CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, November 19, 2001
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 6:33 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the exceptions of Deputy Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Montgomery, who arrived later in the meeting.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Steve Burkett reminded Council that next week’s agenda includes the public hearings on the proposed 2002 budget and the 2002 – 2007 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Grossman reported on Seashore Forum concerns about transportation funding. He also mentioned that the task force reviewing surplus School District properties is now focusing on Aldercrest Annex as the most likely opportunity for joint action.
Councilmember Lee attended the Crista Ministries breakfast honoring public employees, as did Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Ransom.
Councilmember Ransom noted receipt of his application to serve on the Steering Committee for the National League of Cities Human Development Committee. He also attended the Land Bank Task Force meeting mentioned by Councilmember Grossman. He noted that, in addition to the Aldercrest Annex, the task force is discussing the old Kellogg Junior High School site and the Cedarbrook site.
Deputy Mayor Hansen arrived at 6:40 p.m.
Councilmember Gustafson attended the Joint Recommendations Committee that allocates funds for Housing and Urban Development (HUD) projects in King County. He raised the issue of whether Shoreline should continue to be part of this group. He supported this approach rather than Shoreline getting a direct entitlement from HUD. He also summarized fish recovery goals discussed at the "Shared Strategy for the Recovery of Salmon in Puget Sound."
After noting that he and Councilmember Lee attended the Veterans Day celebration at the Church of the Nazarene, Mayor Jepsen reported that he discussed the following with the north-end mayors:
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Steven Simms, 1203 N 148th Place, described the negative impacts of activities at the Shurgard Storage facility adjacent to his home. He said the management of Shurgard has not been responsive to neighborhood complaints about noise, fumes and concerns that a business is being operated in the facility. He asked the City to address this problem.
(b) Rudy and Troy from Boy Scout Troop 853 explained that the scouts were at the meeting as a requirement for their Communications Merit Badge.
6. ACTION ITEM
(a) Motion to authorize the City Manager to sign change orders totaling an additional amount of $335,120 for Pennon Construction for a total maximum construction project amount of $1,438,415 for the Shoreline Swimming Pool Project
Explaining that funding has been identified to cover these change orders, Mr. Burkett explained why they are necessary: 1) the project was not designed and planned correctly; 2) Building Code requirements were not identified in the initial specifications; 3) there were unknown conditions in this 30-year-old building; 4) sales tax was not included in the budget; and 5) modifications were added to improve the project. Mr. Burkett said the project is now nearing completion; opening day should be December 3, 2001. Mr. Burkett committed to improve the City’s performance and contract administration in the future. He pointed out that one of the problems that came up in this project was the attempt to accommodate the swim teams while the project was under construction.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to authorize the City Manager to sign change orders totaling an additional amount of $335,120 for Pennon Construction for a total maximum construction project amount of $1,438,415 for the Shoreline Swimming Pool Project. Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion.
Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Burkett said more than half of the additional dollars requested would have been required anyway—the costs would just have been identified earlier.
Councilmember Gustafson asked whose responsibility it was to determine that the building should have been designed to meet Type 4 building code construction standards rather than Type 5. Mr. Burkett responded that both the City and the consultant have some responsibility. He also pointed out that the project was fast-tracked in the spring in order to meet swim team deadlines, so staff did not have time to identify earlier some of the issues that arose.
Mayor Jepsen concluded that staff needs to "get a better handle on project management."
A vote was taken on the motion, and the City Manager was authorized to sign the changes orders totaling an additional amount of $335,120 for Pennon Construction for a total maximum construction contract amount of $1,438,415 for the Shoreline Swimming Pool Project. It carried 6 – 0.
7. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) Solid Waste Collection Services Contract Amendment
Kristoff Bauer, Assistant to the City Manager, introduced Rika Cecil, the City’s recycling specialist, and Ray Evans of Waste Management. Mr. Bauer reviewed the background of this contract, which provides for an annual rate adjustment in January. He explained the two issues that have arisen since Waste Management became the City’s sole provider. The first is the length of the yard waste seasons. The contract provides that yard waste collection service occurs every other week during the "summer" season (March through October) and once a month during the "winter" season. Depending upon how the collection schedule works out, either the time between the last yard waste collection in October and the only collection in November is long or the time between the November collection and that in December is long. The City received a number of complaints regarding the reduction of service in November. Staff now recommends that the winter yard waste season begin in December. To address the problem this year, Waste Management has agreed to provide a double collection in December, at no additional charge.
