Loading...
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 &#19) • 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