful in indicating the best time to repair the pavement. The most cost effective time to preserve pavements is when the PCI ratings are in the 60-70 range, because the pavement repair typically requires relatively less expensive treatments that preserve the existing pavement and extend the useful life of the pavement. Additionally, pavement condition tends to diminish at an accelerated rate after they have reached a PCI range of 50-60. Pavements with moderate to low PCI values usually require more expensive rehabilitative treatments. Pavements with very low PCI values are often unsalvageable and have to undergo a very expensive rebuild. International Roughness Index (IRI) The International Roughness Index (IRI) was developed by the World Bank in the 1980s. IRI is used to define the characteristic ride of a traveled wheel path and constitutes a standardized roughness measurement. The commonly used units are inches per mile (in/mi) or meters per kilometer (m/km). The IRI is based on a standardized vehicle’s accumulated suspension motion (in inches, mm, etc.) divided by the distance traveled by the vehicle during the measurement (in/mi, m/km, etc.). Roughness is an important pavement characteristic because it affects not only ride quality but also vehicle delay costs, fuel consumption and maintenance costs; also, the general public perception of a good road is one that provides a smooth ride. The citywide map showing the ride quality rating that was collected in 2017 for all of the streets in the City is shown on Map 6 – Citywide Ride Quality Rating. In the pavement rating surveys that were completed in 2013 and 2017, IRI data was collected and recorded on a zero to one hundred scale. Several State agencies actually use IRI as a parameter for street selection for improvement projects. The City of Auburn has not established an official policy on the use of IRI data for managing the street system; however, the roughness of a roadway segment can be a tie breaker between similarly rated streets (PCI rating) to be included in a project. Ride quality is a frequent comment that we receive from our citizens, so having this data helps to be able to track and anticipate issues that may arise in the future. Additionally, in the future after we have conducted more pavement rating surveys and have a chance to analyze the trends in pavement roughness, then IRI may become a factored metric in the street selection process for the City. Table 5 below shows how the numerical ratings correspond with the rider experience. Table 5 - IRI Ratings Rating Rank Description 80 – 100 Excellent Very smooth 60 – 80 Good Smooth with a few bumps or depressions 40 – 60 Fair Comfortable with intermittent bumps or depressions 20 – 40 Poor Uncomfortable with frequent bumps or depressions 0 – 20 Very Poor Uncomfortable with constant bumps or depression Pavement Rut Depth Measurement The City’s pavement rating service provider measured pavement Rut Depth with an automated laser rut measuring device. The rut depth is measured for each street in the network, and then Page 25 of 81 APPENDIX A 4 averaged over the length of each street segment. Pavement rutting can create safety issues if the depth of the rut is deep enough to interrupt the flow of water across the cross slope of the road. These issues directly affect a vehicles ability to handle and stop in normal traffic situations. The Washington State Department of Transportation considers a rut depth of greater than 0.5-inch to be a maximum threshold before it triggers a pavement maintenance operation to be performed. The maximum threshold value makes sense for WSDOT since the highway system has a much greater average speed limit and standard cross slope for a highway is 2%. The City of Auburn Arterial roads typically have a range of speeds between 30 mph and 45 mph, with a Standard design cross slope of 3%. A 3% cross slope and the lower speeds of City streets results in much lower risk of hydroplaning, however standing water negatively affects a vehicle’s ability to stop. Although the City does not have a policy on the use of rut depth as a trigger to preserve roadways, the data is useful to monitor and track the condition of roads. If an otherwise intact piece of pavement is showing extreme rutting, then that is an indication that either the pavement subgrade is failing or the roadway is extremely overloaded by heavy vehicles. These instances would be clear indications that something needs to be done to correct these rutting issues, and could serve as proper justification for including a particular street in a project. AUBURN’S STREET SELECTION PROCESS The City contracts with service providers to rate Auburn’s street system periodically and rates each street segment as discussed in the previous section. Since the repair costs for the overall system far exceeds what the City can fund in any given year, the City then prioritizes, narrows and selects a limited number of streets for each of the annual street preservation programs. There are many factors the City considers when determining which streets to rebuild and or rehabilitate each year. Staff uses the Pavement Management Database to produce a list of street segments that are in the PCI range for the type of project that is being programmed: a reconstruction or preservation project. It is worth pointing out that the pavement ratings alone do not determine which streets will be included in a particular project; they are simply a tool that focuses staff on streets that are an issue. The engineering staff performs a site review of perspective streets that may be shortlisted for inclusion into a project. With all of the moving parts involved with the street selection process; between the street issues, utility priorities, maintenance and operation requirements, traffic volumes, and budgets to balance; the priority of a particular stretch of street being included in a project rises and falls with consideration of each of these parameters. The underlying message is that the PCI of a street is not the only factor used in street selection, but is one of a host of deliberations that occur to package a project together. City staff confirm the ratings, compile site specific data, take pictures, etc. Next staff will estimate the rough cost to do the work at each site. One of the most important factors the City considers when choosing which streets to rebuild or improve is City owned Utility input. If there is a need to improve a utility along with improving the street, then staff takes into account the availability of Utility funds and balances the budgetary needs of both City programs. If the City Utilities have a long range plan to improve their infrastructure in the street but lack immediate funding, then that would be a suitable reason to delay working on a particular roadway. Replacing the utility mains at the same time as street restoration is much more economical and disturbs the neighboring residences only once. Additionally, it prevents newly Page 26 of 81 APPENDIX A 5 reconstructed or treated roadway surfaces from being damaged by trenching to replace underground utilities. The City’s Maintenance and Operations Division are consulted during street selection processes, because they have knowledge about problem streets where excessive resources are being spent on temporary repairs. Streets that require more regular maintenance, streets with significant drainage issues and streets will poor ride quality are all given a high level of priority. Additionally the volume of vehicles per day, number of businesses and residents being served by a street are also factors in street selection. Other deliberations include coordination with third party utility companies and with private development projects when selecting streets to improve each year. Finally, the cost of the improvements need to be right sized for the available preservation budget, and will limit the amount of pavement work that can be accomplished in a given year. Table 6 below shows the various pavement preservation treatments used for different PCI ranges, and the typical life span and approximate cost of each treatment type. Page 27 of 81 APPENDIX A 6 Table 1 – Pavement Preservation Treatments Pavement Condition Typical Treatment Typical Life of Treatment* Typical Cost ** PCI 90 - 100 Like-New Condition No Treatment Needed N/A N/A PCI 70 - 89 Good Condition Seal Cracks – Cracks are sealed with liquid asphalt to prevent water from penetrating the pavement and weakening the base material that forms the foundation for the pavement. 2 - 4 years $0.75 per square yard PCI 50 - 69 Fair Condition Patching and Overlay – Broken pavement is replaced (patched) to renew the load carrying ability of the existing pavement. Then the road is overlaid with a thin layer of pavement (1.5 – 2 inches) to preserve the existing pavement and provide a smooth driving surface. 15 – 20 years $30 to $41 per square yard Chip Seal – A thin layer of liquid asphalt is sprayed over the entire pavement surface and then covered with a thin layer of aggregate. Chip seals typically do not last as long as a thin overlay nor do they provide as smooth of a driving surface. 3 - 10 years $8 to $12 per square yard PCI 25 - 49 Poor Condition Extensive Patching and Overlay – Same treatment as above only more extensive patching is typically required. (Some streets in this condition require a thicker overlay of 2 inches or greater). 15 - 20 years $40 to $46 per square yard Double Chip Seal – A thin layer of liquid asphalt is sprayed over the entire pavement surface and then covered with a thin layer of aggregate, then this process is repeated a second time. Based on experience, the City has found that double chip seals typically last longer than single chip seals, especially when the existing pavement is in poor condition. 3 - 10 Years $10 - $17 per square yard PCI 0 - 24 Very Poor Condition Rebuild Pavement – Existing pavement is completely removed and a new road is constructed. 20 to 30 years $143 to $293 per square yard *Life of treatment will vary based on the traffic volume and type of vehicles that use the street, the structure of the pavement and underlying soil, the age of the existing pavement, and the amount of vehicle turning/stopping movements on the street. **The typical cost of pavement treatments are based on recent bid history from City projects and other jurisdictions that were done in 2016 and 2017. Page 28 of 81 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (Tate) (10 Minutes) Date: June 19, 2018 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memorandum Attachment A - Letter of Commitments Attachment B - Summit Intro History and Overview Attachment C - Interlocal Agreement Budget Impact: Current Budget: $0 Proposed Revision: $0 Revised Budget: $0 Administrativ e Recommendation: Background Summary: Please see the attached memorandum Rev iewed by Council Committees: Other: Planning Councilmember:Staff:Tate Meeting Date:June 25, 2018 Item Number: Page 29 of 81 Memorandum To: City Council Members From: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development CC: Mayor Nancy Backus Date: June 18, 2018 Re: King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) - K4C OVERVIEW: The King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) was founded in 2012 as a voluntary but formal partnership between cities and King County. The purpose of this initiative is for partners to collaboarate on outreach, solutions, funding, and resources that are designed to reduce carbon pollution and emissions. Attached to this memo are the following items that help provide additional background information, mission and purpose, and the template document that would formalize Auburn as a K4C partner agency. Attachment A: The K4C “Joint Letter of Commitment” which outlines the program and its purpose, objectives, principles for collaboration, commitments, goals, and examples of how goals and commitments are achieved. Attachment B: A recent powerpoint presentation provided by K4C at their 2018 Elected Officials Summit. The presentation provides additiona background information and some of the current efforts that K4C is working on. Attachment C: The K4C Interlocal Agreement that the City of Auburn would enter into if the City has interest in participating in the initiative. Specific examples of what Auburn’s involvement in K4C will look like are as follows: • Participate in the development of messaging and tools for climate change outreach to engage decision makers, other cities and the general public. • Collaboarte on adopting consistent standards, benchmarks, strategies and overall goals to respond to climate change. • Share local success stories, challenges, data and products that support and enhance climate mitigation efforts. • Collaborate to secure grant funding and other shared resource opportunities to support climate related projects and programs. • Engaging with the Washington State Legislature and utility purveyors regarding clean power. As stated in the interlocal agreement, it is not the intent of the agreement to create, supplant, preempt or supersede the authority or role of the City. The agreement also states that tools, outreach materials, data, and collaborative efforts and resources developed as part of the initiative are optional for the City to adopt or utilize. As shown in Attachment C, in order for the City of Auburn to join K4C there is an annual financial obligation of $2,000.00 per year and a requirement that the Mayor enter into an interlocal agreement with King County. Page 30 of 81 If the City of Auburn chooses to join the K4C initiative the City will have to appoint a designee and an alternate to serve as representatives. The designee and alternate is assigned to City staff who meet on a monthly basis along with elected official attendance at annual or semi- annual summits/events. DISCUSSION: 1. Does City Council have interest in joining the K4C initiative? 2. Prior to making a committmen, would City Council prefer to arrange for a presentation by K4C at a future Study Session in order to learn more or ask more specific questions? Page 31 of 81 Climate change is a paramount challenge of this generation and has far-reaching and fundamental consequences for our economy, environment, public health, and safety. Across King County and its cities, we are already experiencing the impacts of climate change: warming temperatures, acidifying marine waters, rising seas, decreasing mountain snowpack, and less water in streams during the summer. These changes have the potential for signiﬁcant impacts to public and private property, resource based economies like agriculture and forestry, and to residents’ health and quality of life. The decisions we make locally and regionally, such as where our communities will grow and how they will be served by transportation, will set the stage for success or failure in reducing carbon pollution, making sound long-term investments, and ensuring our communities are livable and resilient to climate change impacts. Current science indicates that to avoid the worst impacts of global warming we need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions sharply. The King County Growth Management Planning Council – a formal body of elected ofﬁcials from across King County - voted unanimously on July 23, 2014 to adopt a shared target to reduce countywide sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, compared to a 2007 baseline, by 25% by 2020, 50% by 2030, and 80% by 2050. Based on our shared assessment of emissions in King County, and review of potential strategies to reduce emissions, we believe that these targets are ambitious but achievable. Building on the work of the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) - a partnership between the County and cities to coordinate and enhance local government climate and sustainability efforts – more than a dozen cities and the County came together in the ﬁrst half of 2014 to chart opportunities for joint actions to reduce GHG emissions and accelerate progress towards a clean and sustainable future. The attached Principles for Collaboration and Joint County-City Climate Commitments are focused on practical, near-term, collaborative opportunities between cities and King County. These shared commitments build on the signiﬁcant work that many of our cities and County are already taking. By signing this letter, we pledge our support for the shared vision that these principles and actions represent. Our cities commit to actively pursue those strategies and catalytic actions where our jurisdictions can make the most impact given our size, location, and development patterns. Through focused, coordinated action, we will maximize the impact of our individual and shared efforts. Joint Letter of Commitment: Climate Change Actions in King County ACIDIC MARINE WATERSWARMING TEMPERATURES RISINGSEALEVELS DECREASING MTN.SNOWPACK LESSWATER INSTREAMS SUMMER Page 32 of 81 Elected Ofﬁcials of King County and King County Cities Dow Constantine King County Executive Larry Phillips King County Council Chair Bruce Bassett Mayor, City of Mercer Island Matthew Larson Mayor, City of Snoqualmie Shari E. Winstead Mayor, City of Shoreline Amy Walen Mayor, City of Kirkland John Marchione Mayor, City of Redmond Claudia Balducci, Mayor, City of Bellevue Lucy Krakowiak Mayor, City of Burien Jim Haggerton Mayor, City of Tukwila Edward B. Murray Mayor, City of Seattle Fred Butler Mayor, City of Issaquah Tom Vance Mayor, City of Sammamish Denis Law Mayor, City of Renton Page 33 of 81 Climate change is the paramount challenge of our generation, and has fundamental and far-reaching consequences for our economy, environment, and public health and safety. Strong action to reduce GHG emissions is needed, and the time is now. Local governments can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through many decisions related to transportation and land use, energy and green building, forests and farms, and consumption and materials management. Many cities in King County have set individual climate goals and are taking steps to reduce local GHG emissions, and we need to build on this leadership. Local solutions need to be implemented in ways that build a cleaner, stronger and more resilient regional economy. Progress will require deeper engagement with communities of color and low income, immigrant, and youth populations. These communities can be more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change–from increasing ﬂood risks to rising costs of fossil fuels – and historically less likely to be included in community-scale solutions or as leaders. We are committed to work in ways that are fair, equitable, empowering, and inclusive and that also ensure that low income residents do not bear unfair costs of solutions. Federal and state policies and laws can help us achieve our goals, but countywide and local policy, programs and partnerships are needed to ﬁll the existing gap to achieve local GHG targets. Progress will require deep partnerships between the County, cities, utilities, businesses, nonproﬁt organizations, and other public sector agencies. King County and nine cities have formed the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C), and we will work to build on this initial pledge, both in increased action and increased participation from additional cities. We can accomplish more with a shared vision and coordinated action; collaboration will increase the efﬁciency of our efforts and magnify the impact of our strategies beyond what each of us could achieve on our own. Our cities support the shared vision that the Joint County-City Climate Commitments represent, but it is not the intention that each city will pursue every catalytic action. Cities and King County will actively pursue strategies where they have the most impact and inﬂuence. We will reconvene at least annually to share progress. We also dedicate a staff point person from our cities and from the County to help coordinate implementation of the following Joint County-City Climate Commitments, and to serve as a point person to the K4C. Principles for Collaboration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Page 34 of 81 I. Shared Goals Pathway: Adopt science-based countywide GHG reduction targets that help ensure the region is doing its part to confront climate change. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Collaborate through the Growth Management Planning Council, Sound Cities Association, and other partners to adopt countywide GHG emissions reduction targets, including mid-term milestones needed to support long-term reduction goals. Catalytic Project or Program: Build on King County’s commitment to measure and report on countywide GHG emissions by sharing this data between cities and partners, establishing a public facing dashboard for tracking progress, and using the information to inform regional climate action. II. Climate Policy Pathway: Support strong federal, regional, state, countywide and local climate policy. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Advocate for comprehensive federal, regional and state science-based limits and a market-based price on carbon pollution and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A portion of revenue from these policies should support local GHG reduction efforts that align with these Joint County-City Climate Commitments, such as funding for transit service, energy efﬁciency projects, and forest protection and restoration initiatives. III. Transportation and Land Use Pathway: For passenger vehicles and light trucks, reduce vehicle miles traveled by 20% below 2012 levels by 2030 and GHG emissions intensity of fuels by 15% below 2012 levels by 2030. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Partner to secure state authority for funding to sustain and grow transit service in King County. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Reduce climate pollution, build our renewable energy economy, and lessen our dependence on imported fossil fuels, by supporting the adoption of a statewide low carbon fuel standard that gradually lowers pollution from transportation fuels. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Focus new development in vibrant centers that locate jobs, affordable housing, and services close to transit, bike and pedestrian options so more people have faster, convenient and low GHG emissions ways to travel. Catalytic Project or Program: As practical, for King County and cities developing transit oriented communities around high capacity light rail and transit projects, adopt the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Growing Transit Communities Compact. For smaller cities, participate in programs promoting proven alternative technology solutions such as vehicle electriﬁcation, as well as joint carpool and vanpool promotional campaigns. Joint County-City Climate Commitments Page 35 of 81 IV. Energy Supply Pathway: Increase countywide renewable electricity use 20% beyond 2012 levels by 2030; phase out coal-ﬁred electricity sources by 2025; limit construction of new natural gas based electricity power plants; support development of increasing amounts of renewable energy sources. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Build on existing state renewable energy commitments including the Washington State Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to partner with local utilities, state regulators and other stakeholders on a countywide commitment to renewable energy resources, including meeting energy demand through energy efﬁciency improvements and phasing out fossil fuels. Catalytic Project or Program: In partnership with utilities, develop a package of county and city commitments that support increasingly renewable energy sources, in areas such as community solar, green power community challenges, streamlined local renewable energy installation permitting, district energy, and renewable energy incentives. V. Green Building and Energy Efﬁciency Pathway: Reduce energy use in all existing buildings 25% below 2012 levels by 2030; achieve net-zero GHG emissions in new buildings by 2030. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Join the Regional Code Collaboration and work to adopt code pathways that build on the Washington State Energy Code, leading the way to “net-zero carbon” buildings through innovation in local codes, ordinances, and related partnerships. Catalytic Project or Program: Develop a multi-city partnership to help build a regional energy efﬁciency retroﬁt economy, including tactics such as: collaborating with energy efﬁciency and green building businesses, partnering with utilities, expanding on existing retroﬁt programs, adopting local building energy benchmarking and disclosure ordinances, and encouraging voluntary reporting and collaborative initiatives such as the 2030 District framework. Joint County-City Climate Commitments Page 36 of 81 VI. Consumption and Materials Management: Pathway: By 2020, achieve a 70% recycling rate countywide; by 2030, achieve zero waste of resources that have economic value for reuse, resale and recycling. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Partner through the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee on policy, projects and programs focused on (1) waste prevention and reuse, (2) product stewardship, recycling, and composting, and (3) beneﬁcial use. Catalytic Project or Program: Develop a regional strategy through the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan process to reach 70% recycling through a combination of education, incentives and regulatory tools aimed at single-family, multi-family residents, businesses, and construction projects in King County. VII. Forests and Farming Pathway: Reduce sprawl and associated transportation related GHG emissions and sequester biological carbon by focusing growth in urban centers and protecting and restoring forests and farms. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Partner on Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) initiatives to focus development within the Urban Growth Area, reduce development pressure on rural lands, and protect our most valuable and important resource lands. Catalytic Project or Program: Protect and restore the health of urban and community trees and forests, for example through public-private-community efforts such as Forterra’s Green Cities Partnerships. Catalytic Project or Program: Partner on collaborative efforts to expand forest and farm stewardship and protection, for example through King Conservation District’s farm management planning, landowner incentive, and grant programs. Catalytic Project or Program: Expand our local food economy, for example by supporting urban and community farming, buying locally produced food, and participating in the Farm City Roundtable forum. Joint County-City Climate Commitments Page 37 of 81 VIII. Government Operations Pathway: Reduce GHG emissions from government operations in support of countywide goals. Policy Commitment: Develop and adopt near and long-term government operational GHG reduction targets that support countywide goals, and implement actions that reduce each local government’s GHG footprint. Catalytic Project or Program: In support of the Section V. Green Building and Energy Efﬁciency pathway targets to reduce energy use in existing buildings 25% below 2012 levels by 2030 and achieve net-zero GHG emissions in new buildings by 2030: execute energy efﬁciency projects and initiatives at existing facilities, measure existing building performance through EPA’s Energy Star or equivalent program, implement high-efﬁciency street and trafﬁc light replacement projects, and construct new buildings to LEED or Living Building Challenge standards and infrastructure to equivalent sustainability standards. IX. Collaboration Policy Commitment: Participate in or join the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) – focused on efforts to coordinate and enhance city and County climate and sustainability efforts – to share case studies, subject matter experts, resources, tools, and to collaborate on grant and funding opportunities. Catalytic Project or Program: Engage and lead government-business collaborative action through efforts such as the Eastside Sustainable Business Alliance. Joint County-City Climate Commitments 1410_4279w_climateCOLLABlatter16.7upd.ai Page 38 of 81 K4C Elected Official SummitFebruary 7, 2018King Street Center8thFloor Conference CenterPage 39 of 81 K4C Highlights: Who we arePage 40 of 81 • Identify goals and hold ourselves accountable•Share resources – staff time and expertise, training, and funding• Speak with a collective voice for greater impact• Coordinate outreach and messaging to advocate for solutions• Raise the profile of local governments’ climate work•Engageelected officials and other leadership on actionFive K4C Elected Official Summits since 2014K4C Partner Staff in 2016K4C: Benefits of CollaborationPage 41 of 81 2012: Founding–Voluntary but formal (via Interlocal Agreement) partnership between cities and King County– Partner on outreach, solutions and funding and resources 2014: Adoption of shared climate goals– Formalized through Countywide Planning policies; 50% by 2030, 80% by 2050 v. 2007 baseline2015: Development of Joint Commitments – Based on pathways to cut emissions 50% by 2030– Land use and transportation, building energy, electricity supply, forestry and agricultureK4C Highlights: History and CharterPage 42 of 81 5K4C Highlights: “Carbon Wedge” Analysis Doing the math to know what it will take to achieve shared GHG reduction targetsPage 43 of 81 Joint County-City Climate Commitments6K4C Elected Official Summit: Today’s agendaFocus of Today’s Summit !Page 44 of 81 •Measure progress towards shared GHG targets•Develop technical analysis for achieving 90% renewable electricity •Joint comments and testimony on energy and climate policies– Electric vehicles; Colstrip closure; Clean Power Plan repeal•Technical and funding assistance to support city sustainability initiatives– Transportation: Fleet Managers Workgroup– Energy Efficiency: Cities - Fund to Reduce Energy Demand– Renewable Energy: Green Direct tariff development and enrollment– Green Building: GreenTools and Regional Code Collaboration support; Salmon Safe training– Community: Sustainable Cities RoundtablesK4C Highlights: 2017 Shared WorkPage 45 of 81 Individual Interests and Actions – November Staff Retreat 012345678Climate Action orStewardship PlanGreen BuildingStandardsImprove Facilities Strong EnergyCodesGHG Inventory Green Fleet/EVInfrastructureTree Canopy/ UrbanForest# K4C PartnersFocus AreaTop Shared K4C InterestsPage 46 of 81 K4C Shared InterestsClimate Action or Stewardship Plan Green Building Standards GHG Inventory Tree Canopy/Urban ForestKing County King County King County King CountyBellevue Issaquah Bellevue BellevueKirkland Redmond Issaquah BurienRedmond Shoreline Kirkland RedmondSeattle Snoqualmie Shoreline SammamishShoreline Port of Seattle Tukwila SnoqualmieSnoqualmiePort of SeattleImprove Facilities Strong Energy Codes Green Fleet/EV InfrastructureKing County King County BellevueBellevue Issaquah BurienRedmond Mercer Island RedmondSnoqualmie Seattle SeattleIssaquah Tukwila TukwilaPort of SeattleTop Shared Interests These are the top interests identified by staff in November 2017. The local governments listed below each topic have taken steps to implement programs and policy, or want to investigate the action more thoroughly before implementing. Page 47 of 81 10Page 48 of 81 Cities Fund to Reduce Energy Demand • Loan program for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects• Modelled after successful internal King County loan program• Life Cycle Cost Analysis shows pay off in under 10 years• Streamline bond financing• Requirement to repay loan – can use utility savings• King County Council review of program is pending; committee hearing 2/14 • If approved, will move quickly to solicit projectsClean Energy: Joint Action OpportunitiesPage 49 of 81 Model Resolution/Clean Energy Future • Foundation is K4C climate goal and shared commitments + past comment letters • Phase out coal by 2025; replacement with renewables, 90% renewable by 2030• Increase energy efficiency through partnerships, shared approaches, loans, grants• Seek federal and state policy changes supporting increasing use and production of renewables• Pursue in manner that creates improvement in air quality and economic opportunity for most impacted communitiesClean Energy: Joint Action OpportunitiesPage 50 of 81 Sign on letter to Utilities and Transportation Commission on PSE’s Long-Range PlanSeeking signature by 2/20Strengthen assumptions/recommendations on efficiency, renewables, batter storage, demand management, carbon pricingClear timeline for phase out of coal/replacement with renewablesTestimony at 2/21 Public Hearing in RentonClean Energy: Joint Action OpportunitiesPage 51 of 81 State LegislationPage 52 of 81 •Wrap Up: Actions and ContactsPartner with Million Trees? (Jamie.Stroble@KingCounty.gov) Support/participate in cities loan program? Rachel.Brombaugh@KingCounty.govSign-on to PSE comment letter?(Rachel) Pursue clean energy resolution? (Megan.Smith@KingCounty.gov) Weigh in on state bills: stronger energy efficiency codes, costs and benefits of renewable energy, clean fuels, carbon pricing (Rachel) Develop City-specific climate change infographic using King County-provided template (Jamie)Stay tuned for final recommendations from Clean Energy Pathways consulting (Rachel)Join K4C? (Rachel)Page 53 of 81 Page 1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR CLIMATE COLLABORATION This Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW among participating Cities of King County, (hereinafter referred to as the "Cities"), and King County, (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), 201 S. Jackson, Suite 701, Seattle, WA 98104 (collectively, “the Parties”) Chapter 39.34 RCW. Whereas, we, King County and the undersigned Cities of King County, wish to work together to directly respond to climate change and reduce global and local sources of climate pollution; Whereas, we believe that by working together we can increase our efficiency and effectiveness in making progress towards this goal; Whereas, we are interested in achieving this goal in a way that builds a cleaner, stronger and more resilient regional economy; Whereas, we are interested in focusing on local solutions to leverage and partner with related collaborative efforts; Whereas, partnering on sustainable solutions will advance progress towards Cities’ environmental, climate change, and energy goals such as those adopted by the nearly half of King County Cities that have signed on to the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, the Cities and King County mutually agree as follows: 1. Purpose and Scope of this Agreement 1.1 The purpose of this Agreement is to outline responsibilities and tasks related to the County and Cities that are voluntarily participating in the King County- Cities Climate Collaboration. The Parties will develop and coordinate on the following efforts: (a) Outreach: Develop, refine, and utilize messaging and tools for climate change outreach to engage decision makers, other cities, and the general public. (b) Coordination: Collaborate on adopting consistent standards, benchmarks, strategies, and overall goals related to responding to climate change. (c) Solutions: Share local success stories, challenges, data and products that support and enhance climate mitigation efforts by all partners. Page 54 of 81 Page 2 (d) Funding and resources: Collaborate to secure grant funding and other shared resource opportunities to support climate related projects and programs. 1.2 It is not the purpose or intent of this Agreement to create, supplant, preempt or supersede the authority or role of any individual Party. 1.3 All tools, outreach materials, data, collaborative efforts, and other resources that are developed as part of this Agreement are optional for Cities and King County to adopt or utilize. 2. Organization 2.1 Each Party shall appoint one designee and an alternate to serve as its representative. Upon the effective execution of this Agreement and the appointment of designees and alternate designees for each Party, designees shall meet and choose, according to the voting provisions of this section, representatives to serve as Chair and Vice Chair to oversee and direct the activities associated with meetings including the development of the agendas, running the meeting and providing leadership. 2.2. No action or binding decision will be taken without the presence of a quorum of active designees or alternates. A quorum exists if a majority of the designees present at the meeting. Each designee shall have an equal vote, with a supermajority vote of 75% of all designees being required to approve the final scope of the collaboration program or amend the scope. Any vote to increase the amount of funding required by each Party, however, shall only be binding on those who specifically agree to such increase. 2.3 Designees shall have the authority and mandate to administer the Tasks outlined in Section 3. 2.4 Designees may approve a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to secure a vendors or consultants needed to accomplish any Task, and shall interview one or more applicants and make an appointment provided sufficient funds are available. 2.5 Designees shall meet and report on a quarterly basis to ensure that Tasks are efficiently, effectively and responsibly delivered in the performance of this Agreement, including the allocation of resources. 2.6 Designees shall develop an initial annual work plan and budget which will be finalized within one month of approval of the Agreement by the Parties. Subsequent annual work plans will be developed and approved on or before the anniversary of the adoption of the first years’ work plan in conjunction Page 55 of 81 Page 3 with budget planning for consideration and adoption by the Parties’ legislative bodies. 2.7 If direct payment in support of the annual work plan, such as for consultant services or hiring staff, can be arranged by participating Cities, this is preferred. If direct payment occurs, these funds will be accounted for towards that city’s contribution. If this is not possible, funds collected from any source on behalf of the Parties shall be maintained in a special fund by the County as ex officio treasurer on behalf of the Collaboration. The County shall also serve as the contractual agent for the Parties in acquiring any serviced needed to complete Tasks of the Agreement. 3. Tasks 3. 1 Climate Collaboration Work Plan. Finalize the Scope of Work for this King County-Cities Collaboration consistent with this Agreement. This will take place after commencement per Section 5 of this Agreement and is funding-dependent. 3.2 Sustain the King County Cities Climate Collaboration (Budget $10,000) Pay necessary expenses to support expansion of the King County SWD GreenTools Roundtable program to include every other-month forums on climate-related sustainability issues. The Roundtables will be held at various venues throughout King County and topics will focus on the collaborative actions highlighted in the King County-Cities Climate Pledge: outreach, coordination, solutions, funding and resources. Speakers will include King County and City staff and other invited partners. 3.3 Hire a staff member, partial staff member, or consultant to support achieving the priorities identified in the King County-Cities Climate Pledge (Budget $9,000-$80,000 depending on commitments made) (a) The staff member will help lead implementation of the King County- Cities Climate Collaboration initiatives, including but not limited to: sustainable transportation; clean fuel vehicles; community energy retrofits; renewable energy projects; community outreach; and other topics defined and agreed upon in the final Scope of Work or annual Work Plans. Staff could develop and implement a general countywide program that supports City sustainability projects or programs. Staffing options include hiring a part- to full-time staff from King County or a participating King County City to lead the effort Page 56 of 81 Page 4 (b) Products that will be developed, to be clarified in the process of finalizing the Scope of Work, and dependent on funding, include: 1. Directory of local climate solutions related resources to include: a. County technical expert pool. A list of relevant County technical experts on staff that already support city sustainability projects and programs. This could be expanded with mechanisms for cities to directly contract with County staff to support implementation of specific projects and programs. b. Technical experts from all participating jurisdictions that could help support other cities’ efforts, share local success stories, or potentially be contracted out to work with other cities. c. Technical experts from academia, research institutions, utilities and other organizations. d. List of consultants with local experience and expertise on a diverse range of climate and sustainability related functions. e. Best practices and lessons learned from relevant local projects and programs. 2. Symposium for city and County staff focused on local climate solutions. 3. Forum for all local technical experts – a broader group than those engaged in the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration – to share information and best practices 4. Opportunities for local governments to increase understanding and gather information on specific climate change mitigation efforts. 5. Other products as defined and agreed upon in the process of finalizing the Scope of Work, provided they are consistent with the King County-Cities Climate Pledge and focused on sustainability and climate change related outreach, coordination, solutions, or funding and resources. 4. Funding 4.1 The minimum required financial contribution for each King County City to participate in this Agreement is shown below. In no event shall the Cities be responsible for amounts incurred by King County in excess of what is set forth in this Agreement without an amendment according to the terms hereof. Page 57 of 81 Page 5 4.2 To the extent this Agreement is renewed annually, the Parties shall update the work plan and contribute funds to King County for estimated costs, as described below, in advance of services provided. Any funds not used in any given year will be used in the execution of the following year’s Work Plan or refunded, on a proportional basis based on initial contributions, within forty-five (45) days in the event of a Party’s termination of this Agreement. 4.3 The Parties represent that funds for service provision under this Agreement have been appropriated and are available. To the extent that such service provision requires future appropriations beyond current appropriation authority, the obligations of each Party are contingent upon the appropriation of funds by that Party's legislative authority to complete the activities described herein. If no such appropriation is made, the Agreement shall terminate as to that Party provided the Party provides notice of termination prior to the other parties prior to the adoption of the annual work plan per Section 2.6. 5. Duration Page 58 of 81 Page 6 This Agreement is effective upon execution by King County and a minimum of eight King County Cities which will contribute at least $9,000 total, after approval by the legislative body of each Party. The Agreement will be posted on the web site of each Party after authorization in accordance with RCW 39.34.040. and .200. The Agreement will have a term of one year and will automatically renew each year unless terminated as provided in Section 7. 6. Latecomers Non-party King County cities may opt into this Agreement at any time. If cities join after an annual work is finalized, they will pay a pro-rated amount, calculated as the preceding year’s annual financial contribution for that jurisdiction multiplied by the percentage of the remaining time in the year. 7. Termination 7.1 In addition to termination for lack of appropriation under Section 5, a Party may end its participation in this Agreement upon written notice to the other Parties prior to October 1st to be effective at the end of the calendar year. Except as set forth in 7.2, no refunds will be paid to individual Parties who terminate. 7.2 In the event of individual terminations that result in fewer than eight remaining City participants, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and all funding remaining after all services, fees and costs incurred to that date are paid, shall be returned by King County to the remaining participants pro rata based on their original relative contribution amounts. Such payment shall be made within forty-five (45) days of the termination date. 8. Communications The following persons shall be the contact person for all communications regarding the performance of this Agreement. King County City of Matt Kuharic King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Director’s Office 201 South Jackson, Suite 701, Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-477-4554 Phone: E-mail address: matt.kuharic@kingcounty.gov Email address: Page 59 of 81 Page 7 9. Indemnification To the extent permitted by state law, and for the limited purposes set forth in this Agreement, each Party shall protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other Parties to include the officers, employees, agents and contractors of the Party, 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, torts and wrongful or illegal acts related to such Party’s participation and obligations under this Agreement. Each Party 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. The provisions of this subsection shall survive and continue to be applicable to Parties exercising the right of termination pursuant to this Agreement. In no event do the Parties intend to assume any responsibility, risk or liability of any other Party or otherwise with regard to any Party’s duties or regulations. 10. Compliance with All Laws and Regulations The Parties shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, regulations and standards necessary for the performance of this Agreement. 11. Non- exclusive Program Nothing herein shall preclude any Party 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. 12. 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, or to form the basis for any liability on the part of any Party , or their officers, elected officials, agents and employees, to any third party. 13. Amendments This Agreement may be amended, altered or clarified only the unanimous consent of the Parties represented by affirmative action of their legislative bodies. 14. Entire Agreement Page 60 of 81 Page 8 This Agreement is a complete expression of the intent of the Parties and any oral or written representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. 15. Waiver Waiver of any default shall not be deemed to be waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver of breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of the Agreement unless stated to be such through written approval by the Parties which shall be attached to the original Agreement. 16. RCW 39.34 Required Clauses a) Purpose. See Section 1 above b) Duration. See Section 5 above. c) Organization of separate entity and its powers. No new or separate legal or administrative entity is created to administer the provisions of this Agreement. d) Responsibilities of the Parties. See provisions above. e) Agreement to be filed and recorded. The City shall file this Agreement with its City Clerk. The County shall place this Agreement on its web site. The Agreement shall also be recorded. f) Financing. Each Party shall be responsible for the financing of its contractual obligations under its normal budgetary process. g) Termination. See Section 7 above. 17. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. The persons signing below, who warrant they have the authority to execute this Agreement. By: By: Dow Constantine King County Executive Date: ___________________________ Mayor City of Date: _________________________ Page 61 of 81 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Code Enforcement Presentation (Tate) (20 Minutes) Date: June 19, 2018 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Code Enforcement Presentation Budget Impact: Current Budget: $0 Proposed Revision: $0 Revised Budget: $0 Administrativ e Recommendation: Background Summary: Rev iewed by Council Committees: Other: Code Enforcement Councilmember:Staff:Tate Meeting Date:June 25, 2018 Item Number: Page 62 of 81 AUBURN VALUES SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION CODE ENFORCEMENT – REACTIVE AND PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT CHRIS BARACK LEAD COMPLIANCE OFFICER CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JUNE 25, 2018 Community Development and Public Works Department Engineering Services Administrative Services Environmental Services Community Development Services Maintenance & Operations Services Page 63 of 81 SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONSERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION Chris Barack –Lead Code Compliance Officer •90% reactive, 10% pro-active •Investigates new complaints •Department case management •Coordinate training/on-going education Tami Kapule –Code Compliance Officer –Community Outreach/Education •80% Community Outreach/Education, 20% reactive •S.A.F.E.R. –Multi-Family Manager training George Winner –Code Compliance Officer •90% reactive, 10% pro-active •Investigates new complaints HOW WE WORK… Page 64 of 81 Will always exist Multiple ways to report: Email Auburn App Phone In Person Online Initiate investigation by visiting the property (usually within 24-48 hours). Once the initial investigation has been completed, a case is opened and we determine if a violation exists. If a violation exists, we work with the property owner or tenants to gain compliance through clear, concise communication. The goal is always to achieve voluntary compliance. REACTIVE AND PROACTIVE APPROACHES SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION Reactive Enforcement Proactive Enforcement Geographic areas and subjects matters are prioritized that inform our approach. Example priorities include: Impression Corridors Vacant/Derelict Structures Multifamily Housing Condition Graffiti Campaign Signs Our strategy includes seasonal considerations: Vegetation in the summer Campaign signs during elections Communal housing during school Inform and educate Failure leads to formal code enforcement action Page 65 of 81 REACTIVE –WHERE DO COMPLAINTS COME FROM AND WHERE THEY GO? Complaint Investigate Violation? Traffic Police Storm Sewer Business License BuildingSurveyM&O Building Official Environmental Development Planning SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONPage 66 of 81 HOW WE TRACK ALL CASES SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONPage 67 of 81 SO WHAT DOES PROACTIVE LOOK LIKE? SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONPage 68 of 81 CASE STUDY OF PROACTIVE ACTION SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION 906 Harvey Road -Before Page 69 of 81 SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION CASE STUDY OF PROACTIVE ACTION 906 Harvey Road –Inside and Around the Property Page 70 of 81 SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION CASE STUDY OF PROACTIVE ACTION 906 Harvey Road -Demo Page 71 of 81 SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION CASE STUDY OF PROACTIVE ACTION 906 Harvey Road –Demo Wrap Up Page 72 of 81 SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION CASE STUDY OF PROACTIVE ACTION 906 Harvey Road -After Page 73 of 81 640 920 1163 637633 787 1212 601 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 2015 2016 2017 2018 Case Count by Year OPENED CLOSED THEN AND NOW, THE NUMBERS SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION Prior to April 2017, not all Code Enforcement interactions were tracked. If a violation was confirmed on a property, a case was opened (VIO16-0000). In March 2017, the prefix (VIO) was removed from the system and the type of interaction was entered in the case. A case is now opened on all Code Enforcement interactions which include investigations, pro-active, social service and violation type cases. Page 74 of 81 AUBURN VALUES SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION THANK YOU! QUESTIONS?? Community Development and Public Works Department Engineering Services Administrative Services Environmental Services Community Development Services Maintenance & Operations Services Page 75 of 81 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Temporary Signs (Tate) (10 Minutes) Date: June 19, 2018 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memorandum Budget Impact: Current Budget: $0 Proposed Revision: $0 Revised Budget: $0 Administrativ e Recommendation: Background Summary: Please see attached Memorandum. Rev iewed by Council Committees: Other: Planning Councilmember:Staff:Tate Meeting Date:June 25, 2018 Item Number: Page 76 of 81 Memorandum To: City Council Members From: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development CC: Mayor Nancy Backus Date: June 18, 2018 Re: Temporary Signs REGULATORY OVERVIEW: Auburn City Code regulates signs under Chapter 18.56. Regulations address the type, size and location of signs within each type of zoning designation (e.g. sign regulations within a residential zone are different than regulations in a commercial zone). Within Chapter 18.56 there are specific provisions for certain signs that are exempt from City regulations, certain signs that are temporary in nature, and a specific section on real estate signs. This memo provides an overview of exempt signs, temporary signs, and real estate signs. • Exempt Signs (ACC 18.56.030.H) – Irrespective of the zoning designation, the following types of signs are exempt from the City’s sign code (however, they may still be governed under other types of federal, state or local rules – e.g. building codes, or restrictions on the use utility poles and guard rails). The following list is copied from the adopted City Code: 1. The flag of a government or noncommercial institutions such as school, with poles treated as structures. 2. Official public notices, official court notices. 3. Incidental signs (noncommercial and informational signage for the convenience of the public and no more than 2 square feet per sign; examples include hours of operation, entrance and exit signs, restrooms, etc.) 4. Signs non visible from public right-of-way. 5. Lettering or symbols painted directly onto or flush-mounted magnetically onto an operable vehicle. 6. Painting, repainting, cleaning, repairing, and other normal maintenance unless structural or electrical changes are made. 7. Religious symbols not attached to a permitted sign. 8. Memorial signs or tablets, names of buildings, dates of erection and the like are incorporated into the building material and façade. 9. Signs required by law, traffic or pedestrian control signs, signs indicating scenic or historic points of interest, which are erected by or on the order of a public officer in the performance of his or her duty. 10. Sculptures, fountains, mosaics, and design features which do not incorporate advertising or identification. 11. Temporary signs limited to exclusively noncommercial speech. • Temporary Signs (ACC 18.56.030.B) – Irrespective of the zoning designation there are provisions which allow for the temporary placement of signs on a property. There are 3 Page 77 of 81 basic categories of temporary signs which are described below. Permits are not required for these types of signs. 1. Special event signage provided that it is limited to 10 days per display, not to exceed 10 days in a 90 day period, and not to exceed 30 square feet in size. 2. Banners provided that no more than 2 banners may be used on site at any given time, the use of such signs is limited to 90 consecutive days, may not exceed 90 days within a 120 day period, and not to exceed 32 square feet in size. 3. Signs placed upon or within a window that can be viewed from the right of way provided that the sign cannot exceed 50% of the window area. • Real Estate Signs (ACC 18.56.025) – Irrespective of the zoning designation there are a number of stipulations outlined in the code that address real estate signs. While regulated, real estate signs do not necessitate a permit. The following requirements are addressed in City Code and govern the placement of real estate signs on private property: 1. Signs must be wood, plastic, or other durable material. 2. “For Sale” and “Sold” signs are limited to ne sign per street frontage, are not to exceed 5 square feet per side, must be placed entirely on the property for sale, and are not to exceed 7 feet in height. 3. “Open House” signs are limited to one sign per street frontage on the premises, 3 off premise signs, permitted only during daylight hours, and are not to exceed 5 square feet per side. 4. “For Sale or Rent” signs for undeveloped commercial and industrial properties are limited to one sign per street frontage provided the building is actually constructed and available for rent or sale. If there is less than 10 feet between the building and the right of way, the sign must be placed in a window or on the building. The sign shall not exceed 8 feet in height, shall be located at least 15 feet from an abutting property line, and shall not exceed 32 square feet per side. 5. “For Sale” signs for undeveloped residential land are limited to one sign per street frontage, shall not exceed 32 square feet per side, shall not exceed 8 feet in height, and if the sign is larger than 5 square feet it must be located at least 30 feet from any abutting property lines. 6. Additional signs. The City Code allows the Department Director to grant special permission to allow temporary off-premise signs in addition to the above provided they do not exceed 5 square feet in size or 42 inches in height. • Real Estate Signs within the Public Right of Way. The above standards apply to private property. There are no codified sign standards that govern the placement of temporary real estate signs within the public right of way. The City has a history of allowing builders to place signs within the right of way that advertise communities/subdivisions in which they are building homes. The City has the right and authority to allow these types of signs or to prohibit them. Through administrative policy, City has developed an application form, insurance requirements, and size and placement limitations. QUESTIONS? Page 78 of 81 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Matrix Date: June 20, 2018 Department: Administration Attachments: Matrix Special Focus Areas Budget Impact: Current Budget: $0 Proposed Revision: $0 Revised Budget: $0 Administrativ e Recommendation: Background Summary: Rev iewed by Council Committees: Councilmember:Staff: Meeting Date:June 25, 2018 Item Number: Page 79 of 81 Updated 06-20-2018 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 8/27/2018 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 Livable Cities Update Chair DaCorsi Vice Chair Deputy Mayor Baggett Asst. Director Tate 8/27/2018 5 Consolidated Court Fees Chair Brown Vice Chair Peloza HR Director TBD 6 DV Model Firearms Program Chair Brown Vice Chair Peloza Chief Pierson 7/9/2018 7 Park Rules Chair Brown Vice Chair Peloza Director Faber TBD 8 Airport Advisory Board Update Chair Brown Vice Chair Peloza Asst Director Gaub 8/13/2018 9 Homelessness Update Chair Trout-Manuel Vice Chair Wales Director Hinman 7/23/2018 10 Multicare Behavioral Health Facility Update Chair Trout-Manuel Vice Chair Wales Director Hinman Presentation on 5/29/18 11 One Table Presentation Chair Trout-Manuel Vice Chair Wales Dana Hinman 7/23/2018 Presentation on 5/29/18 12 Cost of Service Study - Planning and Development Fees Chair Holman Vice Chair Brown Finance Director Coleman TBD 13 Annexations (islands and peninsulas) Chair Holman Vice Chair Brown City Attorney Heid TBD COUNCIL MATRIX Page 80 of 81 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 81 of 81