Continuing, Mr. Bauer said the other issue that has arisen involves multi-family recycling service. He explained that State law restricts cities’ ability to control commercial recycling and, due to an unintended interplay of definitions in the contract, some multi-family customers are considered "commercial" instead of "residential" customers. He said staff is still working with the contractor to collect information to use to determine the proper course of action.
Concluding, Mr. Bauer reminded Council that around February 1, 2002 Waste Management will begin providing service to the annexation areas. He said staff will work to ensure that this transition goes smoothly.
Mr. Evans explained Waste Management’s new emphasis on customer service and the new standards for equipment delivery, recovery (of missed receptacles) and telephone responses. He said customer service is much improved over the initial start-up phase.
Mayor Jepsen commented that for the most part service has improved. He restated his original concern that the City is getting less service for less money. Regarding the yard waste schedule, he felt the important issue is the length of time between pick-ups when the transition is made from the bi-monthly schedule.
Mayor Jepsen asked about items highlighted in Appendix G on page nine. Mr. Bauer explained that these rates were inadvertently omitted from the original Appendix G. The services are provided, but the rates were not established. He also explained that the annual rate adjustment is based upon 75 percent of the annual change in the Consumer Price Index.
Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Bauer said staff will use various means to advise customers of the double collection in December and the receptacles to be used.
Councilmember Montgomery arrived at 7:35 p.m.
Responding to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Bauer said staff is working on contract language to provide equitable rates to multi-family users. Because the area that will begin receiving service in February includes additional multi-family units, staff proposes to wait until after that change to initiate any other changes related to multi-family service.
Councilmember Gustafson commented on unhappy customers who had contacted him when their yard waste was not picked up. He also asked how people can get assistance if they cannot get their receptacles to the street. Mr. Evans said Waste Management can be contacted if a disability is involved that requires an accommodation.
Responding to Councilmember Montgomery’s suggestion that rate increases be postponed for a year, Mr. Bauer said the rate increases are part of the contract negotiated with Waste Management.
Mayor Jepsen commented that haulers should be sure that all the material gets into the trucks. Mr. Bauer said Waste Management has been very responsive to complaints about this issue.
Mayor Jepsen expressed Council consensus to bring back the contract amendment with the revision of the rate schedule as outlined on Appendix G and the extension of the standard level of yard waste service through November.
(b) Update on Vegetation Management Activities at Richmond Beach Saltwater Park
Wendy Barry, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, and Kirk Peterson, Parks Superintendent, described the proposal for the area near the bluff trail in Richmond Beach Saltwater Park. The vegetation management plan includes tree cutting in December with replanting to follow.
Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.
(1) George Webb, 18605 17th Avenue NW, noted that one of the goals of the vegetation management plan was erosion control to maintain the stability of the slope. He suggested a fencing plan to meet the erosion control goal before the new plantings are installed. He feared that, without fencing, people will continue to create their own trail from the picnic area to the top of the hill. He also mentioned the fire that occurred on the slope last summer.
Ms. Barry said 38 trees will be cut down and 45–50 will be planted. She explained why the trees should be removed. She noted that the stumps will be left in place to help retain the soil until the new vegetation takes over.
Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Peterson explained that "girdling" prevents the tree from growing higher and blocking views.
Mayor Jepsen stated that it should not be City policy to replace all trees that have been vandalized by girdling. Ms. Barry responded that this type of vandalism is not a problem at other parks and that the girdling at Richmond Beach Saltwater Park happened ten or twenty years ago. Additionally, King County oversaw some of the topping of the trees to address view preservation. She said as maintenance standards improve, parks will experience a higher volume of use, which prevents vandalism. In the proposed plan, the trees will not grow high enough to obstruct views, and the plantings will add color and provide erosion control.
Mayor Jepsen suggested consideration of Mr. Webb’s suggestion about protecting the new landscaping with fencing. Ms. Barry said appropriate accesses will be considered when the park is master planned.
Councilmember Grossman expressed concern that the replacement vegetation will not be as aesthetically pleasing or environmentally useful. Ms. Barry said the madrona trees will remain, so the slope will not be totally denuded. The dogwoods and vine maples are native trees that will thrive and provide visual interest at different times of the year. Councilmember Grossman opposed the use of cyclone fencing. He favored an analysis of traffic flows and the establishment of structured ways for people to get around in the park.
Councilmember Ransom asked that staff reports include photographs of subject trees when Council considers vegetation management in the future.
Councilmember Gustafson pointed out that the vegetation plan is part of the bluff trail agreement, which he supports. He said view preservation was part of that plan.
Deputy Mayor Hansen concurred that this plan was part of the bluff trail negotiations. He noted that diseased and dead trees present the danger of blowing over and pulling out a major portion of the bank. He had concerns about planting dogwoods, as they can grow quite tall and are susceptible to diseases.
Mr. Peterson explained that dogwoods provide good habitat and are native. They will be planted on the lower shelf and shouldn’t grow more than 30 feet high. The disease they get does not really hurt the tree over time.
Deputy Mayor Hansen said the plan is well thought out and he looks forward to its completion. He noted that vandalism is less likely to occur the nicer the park looks.
Referring to Mr. Webb’s comments, Councilmember Gustafson asked if fire is a concern. Mr. Peterson said the City tries to keep the brush cleared, and he did not think fire would be a major problem.
Mayor Jepsen asked about the status of the last phase of the bluff trail construction. Ms. Barry said the work is under design and should be completed this spring. Mayor Jepsen wanted to be sure the vegetation management work is coordinated with construction.
Ms. Barry said staff can aim for the goal of doing all the work concurrently, but it is weather dependent. The plant propagation will be ongoing and will not be as visible or intrusive as the construction work.
(c) Recommendation to proceed with the acquisition of software applications for Human Resources and Payroll from Bi-Tech
Debra Tarry, Finance Director, reviewed the three options considered in addressing issues related to the City’s current Human Resources (HR) and payroll operations. She explained that HR does not have a single source of information, and the various lists maintained by HR are not integrated into the payroll system. The payroll system deals with manual timecards and payroll processing by a contractor, Automated Data Processing (ADP). The goal of the project is to have on-line timekeeping and integration of payroll and HR information with the City’s financial system (Bi-Tech software). She concluded that by purchasing the Bi-Tech modules at a cost of $147,203, manual processes will be eliminated and the integration of information should be seamless between the various financial, payroll and HR systems.
Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Marci Wright, Human Resources Director, explained that HR maintains personnel lists by classes and other lists but that the lists are not integrated with the payroll system. Under the current system, HR enters most of the data that controls employee pay.
Councilmember Grossman said the Bi-Tech recommendation raises "yellow flags" given the difficulties the Northshore School District experienced implementing Bi-Tech. He acknowledged that the situation may not be similar, because Shoreline already has the Bi-Tech financial system in place. He questioned whether the City will need to hire technical staff to maintain the new modules.
Ms. Tarry said the addition of the new modules will not significantly change the amount of time required to maintain the system. Adequate training for current staff is part of the process.
Councilmember Montgomery mentioned the failure of King County’s new, $4 million payroll system. She said she was nervous about moving forward with this.
Ms. Tarry said staff has visited Kirkland and Puyallup, where the Bi-Tech payroll system was implemented without major problems. She said staff will be sure, during the contract process, to be clear about expected outcomes. Ms. Tarry said Kirkland and Puyallup have both modules, but they implemented payroll first. She said Shoreline will implement the HR module first, since the payroll system is currently functioning without problems. The information from the HR system will then be fed into the payroll system. She added that the Everett School District has implemented both modules and is very happy with them.
Responding to Councilmember Lee, Ms. Tarry said the requested half-time finance technician will perform non-technical tasks currently performed by the staff accountant. She said implementation of the payroll module will free up the payroll officer to perform other tasks. It will also provide time savings to the operating departments through automated timekeeping.
Councilmember Lee asked if there is a competitor to ADP with a system that would be compatible with our current Bi-Tech system. Ms. Tarry was not aware of one.
Councilmember Gustafson commented that the recommendation sounded tentative. He requested reassurance that staff is comfortable that Bi-Tech will do the job. As an economy measure, he suggested going to one pay period per month, as most school districts do.
Ms. Tarry did not know how much staff time would be saved by monthly pay periods, as this option has not been considered. Mr. Burkett added that the industry standard in most public agencies is 26 pay periods. He noted the impacts of a change on staff. He added that calculations related to the Fair Labor Standards Act and other issues come into play.
Ms. Tarry answered a series of Deputy Mayor Hansen’s questions:
Deputy Mayor Hansen expressed concern about a payroll program projected to last ten years. He said changes in the law could make a program extinct in a year or two. He sought to ensure that the City’s two-year-old Bi-Tech financial system would be seamless with the proposed new modules, and he requested a comparison of the costs that Kirkland and Puyallup incurred to maintain the new system and those they spent before.
Mayor Jepsen summarized that staff can bring forward the contract, but he noted only "lukewarm support."
Councilmember Lee said she is comfortable with staff’s extensive research. She said her questions were answered, and she supported the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ransom added that the City needs a system that will provide personnel information and that Council needs to support staff in acquiring one. He said he would have to accept staff’s recommendation that Bi-Tech is the software to purchase.
Councilmember Gustafson said implementation of such a system was one of Council’s goals. He explained that he wants to be sure that the modules will do the job expected.
Councilmember Montgomery said it is optimistic that this software will be operational for ten years.
Reiterating that the software will be updated every year, Ms. Tarry explained the goal to use the software as updated for ten years. She said it is not uncommon for cities to use software that length of time.
Mr. Burkett said Council is asking appropriate questions given potential problems of implementing new systems. He said he asked similar questions, and he supports the recommendation. He said the City must make use of technology to become more efficient and avoid adding staff. He said this is basic technology that is "tried and true" in the software world. Staff has talked with other entities and asked questions about implementation and costs. Finally, he said it is critical to have a good contract outlining the deliverables. He concluded that the City has a good track record for software implementation.
(d) 2002 Operating and Capital Budget Discussions
Tim Stewart, Director of Planning and Development Services (PDS), explained that PDS has two types of programs, those funded through the General Fund and grants and those funded through revenues from fees and permits. He highlighted the key service level changes in the 2002 budget, including funding for an intern, a PDS process review, a stream inventory to assist in updating environmental regulations and a watershed basin study.
Mayor Jepsen asked how the proposed hourly rate for permits compares to Seattle, Lake Forest Park and Mountlake Terrace. He commented that the proposal for an intern supports current Council goals. Finally, he asked about budgeting for walk-in services.
Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart said the City has revised the fee schedule slightly from that in the budget book to reflect the hourly rate resulting from the Consumer Price Index escalator. Referring to cost recovery goals, Mr. Stewart said it is a challenge to determine how much of the walk-in and general permit services costs should be excluded from the cost recovery determination.
Responding to Mayor Jepsen’s support of the process review, Councilmember Grossman said builders are much more concerned about the permit process than fee increases.
Mr. Stewart said the two biggest issues related to customer dissatisfaction concern the uncertainty of time and of the interpretation of the Development Code. He expressed hope that these two risk factors will be reduced.
Responding to Councilmember Montgomery’s comment on the slowing of the permit process, Mr. Stewart said it is a balancing act to provide enough public review and yet issue permits in an expeditious manner. He said the proposed process review is meant to identify ways to become more user friendly to both constituencies.
Mr. Burkett pointed out that land use regulations are more complex now than they were even five years ago. He said the process review will increase predictability and establish clear standards.
Responding to Deputy Mayor Hansen’s question about cost recovery objectives, Mr. Stewart described the types of permits for which 80-percent cost recovery was planned. This year’s budget includes all those activities as permits, including the legislative activities classified as Type L actions. These generate no revenue but are charged against the permit cost recovery target. He said the PDS program includes activities that probably should not be part of a cost recovery program.
Deputy Mayor Hansen requested comparative cost recovery rates for the past two years.
Turning to the Public Works budget, Ms. Tarry provided an overview of the four funds in the Public Works budget, and she reviewed the proposed changes.
Mr. Bauer addressed the changes, including the addition of a right-of-way supervisor, proposed to address right-of-way management and gaps in existing policies.
Jesus Sanchez, Operations Manager, explained other key service level changes related to the tree maintenance program and the proposal to acquire capital equipment (pavement grinder, road shoulder maintainer and pavement crack sealer).
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:00 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 6 – 1, with Councilmember Montgomery dissenting.
Continuing, Mr. Sanchez reviewed two other service level changes: an inventory of drainage infrastructure and establishment of baseline monitoring for a watershed basin; and the implementation of the regional road maintenance program guidelines.
Mayor Jepsen asserted the difficulty of determining from the budget document which funds support which programs. He expressed surprise that there are 23 full-time employees (FTEs) in operations and only six in engineering services. He noted that engineering services is charged with implementing the CIP. He questioned having a right-of-way supervisor with only 1.5 FTEs to supervise. He said he would rather use an FTE in project work than operations.
Mr. Burkett said the issue is one of prioritization—the person is not supervising people but developing policies and procedures.
Mayor Jepsen said the addition of one FTE to operate the lift bucket truck begs the question of the availability of the second person needed for the operation. He asked if one of the 23 current FTEs in operations will staff the tree-trimming effort.
Mr. Sanchez said the additional FTE will not be trimming full-time; a current employee will assist with trimming, and both the new FTE and the current FTE will perform other activities when it is not tree-trimming season. He added that staff will be proposing an urban forestry program to complement the tree-trimming program.
Mayor Jepsen said staff will be needed to operate the three pieces of equipment proposed for purchase, but no FTEs are proposed in the budget. He questioned why there appear to be employees who have extra time to take on these new duties. He said his biggest concern is the ratio of FTEs in engineering services to operations. Mr. Burkett said he will be looking at the CIP to see if there is the right balance of workload to staff.
Councilmember Lee concurred with Mayor Jepsen about the wisdom of adding a right-of-way supervisor. She also questioned why the City cannot use King County records regarding the location of the drainage infrastructure. Mr. Sanchez responded that staff has no confidence in the reliability of these records. He said the inventory will also provide a condition assessment.
Turning to the CIP, Mr. Burkett distributed the answers to questions submitted earlier by Council.
Mayor Jepsen commented that Phase 2 of the Paramount School Park Project in the proposed CIP differs from that Council discussed previously.
Ms. Barry explained that the changes are the result of not having enough money to complete all of the items in the original Phase 2. She said the revised proposal is "pared back" from the total master plan, but it will finish the park—irrigation, picnic facilities, restroom, frontage improvements, the skate park, fully developed ball fields and the trail.
Mayor Jepsen questioned why this additional work was not done as part of Phase 1. He asserted the inefficiency of completing Phase 1 and then going back to begin again. He said he wanted to see the park open and in use. He said he would need to be convinced that the "mini-Phase 2" is an efficient and valuable use of funds at this park.
Mr. Burkett said this is a good question in terms of the small amount involved ($325,000).
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:30 p.m., Councilmember Gustafson moved to extend the meeting until 10:45 p.m. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion, which carried 6 – 1, with Councilmember Montgomery dissenting.
Regarding the swimming pool project, Mr. Burkett recommended reduction of the $100,000 allocation to repair the roof to $10,000. This will pay for the analysis of the deficiencies and the preparation of options. He noted that the roof was not constructed to the building code standards when it was built in 1970.
Mr. Burkett responded to Council concerns about project schedules slipping. He said he is not comfortable providing specific dates on some of the projects at this time. He confirmed the following dates:
Mr. Burkett said he wants to return with a CIP schedule he can commit to keeping. He suggested that Council adopt the proposed CIP on December 10 and that staff will then return with new schedules and a prioritization of projects.
Councilmember Ransom commented that in future budget discussions he wants to discuss funding for senior citizen programs and social service programs. He also wished to increase funding to the Shoreline Historical Museum and the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Arts Council to reflect cost-of-living increases the City has not previously provided. He estimated this to be $5,000 for each organization. He pointed out that this year’s allocation will be a baseline for future spending. He expressed concern about County cuts to human services programs. He said $100,000 is a small amount, and he asserted the availability of gambling tax revenue and other surplus revenue to address quality of life issues in Shoreline.
Mayor Jepsen said Council will discuss human services funding in the future. He said the Council should strive to come to consensus about what the budget should look like by next week. He added that one of his issues is the number of park master plans that should be undertaken.
8. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT: None
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Jepsen announced that the executive session would be deferred to another meeting.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:48 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.
________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk