CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Monday, June 18, 2018 Council Chambers - Shoreline City Hall
7:00 p.m. 17500 Midvale Avenue North
PRESENT: Mayor Hall, Deputy Mayor Salomon, Councilmembers McGlashan, Scully, McConnell, Chang, and Roberts
ABSENT: None
1. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m., the meeting was called to order by Mayor Hall who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Hall led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
Debbie Tarry, City Manager, provided reports and updates on various City meetings, projects and events.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Chang reported on her attendance at the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Transit-Oriented Development Meeting where the discussion focused on affordable housing and how to prioritize it around the station areas.
Mayor Hall reported that Miranda Redinger gave an outstanding presentation to the Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council on work Shoreline has done with stormwater, transit-oriented development, walkability, and the Climate Action Plan. He also reported on his attendance at the second meeting of the Governor’s Killer Whale Task Force, which focuses on Orca recovery. Lastly, he reported that he participated in a conference call with the King County-Cities Climate Coalition on Friday, and the group is currently working on a recruitment strategy.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Robin Lesh, Seattle, thanked the Council on behalf of the Cascade Swim Club for the energy and wisdom they carried forward into the decision to construct the new Community/Aquatic Center. She emphasized the club’s commitment to work with the City to grow swimming in the community.
John Cole, Shoreline, referred to Ordinance No. 824 and asked if the definition of Residential Care Facility (RCF) would exclude Enhanced Service Facilities as defined by the State of Washington. He also asked if an RCF would qualify as a low-cost residential facility or for a property tax exemption.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was approved by unanimous consent.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon motion by Councilmember McConnell and seconded by Councilmember McGlashan and unanimously carried, 7-0, the following Consent Calendar items were approved:
(a) Approving Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 30, 2018
(b) Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with rhiza A+D in an Amount Not to Exceed $140,000 for Public Art Design, Fabrication and Installation
8. ACTION ITEMS
(a) Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with WRNS Studio in the Amount of $275,000 for the Shoreline Community and Aquatics Center Site Design
Eric Friedli, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services (PRSC) Director, made the staff presentation. He briefly reviewed the project’s background, which started with a Strategic Action Initiative in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan and included an extensive public process. He explained that a Feasibility Study was completed as part of the process. This study included a summary of the results of the community survey and market analysis, an assessment of potential locations, the types of uses that would be housed in the new facility, a concept of what the new facility might look like, construction cost estimates, and estimated operational expenses and revenues.
Based on criteria identified by the PRSC/Tree Board via a public process, Mr. Friedli said it was determined that 17828 Midvale Avenue N and properties to the east along Stone Avenue between N 178th and N 180th Streets would be the optimal site for the new Community and Aquatic Center. Having the site selected, the next phase is the creation of concept designs that identify site and frontage improvements, the layout of the buildings, etc. This information will provide guidance to the community, staff and City Council as they move forward with the development of implementation plans.
Mr. Friedli advised that a Request for Qualifications was issued in February and 14 responses were received. He recommended the Council move to authorize the City Manager to execute a professional services contract with WRNS Studio for $275,000 to develop site designs and construction cost estimates for a Community and Aquatics Center. He provided some background information about WRNS Studio’s qualifications and explained the reasoning behind the recommendation. Pending approval of a contract, WRNS Studio would attend some of the City’s spring and summer events to engage in conversations with the public.
Councilmember Roberts moved to authorize the City Manager to execute a professional services contract with WRNS Studio for $275,000 to develop site designs and construction costs estimates for a community and aquatics center. Councilmember Chang seconded the motion.
Councilmember Roberts recalled that, when the PROS Plan was being developed, there was a lot of community interest for an aquatic center. The maintenance costs of the existing facility continue to increase and it is time to move forward with construction of a new aquatics center. He is happy with the project’s direction and looks forward to community involvement over the course of the summer.
Councilmember McGlashan asked if the contract would include cost comparisons for a variety of options. Mr. Friedli answered that the model will allow the consultant to study the costs based on a variety of options. It will also analyze the operational costs and revenue potential.
Councilmember Chang commented that a community/aquatics/senior center can be the heart of the community. However, she wants people to know that the City Council is thinking about funding. She asked when the current park bonds will expire and when the new levy, if approved, would come on line. Mr. Friedli responded that the current park bonds expire in 2021, but he does not yet know the phasing of a new levy and how it would overlap with retirement of the existing bonds. Ms. Tarry added that the Council has discussed putting something on the ballet in November 2019 or in a special election in early 2020. If approved by the voters, the goal is to have very little, if any, overlap between the new and old bonds.
Mayor Hall observed that the community made a huge investment into the City’s parks with passage of the 2006 bond. The new levy would function as an opportunity for the community to renew its interest in funding additional park and community assets. He reminded Council that, with approval of the contract, they are committing City funds on the strong belief that the community does and will continue to support the Community and Aquatics Center Project.
Councilmember Scully agreed that there is such a huge community interest and obvious benefit, but he is concerned about committing to this large and costly project when the City has not yet met its responsibility to provide basic community services such as sidewalks. However, he will vote in support of the contract so the community and Council will have clear information about the project costs, operational costs, and revenue potential to guide future decisions.
Councilmember McConnell observed that the existing facility is on its last leg and maintenance costs will continue grow. Locating the facility in Town Center will provide a great anchor and allow some of the City’s resources to be consolidated. She expressed her belief that site design and construction cost estimates are necessary before presenting a funding measure to the voters. She commented that the new facility would also help to address the needs of the City’s aging population.
Councilmember McGlashan asked if the City would vacate the school property where the current pool is located. He asked if the costs for demolishing the existing pool would be included in the consultant’s analysis. Mr. Friedli answered affirmatively.
Councilmember Scully asked staff to review why the Fircrest site was not identified as a viable location for the new facility. Mr. Friedli said the Fircrest pool facility has been closed for nearly a decade, and a lot of the equipment that operates the pool has been removed. It was determined that renovating the facility would be costly, and the City would end up with a facility similar to the one it has now. He also noted that the Fircrest site did not meet the community’s desire for a centrally-located facility.
The motion carried unanimously.
9. STUDY ITEMS
(a) Discussing Policy Decisions Relating to a Potential Ballot Measure for a 0.2 Percent Sales and Use Tax to Expand, Preserve, Maintain and Operate the Transportation Infrastructure of the City of Shoreline, Including Funding for Sidewalk Expansion, Repairs and Retrofits
Randy Witt, Public Works Director, Sara Lane, Administrative Services Director, and Tricia Juhnke, City Engineer, were present to make the staff presentation.
Mr. Witt reviewed that on April 23rd the City Council asked staff to develop a resolution to place a voter-approved Transportation Benefit District (TBD) sales tax increase of 0.2% on the November 2018 ballot for funding new sidewalks and/or accelerating work on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan. On June 4th the Council approved the Sidewalk Prioritization Plan, which will be used as the basis for developing a sample list of projects to include with the ballot measure.
Ms. Lane reviewed that rules associated with TBDs, which authorize cities to approve a sales tax of up to 0.2% with voter approval. She provided a chart to illustrate the current sales tax rates in neighboring cities, noting that, even with a 0.2% voted sales tax, Shoreline’s tax would still be lower than Edmonds and Lynnwood. While the other cities on the list with a TBD tax are at 0.1%, 32 of the 39 cities in the state with a TBD tax are at 0.2%.
Mr. Witt highlighted the high-priority projects identified in the 2018 Sidewalk Prioritization Plan, which have an estimated cost of about $95 million. He provided a chart listing the conservative and potential project deliveries based on both a 10-year and 20-year return. He advised that there are four primary policy questions that need to be addressed in order to draft a resolution that would place a sales tax measure before voters, which are as follows: does Council want to issue debt supported by the TBD sales tax revenue; consider a 10-year or 20-year term for the TBD sales tax; identify specific projects to be funded by the TBD sales tax; and dedicate the TBD sales tax revenue to expanding the City’s sidewalk network or use it for both expansion and accelerating repair of the City’s current sidewalk system.
Mr. Witt and Ms. Lane reviewed all the policy issues and choices and said staff is recommending: using debt financing, structured to maximize revenue and reduce risk, in order to deliver projects sooner; using a 20-year term in order to deliver more projects sooner and reduce both the effort and cost associated with a second vote; including a list of projects up to the 70% revenue mark; and drafting the resolution to allows for both the maintenance/repair of sidewalks as well as building new ones.
At the request of Councilmember Roberts, Mr. Witt explained how the cost estimates for each sidewalk segment were put together using historic sidewalk costs in the City and other jurisdictions. Councilmember Roberts asked how adding right-of-way acquisition costs would change the number of sidewalks that can be funded under either plan. Mr. Witt said it would increase the cost of a sidewalk segment, and the 30% unused funding could cover these additional costs.
Councilmember McGlashan voiced concern that the title of the agenda item is misleading, and it needs to be clear that the money from the TBD sales tax would be used solely for sidewalk expansion and/or maintenance and repair. Ms. Lane clarified that TBD sales tax revenue could be used for any transportation infrastructure, but staff is recommending that it be dedicated to new sidewalks with the ability to provide some additional acceleration for sidewalk repair and maintenance. The ballot measure language will make this clearer and be as specific as the Council’s guidance allows.
Councilmember McGlashan said he likes that the 20-year plan would result in more funding and allow projects to be done quicker, but he is concerned that it would not allow for pay-as-you-go to address repair and maintenance issues that come up. Ms. Lane responded that the measure could be structured to allow flexibility, which is another reason not to provide a full list of 100% of the projects. He said he is cautious about being the guinea pig for the 20-year plan since no other jurisdiction in the State has chosen this approach. He also expressed his belief that the City’s greatest priority should be getting the existing sidewalks repaired and ADA compliant. He does not want to promise too high of a percentage of the funds for new sidewalks.
Councilmember McConnell agreed that the measure should be defined more clearly to include some funding for emergency repairs. She is also a little skittish about pursuing a 20-year plan but recognized there are some compelling arguments in favor of that approach. She asked what recourse the City would have if the 20-year ballot measure fails. Ms. Lane said the City would have to go back out for a 10-year plan.
Councilmember McConnell observed that the projects on the list are not divided equitably throughout all quadrants of the City, and she questioned if this might jeopardize the success of the ballot measure. She agreed with staff that the measure should not overcommit to specific projects because the situation could change over time. Mr. Witt pointed out that all the roads in The Highlands are private, and public funding could not be used for sidewalk improvements in this area.
Deputy Mayor Solomon said he recently asked a number of people what they think is reasonable, and most felt that a 0.1% measure for a 20-year term was the best approach. He expressed his belief that it is important to specifically earmark the funds for sidewalk improvements as opposed to general transportation but voiced concern that adopting the matrix in the Staff Report as part of the measure would lock the City into just those projects on the list. Ms. Lane responded that referencing the matrix would allow the Council flexibility to make changes as the Sidewalk Prioritization Plan is updated. She cautioned that, at some point in the process, it will be important for the City to provide some examples of the projects in the plan that are intended to be funded. Deputy Mayor Salomon summarized that there must be a balance between needing to be clear about what the City is asking for and having the ability to be responsive to changing situations in the future, but he is leaning towards a more specific measure.
Deputy Mayor Salomon reminded Council that it recently adopted a funding mechanism for sidewalk repair, and he felt repairs need to be prioritized based on that fund’s budget. He voiced concern that Saltwater Park showcases one of the best views in the City, yet there is no sidewalk and visitors have to walk through a crowded and dangerous side street to access it. He suggested that this sidewalk should be given a higher priority.
Councilmember Scully agreed with the staff’s recommendation to use debt financing because the people who vote for the measure will want to see results. If the regional economy continues the way it is, the City will be better off paying the debt costs but having lower construction costs. He said he is nervous about a 20-year term because it requires the next generation to pay for it. He would be more comfortable with a 10-year plan with the understanding that a future Council could place a new measure on the ballot with a new list of projects.
Councilmember Scully agreed with Councilmember McConnell that the projects should benefit all quadrants of the City. He also agreed with Deputy Mayor Salomon that the sidewalk leading to Saltwater Park may have been underscored based on the need and public benefit. While he supports both expansion of new sidewalks and repair of existing sidewalks, he felt the cleanest approach would be to focus the measure on the expansion of new sidewalks, recognizing that the Council recently imposed a vehicle license fee for sidewalk repair and maintenance.
Councilmember Chang said she supports a 10-year measure over a 20-year measure. She also prefers a plan with 70% financing because she is anxious about using a revenue source that is uncertain. She would like the measure to be project specific, and she would like the measure to be devoted to just new sidewalks.
Councilmember Roberts observed that the ultimate goal is to have a transportation system and pedestrian network that is safe and works for everyone, but they must think about sidewalks in relationship to other City services and functions. At this time, the Community and Aquatic Center is his priority, and he is not committed to voting on a sales tax measure for sidewalks. However, if the Council decides to move forward as recommended by staff, there would be a 2:1 ratio of new sidewalks to repaired sidewalks, which is opposite of the Sidewalk Advisory Committee’s recommendation and the general feeling of the community. He said he would support flipping the ratio or establishing a 1:1 ratio to create a more balanced approach.
Councilmember Roberts said he is concerned about the Meridian Avenue Project’s high score on the matrix. He recognized that it is a major arterial that should have sidewalks on both sides of the street, but there is an existing sidewalk on the east side and an unofficial trail on the west side. His preference would be to consider adding access to parks as part of a parks bond associated with the Community and Aquatics Center.
Mayor Hall recalled that when the recession hit in 2008, several neighboring cities that are sales-tax dependent saw revenues drop by more than 30% for several years in a row. Listing specific projects that commit 70% of the funding is too aggressive for him, and he would prefer to commit 60% to specific projects. He also prefers flexibility in the actual voter-approved measure to allow the funding to be used for repair and maintenance, if needed. He said he sees pros and cons for both the 10 and 20-year plans but tends to favor a bigger commitment (20 years and 0.2%), recognizing that if it does not pass, they would need to downsize the request.
Councilmember McConnell emphasized that because the measure would be a sales tax, anyone who spends money in Shoreline would pay it. She is in favor of using the funds to support debt because it allows the projects to be done in bulk. She also favors the larger commitment of 0.2% over 0.1%. She agreed with a less specific and more conservative approach to the funding allocation, too.
Ms. Tarry summarized that the Council appears to favor using the funding to support debt, and most preferred a 20-year plan at 0.2%. She asked for feedback regarding whether or not the funding should be used for new sidewalks, repair and maintenance of existing sidewalks, or a combination of both. Deputy Mayor Salomon and Councilmembers Scully, McConnell and McGlashan said they would prefer that the funding be used for new sidewalks only, Councilmember Roberts indicated he would prefer a 50/50 split consistent with the Sidewalk Advisory Committee’s recommendation, and Mayor Hall and Councilmember Chang indicated support for using the majority of the funds for new sidewalks, but allow some funding for sidewalk repair and maintenance, as well.
Ms. Tarry advised that staff will come back with a draft ballot measure on July 16th. No action will be requested until July 30th.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At 8:36 p.m., Mayor Hall declared the meeting adjourned.
/s/Jessica Simulcik Smith, City Clerk