CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING

Monday, January 3, 2000

6:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Hansen, Councilmembers Grossman, Gustafson, Lee, Montgomery and Ransom

ABSENT: None

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.

Mayor Jepsen welcomed Kevin Grossman to the Council.

(a) Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor

Mayor Jepsen turned the gavel over to the City Clerk to conduct the election for Mayor for the term ending December 31, 2001. The City Clerk opened the nominations for Mayor. Councilmember Ransom nominated Ronald Hansen. Deputy Mayor Montgomery nominated Scott Jepsen. Both individuals spoke in support of the candidates they had nominated. The City Clerk called for further nominations, and, seeing none, declared the nominations closed. Both candidates spoke to their nominations. The vote was taken on the nominations in the order they were made. Councilmembers Grossman, Hansen and Ransom cast their votes for Ronald Hansen. Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Montgomery and Councilmembers Gustafson and Lee cast their votes for Scott Jepsen, who was then declared Mayor for a second term.

The City Clerk turned the gavel over to Mayor Jepsen, who opened the nominations for Deputy Mayor. Councilmember Lee nominated Ronald Hansen. Mayor Jepsen called for further nominations and, seeing none, declared the nominations closed. A unanimous ballot was cast for Ronald Hansen, whom Mayor Jepsen declared elected Deputy Mayor.

Councilmember Lee thanked Councilmember Montgomery for her service as Deputy Mayor for the past two years. Councilmember Montgomery said it was a privilege to serve.

3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS

Robert Deis, City Manager, reported that Phase 2 of the Development Code rewrite will be discussed by the Planning Commission this Thursday.

Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Tim Stewart, Director of Planning and Development Services, said if certain items need additional time for discussion, they will be pulled out of Phase 2 so as not to force a premature decision.

Turning to another topic, Mr. Deis gave the background on arson investigations, noting that King County used to provide this service for free but is now charging for it. The proposed charge is $50,000. He said negotiations between the cities that contract for this service and King County are proceeding but are not yet resolved. King County has said it will continue to provide service as long as there is a good faith effort toward finding resolution. The contract cities have offered to pay for one of the two staff for a year and use that time to work out the details of the arrangement. He said the Fire District feels, as do the cities, that the Fire Marshall is called too often. Cutting back the number of calls would cut costs, but agreement must be reached among the cities about service levels. He cautioned the Council that if there is a fire requiring investigation during this period, a quick decision may be required.

Councilmember Ransom asked if the Fire Marshall’s Office is a Countywide function. Mr. Deis said the contract cities feel it is, but some cities provide their own fire marshalls. He felt this should be a County service because it is a very specialized area of investigation that takes practice to do well.

On a third topic, Mr. Deis introduced Joyce Nichols, Community and Government Relations Manager, who described the process for nominating individuals to various regional committees. Having members on these committees greatly extends the influence of the City and the interests of the north end of King County. She cautioned that the City will not get all the appointments it submits, particularly if there are other north end representatives. Councilmembers indicated interest in serving on the following committees:

Regional Transit Committee--Councilmember Montgomery
Regional Water Quality Committee--Councilmember Ransom, Councilmember Lee
Puget Sound Regional Council Executive Board--Deputy Mayor Hansen
Puget Sound Regional Council Trans. Policy Board--Deputy Mayor Hansen
Growth Management Planning Council--Mayor Jepsen
King County Jail Advisory Committee--Councilmember Ransom
King County Economic Development Council--Councilmember Grossman
King County Consortium--Councilmember Gustafson
Seashore Forum--Councilmember Montgomery
King County Disability Board--Councilmember Ransom

Mayor Jepsen noted that Mr. Deis has been appointed to the Puget Sound Regional Council Staff Committee and that Mr. Stewart is staff to the Growth Management Planning Council. J.B. Smith of the Shoreline Fire Department will represent Shoreline on the Emergency Medical Services Funding Task Force.

4. COUNCIL REPORTS

Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Deis said there were no Y2K computer glitches. Councilmember Gustafson thanked all the City employees who volunteered their time during this period.

Bill Conner, Public Works Director, added that the emergency exercise was good practice in coordination with all the special districts.

Councilmember Hansen commented on the illegal fireworks in Richmond Beach on New Year’s Eve.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery reported that the Sound Transit Board voted to have light rail extend to Northgate. She noted that the Metro transit cuts have been put on hold pending possible legislative funding. She also reported on a meeting with Jean Carpenter from King County Executive Ron Sims’ staff to discuss Shoreline’s transportation issues. The outcome was: 1) transit service on Route 358 will not be changed; 2) the $500,000 in the County budget for the Aurora project remains; and 3) the County will reestablish the citizen Sounding Boards to discuss the service cuts.

Councilmember Ransom commented that the items before the National League of Cities Legislative Committee were adopted without much discussion. He noted that it appeared that the budget for the King County jail will only be cut by five percent or less.

Mr. Deis noted that the Governor’s budget proposes that the State reimburse cities for some of the General Fund revenues lost by Initiative 695. It contains an allocation for Shoreline of $620,000 for 2000 and $1.3 million in 2001. Although there is no guarantee of receiving this funding, it is a starting point for discussions with legislators.

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None

6. WORKSHOP ITEMS

(a) Summary of citizen input and update regarding the potential siting of a King County Wastewater Treatment Facility at Point Wells, and possible next steps

Mr. Deis pointed out that the recommendation to oppose the siting of the treatment plant at Point Wells is made absent knowing the specifics addressing all the concerns of the community. He said staff is not recommending "to close the door permanently." However, given what is known at this point, Shoreline should not support a treatment plant at Point Wells.

Kristoff Bauer, Assistant to the City Manager, introduced Reid Shockey, a consultant assisting the City in its analysis of this issue. Mr. Bauer reviewed the public survey taken after the summer forum, noting that it showed that with appropriate mitigation, the construction of an outfall at Point Wells may be acceptable to Shoreline. The survey also showed community support for the annexation of Point Wells.

After noting that the property owner, Chevron, has made it clear that no change to the use at Point Wells is anticipated in the near future, Mr. Bauer reviewed the proposed advocacy objectives that came out of the survey: 1) secure a meaningful role for the City in the King County siting process; 2) take a position of active skepticism based on the community’s concerns about the siting of the treatment plant at Point Wells [a rewording from the Council packet]; 3) ensure that the outfall is sited consistent with best environmental practices and consistent with regional wastewater service goals and objectives; and 4) ensure that if Point Wells is selected as the outfall location, any impacts on Shoreline are mitigated consistent with City policy and community sensitivities.

After Mr. Bauer emphasized the importance of building a relationship with Snohomish County, Mr. Shockey listed the goals of the City in working with Snohomish County: 1) securing Shoreline participation in the discussion of establishment of future annexation boundaries; 2) development of an interlocal agreement for cross-county annexations and addressing the reluctance of Snohomish County officials about doing this; and 3) addressing Comprehensive Plan land use issues.

Turning to Shoreline’s relationship with Woodway, Mr. Shockey said it has been difficult to develop a relationship regarding Point Wells because Woodway sees it as part of its urban growth area. He mentioned a Woodway Study Committee that staff will attend as observers as part of the effort to maintain a dialogue with Woodway.

Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.

(1) Bill Clements, speaking for the Richmond Beach Community Council (RBCC), said the future of Point Wells is of great interest to the Richmond Beach community, since this neighborhood will feel the greatest impacts from any development there. He described the RBCC’s community survey, which showed that 68 percent of those responding opposed a treatment facility at Point Wells and felt no mitigation would make the facility acceptable to the community. He said RBCC representatives will monitor the meetings of the Woodway Study group. He concluded that the RBCC is interested in maintaining good communication with the City as this process evolves.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom’s question regarding Snohomish County’s resistance to cross-county annexations, Mr. Shockey said it arose from Woodinville’s annexation efforts. Staff has been educating those in Snohomish County about the differences between that annexation effort and Shoreline’s interest in Point Wells.

After Councilmember Gustafson expressed uncertainty about softening opposition to the treatment plant (as expressed in the revised second advocacy point), he asked about the Siting Committee. Mr. Bauer responded that the County has hired a consultant to start the process, but Shoreline wants to be engaged and help mold the process even before it begins. He said it is unknown whether the committee will be elected officials or staff or a combination. The Regional Water Quality Committee will also have a role in this process. Councilmember Gustafson suggested that former Councilmember King would be a good representative if possible.

Responding again to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Bauer said discussions have not begun related to the interlocal agreement with Snohomish County because Shoreline has been asked to address potential political roadblocks first. Deputy Mayor Hansen and staff are meeting with Snohomish County Councilmembers to do some education and remove some of the roadblocks to initiating these discussions.

Councilmember Gustafson suggested asking Chevron for a discount on asphalt since Chevron uses Shoreline roads.

Responding to Councilmember Grossman, Mr. Shockey said Snohomish County is the decision maker about the future of Point Wells, but it realizes that the relationship between Point Wells and the City of Shoreline dictates Shoreline’s need to have some authority over how that area is served. He said Snohomish County has a Boundary Review Board (BRB), which would review any annexation request filed with it. However, the interlocal agreement is a prerequisite to accepting an annexation petition.

Councilmember Grossman commented that Shoreline should be educated about Snohomish County’s needs, as well as vice versa.

After Deputy Mayor Hansen pointed out that the property owner is the other key player, Councilmember Ransom asked about the rights of the property owner if it wanted to annex to Shoreline but Snohomish County supported annexation to Woodway. Mr. Shockey said this would be a legal question for the BRB acting under the criteria set out in State law. It is unusual to have such a large parcel of land owned by one property owner, but the BRB would not be bound by what that property owner wished. Any dispute after the BRB decision would go to Court.

Mayor Jepsen also questioned changing the wording of the second advocacy objective to "active skepticism." He was willing to move a bit from advocating against the siting, but his view was that the wording should indicate that Shoreline must see proof that a treatment plant at Point Wells is the best thing that can happen for Richmond Beach and the City of Shoreline. He noted that the community does not want a treatment plant even with appropriate mitigation, and this cannot be ignored. He suggested arranging a site visit for Snohomish County officials, as was done with King County Executive Sims. Seeing the access problems helps make Shoreline’s case.

Mr. Deis suggested modifying the wording on the second point by adding the phrase "Absent resolution of the community’s concerns, advocate against the siting of a treatment plant at Point Wells." He said Shoreline’s concerns are whether all the negative impacts, as perceived by the community, can be addressed and whether there is funding to do so.

Mr. Bauer said staff’s concern in suggesting the change was that Shoreline not be perceived as prematurely negative and thereby not willing to actively participate in the process in a constructive way.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Mayor Jepsen summarized that staff is being directed to follow the advocacy objectives recommended by staff, with the slight modification to the second point as discussed.

(b) Proposed public participation for the Municipal Services Strategic Plan

Eric Swansen, Senior Management Analyst, provided the staff report, noting that Council directed staff to develop a process for public input regarding municipal services for the City’s Municipal Services Strategic Plan. Staff suggests the key informant process, which is used heavily in the health and human services field. He described the interview process, noting the key informant process can reach individuals who have not traditionally been involved in the City. He concluded that after the interviews, the information will be shared with various advisory boards and commissions. All the materials will then be brought to Council and then scheduled for public hearing before adoption.

Mr. Deis said staff is looking for Council direction on selection of the key informants.

Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.

(1) Walt Hagen, 711 193^rd Street, mentioned the Planning Academy process, where people felt they had input and made a difference. He did not think the key informant approach would have that result. He felt it will be too subjective to staff interpretation. He supported a broader group process, noting it may cost more but will provide better citizen input.

Mr. Deis reminded Council that the key informant process is the first step with other processes to go through.

Councilmember Lee asked if the Council of Neighborhoods would be given the same questionnaire. Mr. Deis said the intent was to give them the draft plan.

Mayor Jepsen commented that a number of members of the Council of Neighborhoods would potentially be in the key informant pool. Councilmember Lee felt the Council of Neighborhoods should be given the questionnaire to fill out. She said this group is very representative of the whole City.

Mr. Deis commented that Council must balance all the interests, priorities and resources in the City, whereas advisory boards tend to focus on their area of interest.

Responding to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Swansen said the goal is to find informed individuals who have specialized knowledge or a broad degree of understanding of the community.

Councilmember Ransom was concerned that interviewees would be responding "off the top of their heads" to many questions. So, in addition to this process, he supported something similar to the Planning Academy. He felt it is important to provide knowledge in a group setting upon which to base responses, even if it is only four hours on one night. He felt it is critical to get informed answers from a broader cross section.

Mr. Swansen commented that the key informants will receive background information to be able to answer the questions and determine whether they are willing to participate in the process.

Councilmember Grossman supported the concept, but he felt that more people should be interviewed and/or focus groups used at the end of the process to test whether the original key informants were truly reflective.

Mr. Swanson commented the plan will go to advisory boards and commissions for their thoughts. This should help with a "reality check." He said staff will identify issues where strong consensus does not exist.

Councilmember Grossman recommended that the development of the pool not be limited to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. He was comfortable with them making a selection from a broad pool.

Mayor Jepsen commented that the list can be added to if necessary once the process is begun.

Deputy Mayor Hansen agreed with Councilmember Grossman. His concern was the number of key informants. He felt 15 may not give a very broad spectrum. He was also concerned about biasing the result simply by the way the question is asked. He thought perhaps more time should be allocated to the interview process and more people interviewed. He wanted to create an unbiased process.

Councilmember Lee said she could not think of a more representative and knowledgeable group about City services than the Council of Neighborhoods, and it would be worth facilitating a session with them.

Mr. Deis agreed this could be done and there was Council consensus to have 15 - 20 key informants and to have the Council of Neighborhoods do a session.

Turning to the selection process for key informants, Councilmember Gustafson commented there may be citizens no one knows who are interested in being part of the process and who would like to apply. On the other hand, Councilmember Lee felt that an application form will cause people to be reluctant to participate.

Mayor Jepsen said Councilmembers can suggest an unlimited number of people and in two weeks he and Deputy Mayor Hansen will bring back their recommendations.

Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Swansen said he will be doing the interviews. The goal is to create a conversational atmosphere in a one-on-one, informal setting. The key informants will receive the questions ahead of time.

At Councilmember Gustafson’s suggestion, Mr. Swansen said the key informants can be provided a summary of the interview.

Councilmember Gustafson agreed that the Council of Neighborhoods is an important group to have involved. He said providing the questions in advance and providing a summary after the interview would give some quality control to the process.

Councilmember Lee felt this could be an educational opportunity for citizens to learn more about their local government.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Mayor Jepsen said the key informants will not be required to live in Shoreline, but should be effected by Shoreline services in some way.

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT: None

8. ADJOURNMENT

At 8:40 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.

_______________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk