02/19/02 City Council Meeting Minutes

CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

Tuesday, February 19, 2002

6:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Grossman, Councilmembers Chang, Hansen and Ransom

ABSENT: Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Gustafson and Montgomery

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. by Deputy Mayor Grossman, who presided.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Deputy Mayor Grossman led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the Deputy City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exceptions of Mayor Jepsen and Councilmembers Gustafson and Montgomery. Deputy Mayor Grossman advised that Mayor Jepsen and Councilmembers Gustafson and Montgomery were excused.

3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS: None

4. COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmember Hansen noted Suburban Cities Association (SCA) efforts to establish an agenda for work with King County on the County budgeting process.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Mary Jo Heller, Shoreline, said she talked with several Councilmembers before the November 2001 election about the possibility of a large-scale gambling operation on 145^th Street at Aurora Avenue N. She said Councilmembers denied the possibility at that time. She said she has learned that the gambling operation will be established. She expressed concern about the kind of gambling to be established and the clientele that it will attract. She noted prostitution on the corner of 145^th Street and Aurora Avenue N February 15. She also expressed concern about the height, placement and light pollution of signs. She encouraged Council to investigate the requirements for a large gambling operation and the potential impacts of such an operation.

Councilmember Ransom said the Silver Dollar Casino has a purchase option for the Hideaway, which it has not exercised. He noted that the City approved the remodel of Cliff's (which operated previously as a five-table social card room) as a five-table enhanced card room. He said Cliff's finished remodeling in November 2001 but has not reopened. He also listed all of the properties the Silver Dollar Casino had purchased on the corner, taking up most of the end of the block.

In response to Councilmember Hansen, City Manager Steve Burkett said none of the businesses in the vicinity of 145^th Street and Aurora Avenue N has applied for a permit to establish a mini-casino or enhanced card room. He said Cliff's applied for a building permit for remodeling but not for expanded gambling permits.

6. WORKSHOP ITEMS

(a) Revised and Updated Capital Improvement Program

Mr. Burkett reviewed the staff report. He noted that staff will present a proposal at the February 25 Council meeting to contract with an engineering firm to assist staff to develop and, in some cases, manage Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects. He mentioned the intent to use part of the approximately $280,000 in salary savings from three currently vacant project management positions in Public Works to cover the cost of the contract, which will not exceed $200,000.

Mr. Burkett said staff will return to Council during the first part of April to review changes in the 2002 City Budget and to recommend reduced appropriations in 2002 for capital projects. He stressed the importance of dependable sources of revenue for capital projects. For example, he stated the need to ensure a revenue stream to service loans to finance surface water management (SWM) projects. He noted the likely loss of $1 million in funding the State provided to backfill sales tax equalization revenue the City lost upon passage of Initiative 695 (I-695). He mentioned the unreliability of gambling tax revenues, which free up funds in the City operations budget for spending on capital projects.

Mr. Burkett clarified that staff does not seek immediate Council action on the revised CIP. He reiterated that staff will return to Council with revisions to the 2002 City Budget based on the figures outlined in the staff report. He noted staff intent to complete the annual revision of the CIP in July, in advance of work on the 2003 Proposed City Budget.

Interim Public Works Director Art Maronek explained that staff formatted the information for each 2002 CIP project to include:

project scope of work;
project benefits;
total cost estimate by project phase (in 2001 dollars);
required environmental documentation and permits;
project knowns;
project unknowns;
contingency percentages by project phase;
inflation percentages by project phase;
prior year expenditures;
inflated project costs by phase and year and the inflated total cost; and
project schedule by phase, year and month.

Mr. Maronek went on to review the status of the first phase of the Aurora Corridor Project between N 145^th Street and N 165^th Street. He noted that: the pre-design is complete; the Council decision on the preferred alignment and cross section is scheduled for May; environmental work is scheduled for completion in July; funding is available for design, right-of-way and construction; and preliminary right-of-way appraisals have been completed.

Referring to the Aurora Corridor Project schedule on page 14 of the Council packet, Mr. Maronek explained that City condemnation of property, if necessary, will lengthen the project. He said staff is preparing mechanisms for Council to consider to shorten condemnation time. He commented that such mechanisms could reduce the length of the project by as much as 18 months. He estimated the related cost savings from inflation at $1.3-$1.8 million.

Councilmember Ransom asked about the mechanisms to shorten condemnation time. Mr. Burkett noted two options: 1) Council adoption of a condemnation ordinance; and 2) acquisition of properties through a "quick take," under which the City could use a property to build the project and proceed to court for a determination of the property value.

Mr. Maronek went on to review the status of the Interurban Trail Project. He noted completion of planning for the full length of the trail and of 30-percent design for the south and north segments. He said Seattle City Light (SCL) and the Seattle Department of Transportation (SeaTrans) clarified the need for changes as part of the first external plan review. He mentioned the need to address the problems of the owners of six properties along the south segment of the trail.

Mr. Maronek explained that differences in topography and SCL plans for facilities in the right-of-way make each segment of the Interurban Trail Project unique. He said staff recommends including only the south segment in the revised CIP because: it is the closest to being done; it doesn't include any at-grade roadway crossings; and staff knows, in general, how to solve the problems that the owners of the six adjacent properties may have. He suggested that the City "go to bid" on the south segment this spring and undertake the other segments in series.

Mr. Burkett explained that four of the six owners of property adjacent to the south segment of the trail have permits to use the SCL right-of-way that would interfere with the trail. He said the other two property owners have been using the right-of-way without permits. He asserted the need to resolve the issues of these property owners.

Mr. Burkett commented that the south segment of the Interurban Trail Project is fully funded; whereas, the remainder of the trail project is not fully funded. He noted a lack of grant funding for the central segment in particular. He mentioned the City intent to fund the Interurban Trail Project primarily with grant funding.

Councilmember Ransom said staff previously advised Council that the City had $5.5 million for the trail and that this amount was sufficient to fund the entire project except the bridge over Aurora Avenue N. Mr. Burkett said staff estimates the cost for the entire Interurban Trail Project at $8 million, including $3 million for the bridge. Finance Director Debbie Tarry said the City has approximately $5.2 million in funding for the Interurban Trail Project. She explained that the City cannot obligate the $5.2 million until it begins certain phases of the project. She clarified that grant funds represent approximately $3.3 million of the $5.2 million. Mr. Burkett noted that $.5 million of the $3.3 million is limited to use for the bridge.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Maronek said he understood the section of the Interurban Trail between N 165^th Street and N 155^th Street to be part of the south-central segment of the project.

In response to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Maronek said the north segment of the Interurban Trail Project uses the SCL right-of-way to N 200^th Street. He confirmed that the trail uses Meridian Avenue and "the side of Ballinger Commons" north to 205^th Street.

Next, Mr. Maronek reviewed the North City Business District Improvements Project. Referring to page 27 of the Council packet, he noted the recommended consolidation of the project with the 15^th Avenue NE Access and Safety Project and the 15^th Avenue NE Pedestrian Crossings Project for the pre-design phase only. He explained that this will save approximately $134,000. He noted that some of the grant funds for the 15^th Avenue NE projects must soon be obligated for use. He said the projects can be handled separately again after completion of the pre-design study.

Mr. Maronek discussed the alternative configurations for 15^th Avenue NE: a three-lane configuration from 145^th Street to 196^th Street; a four-lane configuration with enhancement for parking in the business district; or a three-lane alignment internal to the business district only. He acknowledged previous Council input regarding the configuration and its impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. He said staff will review the roadway configuration in April with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), SeaTrans and Metro and, afterward, provide a briefing to Council.

Mr. Maronek said the North City Business District Improvements Project is fully funded, but the revised CIP shows only the funds for the pre-design study. Mr. Burkett said staff has set aside the rest of the funds for the project.

Councilmember Ransom questioned the revision of the earlier cost projection of $5.5 million for the North City Business District Improvements Project to $4.04 million. Mr. Burkett said the earlier projection was a very rough estimate of the project cost. He explained that he directed Public Works staff to review and refine the estimate last summer during preparation of the 2002-2007 CIP and that work resulted in the $4.04 million estimate. He noted the undergrounding of utilities as the most significant issue in the project. He said the City needs additional information from SCL on the scheduling and costs for this work.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Burkett confirmed that the City is funding the North City Business District Improvements Project—the City has not received grant funding for the project.

In response to Councilmember Chang, Mr. Burkett said the project includes 15^th Avenue NE from 145^th Street to 196^th Street. He explained that most of the improvements—undergrounding of utilities, sidewalks, landscaping, street lights—would be limited to the North City Business District (from 172^nd Street to 185^th Street); whereas, the City proposes traffic safety improvements for segments of 15^th Avenue NE south of 172^nd Street. He noted the type and extent of the lane configuration of 15^th Avenue NE as an outstanding issue.

Councilmember Chang questioned whether the City can deliver on the promises it has made to North City business people and residents for $4.04 million. Mr. Burkett said the City currently has a conceptual design and rough cost estimates. He explained that the City will refine the cost estimates as the project proceeds through the pre-design and design phases.

Deputy Mayor Grossman commented that staff will return to update Council at each step in the project to confirm that Council is still comfortable with the direction and estimated cost of the project. Mr. Burkett asserted the need to insure that proposed City projects fit within available City revenue and the grants the City can obtain.

Councilmember Ransom said the City previously discussed the commitment of approximately $1 million of General Fund revenue to the North City Business District Improvements Project and grant funding to complete the project. He expressed concern about the need to fund the project entirely from General Fund revenue. Noting declining State revenues, he said City revenues may begin to decline, too.

Mr. Maronek said one purpose of the pre-design study is to identify and incorporate the design standards of granting agencies, thereby enhancing the City's ability to obtain grant funding for the project.

In response to Councilmember Chang, Mr. Burkett discussed the schedule on page 27 of the Council packet for the North City Business District Improvements Project/15^th Avenue NE Corridor Pre-design. Councilmember Hansen commented that the City will not undertake any infrastructure improvements for the North City project until January 2004 at the earliest. Councilmember Chang said many Shoreline citizens think the City will begin improvements in North City this year. Mr. Burkett acknowledged that staff previously said the City would begin improvements this summer, immediately after the Celebrate Shoreline parade. He then explained the need to convert the conceptual ideas from the design charrette into a biddable, buildable project through the pre-design study, work with government agencies and design. He said this process will require more than two years.

Councilmember Hansen said the surest way to insure a decline in City revenues is to do nothing. He commented that a lack of City investment in infrastructure will result in a deteriorating neighborhood and a lack of private investment.

Councilmember Chang asserted the importance of planning. He said the City cannot invest $1-2 million in design work and then decide not to build the project.

Deputy Mayor Grossman agreed. He said staff must return to Council at each project milestone to discuss the project and obtain Council direction. He described this as a "very iterative process."

Mr. Burkett said cities at which he has previously worked completed the pre-design and design of projects knowing that the funds needed to build the projects were not available. He explained that the cities then had the designs in place to take advantage of grant opportunities.

Councilmember Chang asked if the City can realistically expect to obtain grant funding considering the economic difficulties that the County, State and federal government face. Mr. Burkett said the potential for grant funding depends on the project. He noted that Aurora Avenue in Shoreline is one of the most unsafe segments of State highway in Washington. He said the State is aware of the need for safety and capacity improve-ments, and the potential for grant funding is high. He commented that 15^th Avenue NE is not a State highway, that it is not as dangerous as Aurora Avenue and that the potential for grant funding is lower. With regard to the Interurban Trail Project, he mentioned that the federal government has set aside funds for projects addressing alternative modes of transportation.

Next, Mr. Maronek reviewed the Ronald Bog Drainage Improvements Project. He said the City has completed the planning, and the project is in pre-design. Referring to the chart on page 31 of the Council packet, he noted the inclusion of the one-year period normally required for the Army Corps of Engineers and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to process an application. He asserted the need to focus on the problem of meeting the Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) deadlines. He said the original project schedule was inaccurate and unrealistic. He commented that Public Works can address the PWTF deadlines through focused efforts. He said the contract City Engineer can perform a Quality Assurance Quality Check (QAQC) to determine how to shorten the length of the project and a critical path analysis to determine which project elements must be done in series and which can be done in parallel. He said if external constraints (such as Army Corps of Engineers and NMFS review) prolong the project, the City can request an extension of the PWTF deadline.

