CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

 

Tuesday, January 18, 2000

6:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

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

ABSENT: Councilmembers Lee and Montgomery

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 with the exceptions of Councilmembers Lee and Montgomery.

Councilmember Ransom moved to excuse Councilmembers Lee and Montgomery. Councilmember Grossman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS

City Manager Robert Deis discussed the effects of the January 16 storm and the City staff response.

Noting the upcoming five openings on the Planning Commission, Mr. Deis mentioned City plans to solicit applicants for review and appointment by Council. Mayor Jepsen suggested that Council wait until Councilmembers Lee and Montgomery are present to form an ad hoc committee to review the applications.

Mr. Deis mentioned that Shoreline Police enhanced traffic enforcement on NE 177th Street in response to citizen concerns.

4. COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmember Ransom reported information from the meeting of the State Gambling Commission that he had attended: 1) the commission has approved Goldie’s as a level-two mini-casino; 2) State Senator Margarita Prentice is sponsoring legislation to allow charitable bingo organizations to share facilities; and 3) legislation has been proposed to allow cities to regulate level-one and level-two gambling establishments without differentiation.

Deputy Mayor Hansen mentioned meetings he had recently attended, including the January 11 festival sponsored by the Richmond Beach Community Council, the January 12 meeting of the Suburban Cities Association and the January 13 meeting of the Puget Sound Regional Council.

Mayor Jepsen noted the "State of the City" address that he delivered to the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce. He mentioned correspondence he had received from the office of King County Executive Ron Sims, following up on Mr. Sims’ November visit to Shoreline. Finally, he said he is still collecting nominations for the Municipal Services Strategic Plan interview process.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT: None

6. WORKSHOP ITEMS

(a) Recommendations for completion of Council’s Goal 4: City’s role vis-à-vis other youth services providers

Health and Human Services Manager Rob Beem reviewed the staff report.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Beem confirmed that Council would need to dedicate General Fund revenues to fund the costs of Option 2, "Infrastructure Development," or Option 3, "Fill Significant Gaps." Councilmember Ransom questioned the percentage increase in youth services that additional funding would achieve. Mr. Deis said additional funding would increase services provided by the Health and Human Services department. Noting the current budget for Health and Human Services, he estimated that a $100,000 increase in funding would represent an increase in services of nearly 50 percent.

Councilmember Grossman mentioned the difficulty of assessing the results of human service initiatives given the variety and interdependence of services. He went on to express concern that staff has not proposed to increase funding for those services it has determined to be less available. Mr. Beem explained the staff perspective that additional funding of the services the City already provides will improve access to other services (e.g., through greater coordination of City services with those of other agencies). Mr. Deis said staff proposes to focus on services on which the City has influence. He mentioned that the City might provide stop-gap funding for needed services. He underscored the financial expense to the City of providing long-term funding to increase the availability of services.

Councilmember Grossman said the people least able to pay for services are "falling through the cracks" that have resulted from the disagreement between the County and suburban cities about human services funding. He asked about the long-term impacts of not funding mental health and substance abuse services. Mr. Deis mentioned studies that have correlated the lack of structured activities for youth to higher rates of teen pregnancy and crime. He said the City has a leadership role in providing structured activities for youth.

Councilmember Gustafson supported the staff proposal that the City provide leadership in a few areas of service and partner with other agencies and advocate in other areas of service. He agreed with the designations of primary focus that staff has proposed. He expressed support for Option 3.

Mayor Jepsen expressed his inclination toward Option 2. However, he agreed with Councilmember Gustafson’s comments in support of Option 3. He asserted that the City must consider other human service needs before focusing a predominant amount of resources on youth services.

In response to Mr. Deis, Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson said they supported the roles that staff has proposed for the City in the nine areas of youth-related human services.

Deputy Mayor Hansen supported Option 1. He said he must review specific program proposals to determine whether he would support the additional funding proposed in the other options. Mr. Deis said staff could propose specific programs as part of the budget process.

Mayor Jepsen asserted Council support for the definition of roles and responsibilities identified in the matrix under Option 2. He indicated that it provides a framework for further discussion.

Councilmember Ransom supported increased funding for human services related to youth. He agreed that Council must consider specific program proposals and the implications for other human service needs. He expressed enthusiasm for filling significant gaps in human services (e.g., dental health services).

(b) Water Services Study—Evaluation of possible City role in water service delivery

Consultant Dave Parkinson reviewed the CH2MHill report, "Comparison of Water Services Provided Within the City of Shoreline by the City of Seattle and Shoreline Water District."

Kristoff Bauer, Assistant to the City Manager, reviewed five options for the City role in water service delivery.

Mayor Jepsen invited comments from representatives of the Shoreline Water District.

Cynthia Driscoll, Shoreline Water District Manager, read from a letter to Council which recommended the formation of an ad hoc committee of Councilmembers, Water District representatives, Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) representatives and citizens to review the five options for the City role in water service delivery and to make a recommendation to Council.

Mayor Jepsen noted the City’s responsibility, under the Growth Management Act (GMA), for insuring the provision of necessary services to Shoreline residents. He questioned the absence of cities from North King County in the membership of the Cascade Water Alliance (CWA). Mr. Parkinson said much of Lake Forest Park and Kenmore are served by the Northshore Utility District, which voted against membership in the CWA.

Mayor Jepsen asserted the primary issues the Council must address in assessing the five options: the City’s responsibility, under the GMA, for insuring the provision of necessary services to Shoreline residents; the potential for problems in the area served by SPU, given the age of the infrastructure; the coordination of resources and services to insure that residents receive the best services for their money. He commented that Option 3, Option 4 or a hybrid of options could address these issues.

Councilmember Ransom said water, sewer, fire and other essential services should eventually be incorporated as part of the City. He commented that the City has developed sufficiently to absorb an operation the size of the Water District and that the City will need to be involved in water issues. He supported a mutually satisfactory City assumption of the Water District (Option 4) and the subsequent, staged assumption of SPU’s water service system in Shoreline (Option 5).

In response to Councilmember Grossman, Mr. Bauer said SPU will have to focus more attention on its water system in Shoreline as it ages and begins to fail. Councilmember Grossman noted that the City would face a substantial capital investment if it assumed SPU’s water service system in Shoreline. Mr. Deis agreed. He mentioned that the City would also lose SPU as a direct connection to a long-term water supply.

Deputy Mayor Hansen expressed concern that eventual replacement of pipes in the SPU water service system will damage City improvements to sidewalks, streets and other infrastructure. He supported the Water District recommendation for the formation of an ad hoc committee. He also supported the City assumption of the Water District and City assistance in the Water District assumption of the SPU water service system in Shoreline. He stressed the need for the coordination among jurisdictions of capital construction projects.

Councilmember Gustafson supported the goals that Deputy Mayor Hansen identified, and he supported the Water District recommendation for the formation of an ad hoc committee. He favored the consolidation of resources and services to insure cost effectiveness.

Councilmember Ransom commented that new legislation could eliminate the opportunity for the City to assume the Water District. He said the City must assume the Water District now, if it is going to do so. He asserted that Council must take a strong position in favor of City assumption of the Water District and then determine a mutually satisfactory process to accomplish it.

In response to Councilmember Grossman, Mr. Bauer explained that current State law facilitates City assumption of the Water District; whereas, previously proposed legislation would have established significant hurdles and delays.

Councilmember Grossman noted the contradiction between the City’s responsibility under the GMA for providing essential services and its loss of control, under potential legislation, of decisions affecting utilities that provide such services.

Mayor Jepsen identified three key issues for evaluation: 1) the City’s responsibility under the GMA for long-term water supply; 2) the status of the current infrastructure; and 3) consolidating overhead and planning. He suggested that Council eliminate Option 1 and Option 5 and that City and Water District staff evaluate the remaining options in terms of the key issues. He said an ad hoc committee is not necessary. Councilmember Gustafson supported Mayor Jepsen’s suggestions.

Deputy Mayor Hansen opposed the elimination of Option 5. He stated his long-term goal of one water district serving all of Shoreline. He suggested the elimination of Option1 and Option 2. Mayor Jepsen and Mr. Deis agreed that Option 2 is impractical.

Mayor Jepsen stated the Council consensus to direct City and Water District staff to analyze Options 3, 4 and 5 against at least the three key issues he identified earlier. Water District Commissioner Mike Harrigan said the Water District will make staff available to participate in the analysis.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Commissioner Harrigan commented on aspects of the staff report and the Council discussion. In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Commissioner Harrigan agreed to provide a written response to the "Comparison of Water Services Provided Within the City of Shoreline by the City of Seattle and Shoreline Water District."

Councilmember Ransom commented that a past Water District presentation on Lake Washington as a source of water was impressive and convincing.

Mr. Deis said he will provide a timeline at the next Council meeting for completing and presenting the requested analysis.

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT: None

8. ADJOURNMENT

At 8:58 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.

 

 

________________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk