HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12 & 13-2011 Council Retreat �-�..* �
CITY OF � �' * CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL RETREAT MEETING
ti
* �'`'�'' � WAS H I N GTO N AAay 12 & 13, 2011
Auburn Municipal Goif Course Clubhouse
The Aubum City Council met in a special session on May 12 and 13, 2011 in
order to conduct a transportation budget retreat to discuss transportation budget
issues, five years and twenty years in the future. The session was conducted at
the Aubum Municipal Golf Course Clubhouse located at 29630 Green River
Road SE in Auburn.
The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. Mayor Peter B. Lewis and the
following Councilmembers were present: Rich Wagner, Sue Singer, Nancy
„Backus; Lynn Norman, Bill Peloza, Virginia Haugen, and John Partridge.
Directors and staff members present included: City Attorney Daniel B. Heid;
Finance Director Shelley Coleman; Planning and Development Dire�tor Kevin
Snyder; Public Works Director Dennis Dowdy; Intergovernmental Relations
Manager Carolyn Robertson, Executive Assistant Tamie Bothell;
Communications Manager Dana Hinman; Council Secretary Antoinette Early,
and City Clerk Danielle Daskam.
Also�present were Wayne Osborne and John Holman.
� At 8:30 a.m., Deputy Mayor Singer welcomed members of the Council to the
� transportation budget retreat and called the meeting to order. Following
introductions, Councilmember Rich Wagner spoke regarding the pre-retreat
planning by the Council Operations Committee.
The desired,outcome of the retreat is for Council to gain an understanding of the
scope of the transportation budget issues and financing for five years and twenty
years in the future in the context of the overall City budget. Additionally, it is
hoped that the Council can come to consensus on transportation budget
prioritization and funding strategies, including bonding, LID's, street maintenance '
utility, and other financing options.
Councilmembec Wagner �eported that the Council Operations Committee met �
with sfaff to develop an agenda with proposals to the Council for the following:
Page 1
Citv of Auburn Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13,2011
• Project Prioritization Criteria Categories
• Category Importance Scoring Method
• Project Lists, Cosf Estimafes, Maps and Descriptions
• Potential funding Options
• Potential Revenue Options �
Project Prioritization Criteria Categories, as p�oposed, were customized for
Auburn based on existing state !nd federal agencies criteria:
• TIB, State Transportation Improvement Board
• STP, Surface Transportation Program �
• CMAQ, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Councilmember Wagner then reviewed the proposed Category Importance
Scoring Method. For each project, Council will score each category on a 4 (high)
to 0 (low) scale. Score will. be adjusted using importance "weighting"
percentages.
Councilmember Wagner reviewed the project lists, cost estimates, maps and
descriptions (on display).
The remainder of the meeting was facilitated by Planning and Development
Director Snyder:
Director Snyder reviewed the proposed scoring criteria and weighting as follow:
Criteria Maximum % of Max Score Points Examples
Total Score
Safety 25% 25 Accident history,
fatalities
Con estion 15% 15 Level of Service
Economic 20°!0 20 . Land use zoning,
Develo ment tax revenue
� Freight 5% 5 Truck route, rail
access
Regional 5% 5 Commuter coutes,
Connectivity economic
develo ment
Urgency 8� 20% 20 Funding deadline,.
condition deteriorization
Financial 10% 10 Granf, bond, LID,
Feasib_ili tax, fee, arfner
Page 2
Citv of Auburn Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13.2011
Deputy Mayor Singer proposed increasing the allocation of Urgency and
Condition by five percent by taking five percent away from Economic
Development. There was no objection to the change to increase Urgency and
Condition to 25% and reduce Economic Developmenf to 15%.
Councilmember Wagner commented that the Council Operations Committee
debated whether an additional category for sustainability should be included
among the criteria, but decided against it as sustainability is included in the other
� categories.
In looking at the list of capital proje�ts to be scored, Director Snyder explained
that the list of projects came from the Transportation Improvement Plan. The
Council Operations Committee and staff prioritized and pared the list to a lisf of
preferred projects. Director Snyder then explained the mechanics of the project
scoring that Council will conduct for each project. Staff members have already
scored the projects, but Council will determine whether staff scored the project
correctly according to Council's priorities.
Director _ Dowdy reviewed the brief scope descriptions for the capital
transportation projects. Direcfor powdy stated that east and west hill annexation
areas are incorporated in the comprehensive transportation plan and the City's
comprehensive plan. The two areas must be included in calculation of impact
fees. Staff will be including all of the adopted comprehensive plan capacity
projects to bring recommended updated impact fees to the Council for adoption
during this summer.
There was discussion of across the board impact fees versus zoning impact
fees. Finance Director Coleman reminded that impact fees must be spent within
six years.
Capital Project List:
1. A Street NW, phase 1 -fully funded and will be bid soon
2. A Sfreet NW, phase 2 to extend corridor in phase 1 to Main Street from
3�'. �
Mayor Lewis commenfed that this project provides an alternate roufe to .
downtown and also a freight route that will .allow expansion of business
along the corridor. Deputy Mayor Singer inquired how the project will
affect pedestrian traffic: Councilmember Wagner stated that by
separating the project in two phases will allow time fo evaluate the impact
of the first phase on traffic flows.
3. Auburn Way Corridor Improvements, 4th Street NE to 4�' Street, SE.
Intended ,to improve pedestrian accessibility, streetscape; and link to
Page 3
Citv of Auburn Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13,2011
downtown area along Auburn Way. Main street will be east-west for
bicycles. (Aubum Way is not considered an acceptable bike way.)
4. Auburn Way South Corridor (SR 18 to M St SE) Streetscape
Improvements. Intended to improve aesthetics but still maintain tra�c
load, Street trees and'witler sidewalks will be added and possible median
to modify access control. Directors Dowdy and Snyder spoke briefly
about landscape requirements and public art. Mayor Lewis stressed
commitment for maintenance in the corridor. Directors Dowdy and Snyder
talked about low impact development where maintenance costs can be
minimized. -
5. Aubum Way South (Dogwood to Hemlock) This project is grant funded,
with funding from the Tribe. The Tribe will be redeveloping the "QFC"
block. (Councilmember Wagner and Director powdy spoke about the
Highway 164 Plan that is not represented on the map. — Director powdy
stated that a leftturn lane is proposed to extend to Academy.)
6. F Street SE (4th Street SE to Auburn Way South) the City is already
working on 4�' SE to Auburn Way South as it will serve as the bypass for
M Street SE Underpass project.
7. Auburn Way South Bypass (SR 18 to infersection of Dogwood and
Aubum Way South) Contained in the state's Highway 164 Plan. The best
and most feasible bypass would connect just east of R Street SE up the
hill to casino and connect to Dogwood just south of tribal cemetery. The
Tribe will have#o be a lead agency for this project.
8. Auburn Way South and Riverwalk Intersection. This is a capacity project
that includes an additional eastbound left tum lane into the casino.
9. M Street Underpass (East Main to Auburn Way South) All properties have
been secured for this project.
10,M Street Corridor 4th NE to Auburn Way South
11.M Street SE and Auburn Way South intersection
12.South 277th—Auburn Way North to Green River Bridge
13.Enyironmental Park Roadway Improvements Stutly and project. Includes
West Main to West Valley Highway; Lund Road will probably be a low
impact development project. The project is significant for economic
development. �
14.15th Street SW Reconstruction - C Street to UPRR. Consists of
rebuilding pavement:and adding streetscaping.
15.West Valley Highway imprqvements (SR 18 to West Main) The project is
fully funded and is awaiting going out to bid. This is a complete rebuild
with pedestrian access. �
16.West Valley Highway (West Main to 15th NV1n This project will add lanes
to make it bicycle friendly.
17.West Valley Highway(37th Street NW to city limits) same as project 16
18.29th & R Street SE infersection
Page 4
Citv of Auburn Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13,2011
19.I Street NE Corridor (40th to 52"d) Alignment of the corridor. This project
will have developer participation (Robertson). This will relieve traffic on
Auburn Way North.
20.Downtown Streets and Sidewalks. This is a large project, primarily
sidewalk oriented, but includes preservation of downtown roadways as
well. The project will give downtown a facelift. Council suggested that
improvements for Main be extended along East Main with improvemenfs
planned to Aubum Hi�h School redevelopmenfi.
21.Lea Hill SE 312th 124 h 320th Corridor. The bridge needs ta be widened,
currently operating above level of service D. This is a capacity project.
22.Lea Hill Road and Bridge (M Street to 124�'Ave SE) See 21 above.
, 23.Lakeland/North Lake Tapps Connector Comdor— Upgrades corridor from
East Valley Highway fo SR. 167. Project is important for economic
development and primarily serves unincorporated Pierce County.
24.Kersey Way (Oravetz Road to south city limits) Provides for safety
improvements for traffic and bicycles.
Councilmember Norman inquired about the potential impact of development in ,
Black Diamond on Green Valley Road. Director Snyder advised that Planning
and' Engineecing are working together fo review the impacts on the city and have
provided comments to Black Diamond.
Director powdy stated that eight additional FTE's would be required if all projects
outlined above are undertaken within the next eight years.
At 10:30 a.m. the Council recessed for approximately fifteen minutes for a brief
intermission.
The Council reconvened at 10;45 with Director Snyder presenting Economic
Development and Transportation Projects.
Director Snyder reviewed the relationship between transportation and economic
development, existing City policies for economic development and
transportation, faetors affecting :transportation and economic development and
the economic development strategy areas.
Director Snyder reviewed existing economic development elements of the
Comprehensive Plan, which may need to be updated in the next Comprehensive
Plan updafe. ,
Councilmember Wagner stated that Comprehensive Plan Economic �
Development element 20 should be separate from R Street bypass portion.
Page 5
Citv of Auburn Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13.2011
Director Snyder suggested that Transportation Plan policies need more direct
correlation to economic development policies,
In looking at the Economic Development Cycle, Director Snyder emphasized that
economic development�is influenced by and influences:
• Mobility and Accessibility
• Land Use Patterns
• Market forces
• Quality of Life-parks are a selling point
Transportation planning decisions can affect economic development in various
ways. (Taken from Todd Litmas, Victoria Transport Policy.lnstitute)
• As an input to economic activities (shipping, business travel, the delivery
of services), which affects production and distribution costs;
• Through productivity, employment and profits of transportation-related
industries;
s On consumer expenditures and their economic impacts;
� • On people's ability to access to economic activities (schooling,
employment and shops) and therefore engage in economic opportunities;
• On the cost burdens imposed on different activities, groups and locations;
and ("cost burdens" on new investors and existing business base)
• Through impacts on location and land use development patterns.
Mobility Based Transportation Planning
• Conventional planning tends to be mobility=based
• Mobility-based planning assumes that transportation means vehicle travel
and evaluates transport system performance .
• Mobility-based planning favors automobile oriented transportation
improvements and sprawled land use development
Accessibility Based Transportation Planning takes a different view and takes a
look at the full spectrum of these strategies and can result in more efficient use
of transport sources.
Building communities through transportation investments, economic �
development and livability are interfwined. Transportation invesfinents can be
leveraged beyond simple task of repairing and construction of new roads. They
can improve quality of life by creating livable communities..
Additionally, the concept of livability in transportation is easy fo describe yet often
difficult to implement. One reason is that community and transportation planning
have become highly specialized fields. Holistic thinking may be a casualty of this
specialization.
Page 6
Citv of Aubum Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13,2011
Transportation/Land Use/Economic Development equation: Transportation
decisions plus land use patterns equals low value or high value economic
development.
Director Snyder briefly referred to "The Why's of Transportation Investments for
Economic Development" of the agenda packet.
Economic Sfrategy Areas. Director Snyder briefly reviewed the City's economic
strategy areas and those transportation program priority projects related to each
area: �
s North Auburn —focus on Auburn Way North corridor (project#12 )
• Urban Center Strategy Area (project#'s 1, 2, 3, 4, and 20)
• AEP Green Zone (project#'s 13, 15, 16)
• Golden Triangle Area focus on Auburn Way S corridor(projecf#'s 4, 5, 6,
7and 11.
• 15�" St SW and GSt focus area around Supermall and south side of 15�n
(project#'s 14 and 15)
• A St SE Corridor (no transportation projects)
• 312th/124th.Ave SE Potential Strategy Area (new area under PCDC
consideration (project#'s 21 and 22
To .support broad based economic development transportation investments for
City Economic Strategy Areas should:
• Design to future needs and visions for strategy areas
• Celebrate and highlight the individuality of each area
• Support transitions between each area
• Enhance the brand of the strategy area and City
• Maximize multi-modat features of strategy area
• Assist in removing ba�riers to development
• Leverage infrastructure investments to entice private development
• Align improvements with existing or future economic opportunities to
maximize public economic �efurn on investment
Public Works Director powdy led an overview of street preservation and
maintenance. .He displayed a map of remaining payement preservation work.
,
Since 2004, approximately $2 million annually is available for Save Our Streets
(SOS) work. The SOS program has accomplished a lot. Of 114 miles of local :
streets, some 19.6 miles remaih to be improved after 2011. Staff is coordinating
budgets and work to assure underground utilities are included to avoid pavement
Page 7
Citv of Auburn Council Retreat � Mav 12 and 13.2011
cuts after SOS work is done. System average PCI has improved from 66 to 73
since 2004.
Approximately $2 million is generated annually by the 1% utility tax for arterial
street worfc. Approximately $65 million is needed to repair all arterials.
Director powdy referred to the Arterial Task Force Priorities Map, The Task
Force concentrated on truck routes needed for present and future to help
prioritize limited revenues. The Task Force recommended the 1% utility tax ,
increase in 2009 and encouraged the Cify to pursue other revenues.
Approximately $5 million is needed annually. The business leadership of the
community will be needed to form any street bond or street utility to fund arterial
preservation.
Deputy Mayor Singer expressed concern with the truck route that travels up 15th
(West Hill) to Terrace. The .truck route. appears to drop into a residential
neighborhood.
Director powdy referred to a Valley Cities map of key corridors and briefly
discussed freight corridors.
At 11':59, the Council recessed for lunch.
� At 12:30, the Council reconvened and Director powdy led a discussion of transit,
shuttles and Amtrak.
In 2006, King County voters approved Transit .Now, which provided that King
County Metro could offer local agencies cost sharing agreement for local
communiiy based transif services. This is especially evident in providing senrice
in the Lakeland area. The City also worked with Metro to restructure Routes 910
and 919 to improve transfer timing and overall service.
Deputy Mayor Singer expressed concern with Metro's attempts to lease the 15th
_ Street Park & Ride property. Mayor Lewis commented that the county is
desirous of leasing/selling property.
Director powdy reviewed Mayor Lewis's efforts to have Amtrak designate Aubum
as one of its new stops. The City is awaiting a scope of senrices from the
Washington State Department of Transportation Rail Group for a consultant
study to perForm a marketing analysis for the Aubum stop.
Director powdy led an overview of the ITS and non-motorized projects.
Page 8
Citv of Auburn Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13,2011
ITS allows police crime surveillance, traffic surveillance and management.
Director powdy talked about the need for battery backup in major corridors in
times of power outages.
Sidewalks. Director powdy reported that every other year the City bids a
sidewalk project. In the meantime, wherever a tripping hazard is detected, the
City will grind to less than '/4" to comply with ADA. Deputy Mayor Singer
suggested that the arterial bond proposal include sidewalks. She also suggested
a sidewalk on 320th for college students.
Bike Routes. Director powdy reviewed Bicycle Task Force bicycle corridors and
connectors. M Street is most imporfant bike corridor in town. Emphasis must
be placed on fraining the community to embrace bikers and educating them on
paint and signage for bikes.
Financing and revenue options.
Finance Director Coleman presented major 2011-2031 transportation
investments, sources of funding, and funding strategies of neighboring
communities.
Director Coleman noted that the 2011-2012 Citywide budget is $424.5 million;
the capital budget is $114.5 million. She reviewed the major capital projects
included in the 2011-2012 Budget. �
Director Coleman reviewed 2011-2031 major transportation investments. The
total 20 year value is estimated at $453.9 million. ($46.6 million for General
Fund street operations, $73.4 million for arterial street preservation, $40.0 million
for SOS local street preservation and $293.9 million for arterial streets.)
Director Coleman reviewed the 2011-2031 major transportation investments
existing funding sources for the next 20 yrs:
Traffic impact fees $16 million
MVFT $30.3 million
Property Tax $40 million
Interfund Transfers $3 million
Utility tax-public $8 million
Utility tax-private $30 million
Director Coleman reviewed potential 2011-2031 major transportation
inuestments funding sources:
•. Utilization of Banked Property Tax Levy (councilmanic)
• Excess property tax levy (voter approved)
• Excess property tax levy (service debt)
Page 9 �
Citv of Auburn Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13,2011
• Real estate excise tax-first 0.25% annually collections earmarked for
Annex debt
• Real estate excise tax- second 0.25% dedicated to debt service on
Promenade pcoject
• Public utility tax
• Cable utility tax
• Private utility tax
• Commercial parking tax
• Local household tax
• B&O Tax
• Transportation Benefit District
Director Coleman reviewed 2011 property tax statistics.
Director Coleman reviewed public and private utility taxes recap and available
capacity. Councilmembers requested a comparison of what other cities are
charging for pubfic utility taxes.
RCW 82.80.030 allows a tax on parking businesses; however, there are no
commercial parking businesses in Aubum.
RCW 35.95.040 authorizes a Local Household Tax of up to $1.00 per
household. It was consensus of Council not to pursue a Local Household Tax.
Director Coleman reviewed t_he municipal business and occupation (B&O) tax. A
city may tax up to .2% on gross receipts. Auburn's potential yield; is $2.6 million
,
per year based on reported 2010 taxable retail sales activity. Charges can also
be based on square footage, type of business and number of employees.
Municipalities collecting B&O tax include Algona, Burien, Bellevue and Des
Moines.
Director Coleman touched upon the Transportation Benefit District. A
Transportation Benefit District: (TBD) is available as a source of funding for
roadway, high capacity transit, public transit and other transportation
management systems. A TBD is a separate taxing authority. Financing options
with no voter approval inelude a $20 motor vehicle licensing fee and general
obligation bonds to not exceed 1.5% of TBD assessed valuation inclusive of non-
voter approved GO bonds; payable by excess property tax levy. Director
Coleman estimated that the $20 motor vehicle �icensing fee would raise
$700,000 annually. '
TBD financing options with voter approval included up to a .2% sales and use
tax, property taxes in excess of the one-percent.limit (for a one year period), fees
Page 10
C'itv of Aubum Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13.2011
on charges imposed on commercial construction or reconstruction, and general
obiigation bonds up to 5.0% percent of TBD assessed value.
The Council recessed for a brief intermission at 2:35 p.m. The Council
reconvened at 2:49 p.m.
Dire�tor Coleman directed the CounciPs attention to page 10 of her PowerPoint ,
handout. She discussed the excess property tax ,levy, noting that the Council
can initiate a voter approved property tax levy and councilmanic levies up to
2.5% of assessed value. Council may levy 1.5°/n of that, but the remainder must
be voter approved. The City's capacity is currently just under $189 million based
on today's assessed value of $7.5 billion. The City currently has approximately
$67 million in councilmanic general obligation debt, leaving a councilmanic
capacity of approximately $46 million.
. Council and staff briefly spoke regarding the potential for the North Lake Tapps
connector being funded by a,general obligation bond of a TBD formed across
Aubum and a portion of Pierce County.
Director Coleman reviewed the steps for forming a Transportation Benefit District
under RCW 36.73.. The Council must adopt an ordinance specifying the
boundaries of the district, functions or activities to be funded, the funding
authority (motor vehicle license fee or excess levy), and the dissolution of the
TBD once construction is completed and financing or debt senrice of the district
is satisfied.
No one in the state has formed a TBD to date. Director Snyder stated that the
Council would have to be the legislative body for the TBD, but ex-officio
members (from the public) can be appointed as non-voting members. TBD
could raise up to 5.0% of assessed value or approximately $377 million for the
formed district.
Director Coleman reviewed measures that the cities of Kent, Tukwila, Renton
and Federal Way are undertaking to finance transportation and infrastructure. �
Director Coleman reviewed Local Improvement District (LID) formation and Utility -
Local Improvement Districts (ULID). The authority forthe formation of an LID is
under RCW 35.43. An LID can be created by petition method (petition by
majority of the property owners within the LID) or resolution method (can be
formed by City ordinance, but can be protested out by property owners). LID's
are not backed by the general taxation and are funded by assessments and an
LID guaranty fund.
Page 11
Citv_of Auburn Council Retreat __ _ __ Mav 12 and 13.2011
Key steps include establishing a solid analytic foundation at the. outset.
Preliminary analysis will require some investment in staff time for analysis and
discussing impact with Aubum homeowners and business owners.
Assessments cannot exceed benefits, and assessments must be proportionate. �
Director powdy stated that sidewalk LID's are easy. to form and have been
successful in the past.
Councilmember Wagner spoke in favor of a proactive LID process and proposed
the Council consider a 35=40 percent support petition in order to initiate an LID.
He suggested developing a policy for preliminary analyses that will require some
investment in staff time.
The Council adjourned at 3:44 p.m. to meet again on Friday, May 13 at 8:30 a.m.
The Council reconvened on May 13, 2011 af 8:30 a.m.
8:31- Project prioritization scoring, Council consensus— Kevin Snvder
(Scoring paddles were distributed to Council and Planning Director Kevin Snyder
explained the scoring process): Scoring is based on the Councilmembers that
were present. Councilmember Nancy Backus was absent.
Councilmember Partridge asked for clarification on which projects are currently
underway. Public Works Director Dennis Dowdy explained the projects that are
in progress:
Item 1: A St NW Phase 1 (3'�NW to 14th NV1n
Item 9: M Street SE Underpass (E Main St to Auburn Way S)
Item 15: West Valley Highway (SR 18 to W Main St)
The Council ranked each item as follows:
1. A Sfi NW Phase 1 (3� to 14"' NVI�
Safety: 0
Congestion: 3
Economic Stimulus: 4
, Freight; 4
Regional Connectivity: 1
Urgency & Condition: 0
Financial Feasibility: 4
Final Score: 1.90 .
Page 12
Citv of Auburn Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13,2011
2. A St I�OW Pfiase 2 (W Main to 3�d NV1�
Safety: 1
Congestion: 2
Economic Stimulus: 3
Freight: 1
Regional Connectivity: 1
Urgency/Condition: 1
Financial Feasibility:
Final Score: 1.55
3. Auburn Way Corridor(4�' NE to 4�' SE)
Safety: 2
Congestion: 2
Economic Stimulus: 2
Freight: 1
Regional Connectivity: 3
Urgency & Condition: 3
Financial Feasibility: 1
Final Score: 2.10
4. Auburn Way South (SR 18 to IIA St SE, Streetscapes)
Safefy: 2
Congestion: 2
Economic Stimulus: 4
Freight; 4
Regional Connectivity: 1
Urgency & Condition: 0
Financial Feasibility: 1
Final Score: 1:95
5. Auburn Way South (Dogwood to Hemlock)
Safety: 4
Congestion: 4
Economic Stimulus: 2
Freight: 1
Regional Connectivity: 3
Urgency 8� Condition:. 2
Financial Feasibility: 4
Final Score: 3:00 _
Page 13
Citv of Auburn Council'Retreat Mav 12 and 13,2011
- 6. F Street SE (4th SE to Auburn Way South) �
Safety: 2 .
Congestion: 3
Economic Stimulus: 1
Freight: 3
Regional Connectiyity: 1
Urgency 8� Condition: 4
Financial Feasibility: 2
Final Score: 2.35
7. Auburn Way South Bypass (SR 18 to SR 164)
Safety: 0
Congestion: 4
Economic Stimulus: 2
Freight; 3
Regional Connectivity: 4
Urgency & Condition: 0
Financial Feasibility: 0
Final Score: 1.35
8. Auburn Way South 8� Riverwalk Intersection
Safety: 4 �
Congestion: 4
Economic Stimulus: 1
Freight: 2
Regional Connectivit�r: 3
Ucgency 8� Feasibility: 2
Financial Feasibility: 2
Final Score: 2.65
9. M Street SE Underpass (E. Wlain St to Auburn Way South)
Safety: 1
Congestion: 4.
Economic Stimulus: 3
Freight: 3
Regional Connectivity: 4
Urgency & Condition: 4
Financial Feasibility: 4
Final Score: 3.00
Page 14
Citv of Auburn Council Refreat Mav 12 and 13,2011 �
10.M Street Corridor(4�' NE to Auburn Way $outh)
Safety: 3
Congestion: 4 .
Economic Stimulus: 3
Freight: 3
Regional Connectivity: 4
Urgency & Condition:. 3
Financial Feasibility: 2
Final Score: 3.10
11.M Street SE � Auburn Way South Intersection
Safety: 4
Congestion: 4
Economic Stimulus: 2
Freight: 2
Regional Connectivity: 4
Urgency 8� Cond_ition:: 3
. Financial Feasibility:2
� Final Score: 3.10
12.277�' Street(Auburn Wa.y North to Green River Bridge)
Safety: 3 �
Congestion: 4
Economic Stimulus: 4 �
Freight: 2
Regional Connectivity: 4
Urgency & Condition: 2
Financial Feasibility: 2
Final Score: 3.05
13.Environmental Park Distr6ct
_
Safety: 0
Congestion: 1
Economic Stimulus: 4
Freight: 1 ,
Regional Connectivity: 3
Urgency & Co:ndition: 3
Financial Feasibility: 1
Final Score: 1.86
Page 15
Citv of.Auburn Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13,2011
14.15�' Streef Reconstruction
Safefy: 2
Congestion: 1
Economic Stimulus: 1
Freigfit: 3
Regional Connectivity: 3
Urgency & Condition: 3
Financial Feasibility: 2
Final Score: 1.95
15.West Valley�Highway (SR 18 to W. Main.St)
Safety: 3
Congestion: 3
Economic Stimulus 2
Freight: 2
Regional Connectivity: 4
Urgency & Condition: 4
Financial Feas'ibility: 4
Final Score: 3.10
16.West Valley Highway (W. Main St to 15�' St NUI�
Safety: 2
Congestion: 2
Economic Stimulus: 2
Freight: 2
Regiona(Connectivity: 4
Urgency & Condition: 4
Financial Feasibility: 2
Final Score: 2:65
17.West Valley Highway(37�' Street to City Limits)
Safety: 2 "
Congestion: 3
Economic Stimulus: 2
Freight: 4 �
Regional Connectivity: 4
Urgency 8� Condition: 4
Financial Feasibility: 2
Final Score: 2.75
Page 16
Citv of Aubum Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13,2011
18.29�' � R Street SE Intersection
Safety: 2
Congestion: 4
Economic Stimulus: 1
Freight: 2 -
Regional Connectivity: 2
Urgency& Condition: 1
Financial Feasibility: 2
Final Score: 1.90
19.`P Street NE (Developer Participation) (40�' St to 52"d St)
Safety: 0
Congestion: 3
Economic Stimulus: 4
Freight: 2
Regional Corinectivity: 3
Urgency 8� Condition: 1
Financial Feasibility: 2
Final Score: 1.90
20.Downtown Streets and Sidewalks -
Safety: 1
Congestion:.1
Economic.Stimulus: 4
Freight: 1
Regional Conriectivity: 2
Urgency 8� Condition: 4
Financial Feasibility: 2
Final Score: 2.35
21.Lea Hill SE 312�' St, 124�' St and 320�' Corridor
Safety: 3
Congestion_: 4
Economic Stimulus: 2
Freight: 3
Regional Connectiyity: 3
Urgency 8� Condition: 3
Financial Feasibilify: 2
Final Score: 2.85
Page 17
Citv of Auburn Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13.2011
22.Lea Hill Road �Bridge (Pike to 124�':St SE)
Safety: 4
Congestion: 4
Economic Stimulus: 2 '
Freight: 4
Regional Connectivity: 4
Urgency 8� Condition: 3
Financial Feasibility: 2
Final Score: 3.20
23.Lakeland/Tapps Connector(Stewart, Bridge)
Safety: 1
- Congestion: 4
Economic Stimulus: 3'
Freight: 3
Regional Connectivity: 4
Urgency & Condition: 2
Financial Feasibility: 2
Final Score: 2.40
24.Kersey Way (Oravetz Road to South City Limits)
Safety: 2
Congestion: 1 �
Economic Stimulus:2
Freight: 3
Regional Connectivity: 4
Urgency & Condition: 3
Financial Feas'ibility: 2
Final Score: 2.20
25.Non-Motorized (Bikes, pedestrians, etc. Twelve TIP Projecfis total)
Safety: 2
Congestion: 1
Economic Stimulus: 1
Freight: 0
Regional Connectivity: 2
Urgency & Condition: 2
Financial Feasibility: 2
Final Score: 1.55
Page 18
Citv of Auburn Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13.2017
,
26.Intersections and ITS (Four TIP Projects total)
Safety: 3
Congestion: 3 �
Economic Stimulus: 3
Freight: 0
Regional Connectivity: 2
Urgency 8� Condition: 3
Financial Feasibility: 2
Final Score: 2.70
27.$OS Local Street Preservation (20 years)
Safety: 1
Congestion: 2
Economic Stimulus: 1
Freight: 2
Regional Connectivity: 1
Urgency & Condition: 3
Financial Feasibility: 3
Final Score: 1.80
28.Arterial Street Preservation (20 years)
� Safety: 1 ,
Congestion: 1
Economic Stimulus: 3
Freight: 4
Regional Connectivity: 4
Urgency & Condition: 4
Financial Feasibility: 2
Final Score: 2.40
29.Routine Street Maintenance (20 years)
Safety: 3 �
Congestion: 1
Economic Stimulus: 2
Freight: 4
Regional Connectivity: 2
Urgency & Condition: 4
Financial Feasibility: 3
Final Score: 2.70
, .
Page 19
Citv ofiAuburn Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13,2011
30.Engineering (20 years)
Safety: 4 ,
Congestion: 4
� Economic Stimulus: 4
Freight: 4
_ Regional Connectivity: 4
Urgency & Condition: 4 -
Financial Feasibility: 4
Final Score: 4.00
Mayor Lewis and Deputy Mayor Singer do not feel Engineering should be an
item on the list since it is always necessary and is included in the project cost, in
which there is no need for prioritization. Councilmember Wagner suggested
parceling out the $20 million project cost. The item has been eliminated from the
� list for the time being.
Complete financing discussion and set Qoals
Council and staff reviewed the items that had a final score of three or higher to
detecm:ine which projects have priority for funding.
Council�member Norman expressed concem with Item 22, Lea Hill and Bridge.
She feels that it is important to have access to the Hill and needs to have priority
in #lie long-range vision. Councilmember Norman inquired about other
possibilities of improvirig access fo the Hill. Direcfor Snyder clarified that this is a
20-year process and making a certain project a priority .does not necessarily _
mean that it will be started right away. Councilmember Peloza suggested sorting
projects in 5-year increments so we can look at feasibility and consulting studies.
Councilmember Wagner suggested�adding partnership funding, such as funding
from the Tribe; to each project.
Mayor Lewis explained that the scores of the projects are only an indicator as to
what is happening at this moment, and because a certain project scores low,
does not mean that it is not an important project:
Director Snyder asked the Council for their thoughts on the Transportation
Benefit District (TBD), and if it is applied, if is should be city-wide or reduced to a
geographic area.
Deputy Mayor Singer is concemed that if projects are reduced to one geographic
area, then there will not be enough people in the area to afford that specific
project.
Page 20
Citv of Auburn Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13.2011
Councilmember Haugen feels there is an overlapping situation among the .
neighboring cities, such as Sumner, Kent.and Federal Way. She expressed
there should be other people, such as citizens and the Auburn Chamber of
Commerce, involved in#he TBD.
Public Works Director powdy explained that a single TBD will allow for Interlocal
Agreements between neighboring cities.
Deputy Mayor .Singer expressed support for connecting well with neighboring
cities and continuing the enthusiastic approach.
After further discussion, the City Council agreed there should be a
� Transportation Benefit Disfrict.
Councilmembers Haugen and Norman inquired if _the general public will be
inVolved in the process. They would like the information to be shared with the
commu:nity, Auburn Chamber of Commerce and the Muckleshoot Tribe. -
Councilmember Partridge .asked if the TBD is for orie project or for many
projects. Planning Director.Snyder responded.,and explained that the TBD can
be for any number of projects and that many of the projects are from the
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).
Councilmember Norman wants to make sure the City is prepared for any
unexpected events and suggested having a backup fund.
The Transportation Benefit District will be voted on in February 2013.
Local Improvement District
The City will seek a Local Improvement District (LID) in addition to the .
Transportation Benefit Disfrict (TBD).
Councilmember Partridge suggesfed reaching out to the community for LID.
opportunities and to gain input on projects. He also suggesfed a soft approach
to develop community conversations on the TBD.
Councilmember Wagner would like to see federal and stafe grants going
forward. He would also Jike to see public, private and intergovernmental
partnerships. Deputy Mayor Singer advised that it must be a finro-way street and
we should be readyfor our partners to come to us.
Page 21
Citv of Auburn Council Retreat Mav 12 and 13.2011
Councilmember Peloza would like to see improvement on the aesthetics of the
City. Councilmember Wagner suggested adding "enhancement funding" to help
fund aesthetic projects.
Councilmember Haugen, suggested making wa�nding.a part of transportation
(vehicular and pedestrian). Wa�nding will be discussed at the next Committee
of the Whole meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 12:15 pm.
�i
AP THE DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011.
, �
�� �
�
�
Peter B. Lewis, Mayor Danielle Daskam, City Clerk
Page 22