Loading...
LUTC MINS 05-01-2006G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\05-01-06 LUTC Minutes.doc City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee May 1st, 2006 City Hall 5:30 pm City Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee Chair Jack Dovey; Council Member Linda Kochmar; Committee Member Dean McColgan; Council Member Jim Ferrell; Council Member Jeanne Burbidge; Interim City Manager Derek Matheson; Community Development Director Kathy McClung; Community Development Deputy Director Greg Fewins; MS Director Iwen Wang, Associate Planner Isaac Conlen; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Streets Project Engineer Al Emter; City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; City Attorney Pat Richardson; Administrative Assistant II Marianne Lee; resident Mr. David Kaplan, Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Pierson. 1. CALL TO ORDER Councilman Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm. Eric Faison was excused because he is out of town. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The April 17th, 2006, minutes were approved. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT ST2 Tom Pierson, CEO, Federal Way Chamber of Commerce thanked the Council for their work regarding Sound Transit and light rail. He, explained what the Chamber has done to examine the Sound Transit Light Rail Phase II (ST2) plan. They have taken a deliberate approach to bring in the experts, including people from Sound Transit, and had Cary Roe, Public Works Director, give a presentation. The number one comment they received a feed back was that an SR99 alignment is strongly discouraged because of the disruptions it would cause businesses. They approved two recommendations: 1) Propose a light rail route that is blended; it would have an I-5 alignment and three stops in Federal Way. Two stops would be at transit centers at Star Lake and 320th. The third stop would be in the 348th area off of SR161. 2) Any future plans for Federal Way should show the City has a hub for transit from both north and south, not as an end point. David Kaplan urged the City to decide what it wants to do and how to do it. He believes a SR99 alignment would bring massive disruptions. ST2 would duplicate bus services. Elevated trains are a bad idea because of the cost, noise and disturbance. The trains would go faster along I-5 and could be longer. He gave examples of the Eisenhower Expressway in Chicago and BART in San Francisco. He does not advocated looping ST2 trains to the new transit center but rather to the old 324th Park-N-Ride, building a 2 story parking garage there. He stated that the I-5 alignment is the preferred one for him. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. 26th Avenue SW Pipe Replacement Project Paul Bucich provided background information on this item. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Cmte PASSED Options 1 & 2 on to the May 16th, 2006 Council Consent Agenda. Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 May 1st, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\05-01-06 LUTC Minutes.doc B. Joe's Creek Salmon Habitat Restoration Project - Bid Award Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Cmte PASSED Options 1 & 3 on to the May 16th, 2006 Council Consent Agenda C. Alternative Cross Sections for S348th Street HOV Lanes Project Marwan Salloum gave the background information on this topic. Committee Member McColgan asked if this just moves the problem further down the road. Chair Dovey asked, if a developer made this request, because of possible impact to his proposed development would it be granted? Mr. Salloum said that the Comp. Plan requirement would win. The developer would have to do the required frontage improvements. Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller clarified that the City has a process for design standard modifications and would do for others what it does for itself and has granted “modifications” to developer street cross sections such as OPUS and the new Lowe’s. Chair Dovey said that we might want to look at our Comp Plan and update it if necessary. Mr. Salloum explained that any time we implement the comprehensive plan cross section with in a fully developed area, there is the possibility of impacting the businesses adjacent to the improvements. Therefore, to minimize this impact, minor cross section modifications are evaluated and implemented such as: reducing planter and sidewalk widths. Council Member Burbidge asked where, under alternatives A1, would there still be planter strips and what would the median width be replaced with? Mr. Salloum pointed out the green strips on map A1; those would be planter strips and the median will be replaced with c-curbing. Chair Dovey asked for clarification on the median planter strip on S 348th Street at SR99. Mr. Salloum stated that it is there for intersection alignment. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Cmte PASSED Option 2 on to the May 16th, 2006 Council Consent Agenda D. Transportation Concurrency Implementation Plan and Draft Ordinance Preparation Rick Perez gave the background information on this topic. Chair Dovey asked about the estimated City cost versus a consultant cost. There was discussion on cost recovery; Derek Matheson asked what fees would be needed to support 100% cost recovery. Mr. Perez said he was not sure what the numbers were but staff had looked at that and it would increase the fee charged. Committee Member McColgan stated that he wants to look at 100% cost recovery. Chair Dovey asked if passing the ordinance is different from setting the fees. Mr. Perez said that the ordinance can be passed now and the fees set later since implementation is not until June 2007 and fees are adjusted yearly. Moved: Dovey Seconded: McColgan Passed: Unanimously Cmte PASSED Option 1 on to the May 16th, 2006 City Council for First Reading. E. ST2 Light Rail Alignment Rick Perez provided the background information. Committee Member McColgan suggested eliminating discussion on elevated alignment. Mr. Perez said that ST is requesting a response from the City on scope, alignment, and number of stations. Chair Dovey said he always hears about three stops: 272nd, 320th, & 348th. Mr. Perez said that ST proposes those same three stops. A question is, if the City chooses a SR99 alignment, will it boost economic development? Travel time comparisons were discussed, for timing purposes South Jackson Street counts as “Seattle”. Light Rail goes along MLK Way with many stops. Council Member Burbidge asked for additional analysis. Chair Dovey asked what stations are planned between the airport and Federal Way. Mr. Perez responded that two stops are planned: S 200th St. and 240th (Highline Community College), and then the 272nd stop. With two planned stops south of the airport and three in Federal Way, ST’s plan is to move commuters, not boost local economic development on SR99. ST believes elevated track will be faster, 50-60mph, whereas at-grade would be 30mph. This is because of safety issues (pedestrians, traffic lights, cars). Council Member Ferrell said that the need is to get people to Seattle as quickly as possible. This is about getting people moved, not economic development. Council Member Burbidge said she understands that Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 May 1st, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\05-01-06 LUTC Minutes.doc but thinks we should see what our northern neighbors (Kent & Des Moines) are doing and what they want. Mr. Perez said staff does not know what Kent & Des Moines are doing. Chair Dovey suggested that the key issue is moving people without cars. Mr. Perez said that Light Rail may come to Federal Way faster if the City accepts fewer stations (because it will cost less to build). King County has proposed rapid bus service on SR99; this will impact the viability of Light Rail along the same corridor. Council Member Burbidge suggested that more information is needed before a platform can be decided on. Council Member Ferrell agreed with Council Member Burbidge; he wants to know what Des Moines and Kent want. Mr. Perez said that Kent wants more commuter rail improvements; transit dollars may become an issue for the valley cities versus the I-5 cities. Chair Dovey suggested staff call the neighboring jurisdictions. Mr. Perez agreed. Chair Dovey asked the other Committee & Council members if they knew how they plan to discuss this topic at the Council Meeting May 2nd, 2006. Council Member Ferrell said yes. Council Member Kochmar asked for more clarification. Committee Member McColgan is what the current estimate is for. Mr. Perez said the current estimate is along SR99 and elevated. An at-grade alignment on SR99 could take an extra 6- 12 minutes because it would have lower operating speeds. Chair Dovey asked if this was from Park-N-Ride to Park-N-Ride and Mr. Perez confirmed that it was. Council Member Burbidge said that federal funds have been approved for part of the cost of a Metro parking facility at Highline Community College. She suggests this will be a future stop. Committee Member McColgan said he cannot see having an elevated SR99 alignment; it would have a huge impact. Chair Dovey said he can’t see an elevated alignment on SR99 unless it had many stops. Mr. Perez noted that the Rainier Valley light rail segment is at-grade. Light Rail at-grade preempts traffic signals. Chair Dovey confirmed it will be on tomorrow’s Council Agenda, as Council Business. Forwarded to Council Business for May 2nd, 2006 City Council Meeting. Cmte Forwarded the topic to the May 2nd, 2006 Council Business Agenda F. PAA Annexation Kathy McClung introduced the topic and said that tonight they were presenting the topic and collecting any follow-up items the Committee might like staff to pursue before the next LUTC meeting. She said that the broadest definition of the area was used in the staff report. She also noted that one boundary issue will need to be resolved with Milton; a subdivision (Stonecreek) is in both Milton’s & Federal Way’s PAA. Ms. McClung has spoken with the Community Development Director in Milton to assure her that in using the broad definition Federal Way is not trying to take land from Milton; it is just the preliminary report and it is easier to pair down the land included than to expand it afterwards. It was a very cooperative discussion. Milton’s Community Development Director is strongly interested in seeing this issue through and will bring up the issue with the Milton City Council to see if they have any strong feelings one way or the other. Ms. McClung is confident the two cities can resolve the issue. Resolution must take place before the City moves forward with annexation. Isaac Conlen and Iwen Wang provided the background information. Mr. Conlen began by stating that, in light of recent legislation that has passed authorizing cities that annex large areas to implement a new source of tax revenue, staff has taken another look at the City’s annexation picture. The PAA’s are east of I-5; part is north of 320th and the other area is a non-contiguous area south of SR18. He will provide background information, timeline, and process while Iwen Wang will present the financial issues. He told the Cmte that if the process of initiating annexation for the entire PAA is begun now it will be possible to hold the election in 2007 although, he said, there are some components that are outside of City control and may delay things. The basic process is for City Council to initiate the annexation process by Resolution and submit it to the Boundary Review Board (BRB). Following the BRB’s review will be the establishment of an election date. Then the election will be held and if the annexation passes, door-to-door census will be conducted. During this time, on a parallel course, the City would issue some educational public outreach activity such as: open houses, probably some direct mailings, and other methods to involve the public. The main variable to achieving this timeline is the BRB process; there are two paths they can take. They can go to the quick option, which is a 45 day review period. If they “invoke jurisdiction” it will take longer. That is a 120 day period but it could extend beyond that. Staff has identified some one-time costs of annexation. For an annexation of this size, it will cost between $200,000 and $230,000. Options are: 1) Initiate Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4 May 1st, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\05-01-06 LUTC Minutes.doc annexation of the entire area. 2) Initiate annexation of one portion, such as the northern areas of Star Lake & Camelot, 3) Do not initiate annexation at this time. Iwen Wang presented the financial information. She explained that the population breakdown for the annexation areas is estimated to be just over 20,000 people. Approximately 60% of the people are in the NE and 40% are in the SE. The projected operating deficit is about $3 million for all areas combined; $1.7 million in the NE and $1.3 million in the SE. That is based on a fully staffed, stabilized operation cost. Council will have some discretion on when or how to phase in the services. The City will also have a projected capital deficit for the area estimated at $1.4 million per year. Staff has annualized the capital investment over a 15 year period of time to get the annualized amount. The majority of the estimated deficit will be in the NE PAA, primarily because they have most of the traffic intersections that will need to be brought up to City standards. A large part of the capital needs is for trails; currently there are no trails in this area that meets the City’s standard for trails. The assumption is that we need to build all the trails, or bring the existing ones up to City standards. But she pointed out that even within the City boundaries we are not meeting our goals of 2.2 miles of trail per thousand of population. This is why Council does have latitude to decide when, or how, to make those parks or open spaces related improvements. Chair Dovey asked if there was a City mandate on the trails; Ms. Wang responded that no, there is not. It’s just ‘city desired’ standard; it is in the PARCS comp plan. Chair Dovey noted that the Committee has just seen how the Comp. Plan can change based on the needs of the City. There is the possibility of getting financial assistance, provided by SSB6686, that may substantially eliminate all the operating deficits (for annexation costs) for up to ten years, period. There is a three year window (2007-2010) to annex the new areas and receive 0.1% or 0.2% revenue from sales tax. If jurisdictions annex from 10,000 to 19,999 people at one time they are eligible for 0.1% sales tax credit. If they annex more than 20,000 people at one time they are eligible to receive 0.2% sales tax credit. For Federal Way the 0.1% equates to $1.4 million and the 0.2% is $2.8million so it is very similar to the $3 million dollar deficit we are projecting right now. There will be a meeting tentatively scheduled for May 10th to clarify staff understanding of the legislation. The estimated population of the combined annexation areas is estimated at 20,152. This is less than 1% of 20,000 and leaves a very low margin of error. Populations change through out the year and even by season. Even with the entire area staff can not be positive the City will qualify for the 0.2% sales tax. SSB6686 is also narrowly drafted in terms of which jurisdictions even qualify and the amount of financial assistance available for annexation deficits will not be available indefinitely. There is a small window of opportunity; the City has three years in which to get this reimbursement: 2007, 2008, & 2009. The window closes January 1st, 2010. If the annexation is commenced during that time the City will potentially be eligible for that revenue stream. Ms. Wang doubts this opportunity will come again. This is some of the information staff wants Council to be aware of. Staff will be clarifying some issues on this legislation at the May 10th meeting. This item will come back to LUTC on May 15th, 2006. Committee Member McColgan stated that the Council needs to know how many people there are in the areas to be annexed. Ms. Wang noted that a census will cost money, and the count will depend on a number of factors – even seasons affect area population counts. Staff will be finding out if there is a time requirement on when the census should be done; does it have to be after the election or can it be done in a certain time frame? If there is more latitude, staff is more confident of the census getting done. Council Member Kochmar said that staff is asking for an ‘all or nothing’ approach; can the vote be done per section? Ms. Wang responded that staff is not requiring ‘all or nothing’, staff is saying: 1) If you split the annexation so that there are two, and each vote is over 10,000 people, you only qualify for reimbursement of 0.1%. Only by voting together can the number exceed 20,000 and qualify for 0.2%. 2) This is a window of opportunity for funding that we do not want to miss if the City will be annexing eventually anyway. Chair Dovey said that, looking at the numbers, the annexation vote should be done all at one time and make sure there are over 20,000 people joining the City, or don’t do it at all. The City is losing money if they do not get over 20,000 in population and so do not earn the 0.2% revenue. Without the 0.2% sales tax revenue, the City will be facing a deficit in providing services for the newly annexed areas. Committee Member McColgan asked what are the advantages to the City of annexation and becoming a city with a population of 100,000? Ms. Wang responded that in the staff report there are pros and cons of annexation. However, the most tangible result is that the City will have much better control of the growth pattern in the area and Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 5 May 1st, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\05-01-06 LUTC Minutes.doc be able to direct and control the development and infrastructure. If the City does not put in those parks and trails the residents will use Federal Way’s parks, etc, anyway. Committee McColgan asked again if the City of Federal Way will benefit by becoming a city of 100,000 instead of 87,000. Ms. Wan responded that staff does not know if there are political benefits of becoming a City of 100,000. The per capita revenue distribution, although more people will be more revenue, it will not help that much. Council Member Kochmar asked if anyone has contacted King County to see what kind of permits are in the pipeline. Ms. Wang was not sure. Ms. McClung said the City was supposed to be notified any time a development seeks to be permitted. In those areas development will primarily be residential. She is not aware of a huge number of plats being processed; there may be a couple. Council Member Kochmar asked if a simple majority vote of 50% is needed. Ms. Wang said that yes, a simple 50% will work. As long as you start the annexation process before 2010 the City can get the sales tax revenue. Council Member Kochmar asked why there was not more business zoning in that area. Council Member Ferrell said that the history of the area east of I-5 has been primarily residential, his mother has lived there for 25 years, and the residents like it that way. It’s a very rural suburban area and it does not lend itself to business zoning. Committee Member McColgan asked when is the Council’s decision date in order to get a spring annexation? Mr. Conlen said that given the level of uncertainty with certain components of the process staff suggest that the earlier the City starts the process the more likely a spring election will be. If Council wants to wait for any length of time a decision does not need to be made at this point. Chair Dovey asked if there was money ($200,000 approximately) in the budget to do the annexation. Ms. Wang responded that there is money in the City Manager’s Contingency fund. There is also some undesignated money in the General Fund balance, but the City is saving it for a big mortgage payment on City Hall. However, as it gets closer to year’s end it is likely the City will have more money. If permits and sales tax continue at the current rate projections will be exceeded in those areas and the money might be available. Without that, the City Manager’s Fund can be the contingency place holder. Chair Dovey asked if this $200,000 number was included in the earlier budget talks. Ms. Wang said it was not. Chair Dovey asked if the City could do this over three years. Ms. Wang said yes, you can wait, but don’t wait too long. Chair Dovey said given the recent budget talks, he is not sure annexation is a wise thing to spend a quarter million dollars on right now. Ms. McClung said that there would be some immediate expenses, but the large ones would be impacting 2007 and could be part of the budget process. Staff can bring this back to the next meeting, a cash flow plan on how the City would spend the money and where it would come from. Council Member also wanted to see a timeline for an educational process. The meeting was adjourned. Cmte will return to LUTC meeting for May 15th, 2006. Cmte will return this topic to the May 15th LUTC meeting. 5. FUTURE MEETINGS The next scheduled meeting will be May 15th, 2006. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m.