Continuing, Mr. Maronek reviewed the 3^rd Avenue NW Drainage Improvements Project. He noted that the "updated, realistic" schedule includes the one-year Army Corps of Engineers and NMFS application review period. He stressed the need to meet the PWTF deadlines for this project, and he noted the same methods as those he mentioned for the Ronald Bog project (QAQC and critical path analysis). He reiterated that the City can request an extension of the PWTF deadline if external constraints prolong the project.

In response to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Burkett clarified that the PWTF is a loan, not a grant. He stressed the need to identify a revenue stream to repay the PWTF loan funds the City proposes to use.

Mr. Burkett used the "City of Shoreline Example Project Schedule" matrix provided to Council to explain why pre-design and design requires two to three years.

Mr. Maronek went on to review the information on pages 39 and 40 of the Council packet regarding Shoreview Park, Paramount School Park and the Richmond Highlands Recreation Center. Mr. Burkett said the City has begun operations in the Richmond Highlands Recreation Center.

In response to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Maronek anticipated completion of the Shoreview Park Project under budget. He confirmed that Phase I and Phase II of the Paramount School Park Project will be completed within the combined budget for the two phases.

Councilmember Hansen said the City is approximately $22,000 over budget on the Richmond Highlands Community Center Project. Mr. Burkett agreed. (He noted that Council approved an additional $60,000 during construction to replace the siding.) Councilmember Hansen commented that a $22,000 cost overrun is not unreasonable. He asserted that renovations and repairs of public buildings often result in much larger cost overruns. He stated that, with the exception of the Shoreline Pool Project, the City has predicted costs correctly. He said this gives him confidence about the cost projections for the longer-term and more expensive projects the City is undertaking.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Maronek described the vehicles that SCL needs to be able to operate on the Interurban Trail as very large boom trucks with a gross vehicle weight of 69,000 pounds. He said the trail is the same design grade as a street, although not as wide.

Councilmember Ransom asked about the SeaTrans suggestion to "split the trail approximately 150 to 200 feet north of North 145^th Street." Mr. Maronek explained SCL and SeaTrans plans for "with-traffic bike and pedestrian movement" on Linden Avenue south of N 145^th Street. He said SeaTrans has insisted on a revision to the south trailhead of the City's Interurban Trail Project to tie into this split design south of N 145^th Street. He went on to describe the potential "win-win" of developing a joint-use parking lot alternative for the public parking relocated from the south trailhead and for the shopping center adjacent to the trail.

Councilmember Chang noted his understanding that, once the City begins building the Interurban Trail, construction will continue until the entire project (from 145^th Street to 205^th Street) is complete. Mr. Burkett noted that the City has yet to obtain grant funding and select an alignment for the central segment of the project. Councilmember Chang expressed concern that the City will build a portion of the trail that will not connect to anything for years or decades. Mr. Burkett reviewed the schedule for the Interurban Trail Project. He said the City intends to complete the project during the next three years, assuming the City can obtain the necessary grant funding or dedicate its own revenue.

Ms. Tarry reviewed the financial aspects of the revised CIP. She said the 2002-2007 CIP that Council adopted in December 2001 totaled a little over $110 million, and the revised CIP totals $79.6 million for the same time period. She listed the following reasons for the decrease in the total: staff has revised the scopes of some projects; staff has revised the costs of the projects (to include both standard inflationary measures and contingencies); and staff has eliminated some projects (as a result of resource limitations or because of their low priority). She said staff will continue to reconsider the CIP annually (e.g., reviewing project cost estimates and City resources). She noted staff intent to review the 2003-2008 CIP this spring and early summer for presentation to Council for consideration and adoption in late July.

Continuing, Ms. Tarry reviewed the 2002 capital budget. She said the $13.7 million in capital expenditures in the 2002 City Budget will be reduced to $5.6 million under the revised CIP. She explained that staff will prepare a budget amendment for Council consideration in mid-April. Referring to pages 41-46 of the Council packet, she highlighted aspects of the capital funds within the City budget:

General Capital Fund—she noted the deletion of approximately $1 million in anticipation of the elimination of State backfill funding for revenue the City lost upon passage of I-695.
Roads Capital Fund—she said staff has retained the $2.6 million previously reserved for future phases of the Interurban Trail, North City Business District Improvements and Aurora Corridor Projects in addition to the funds designated for those phases of the projects scheduled between 2002 and 2007.
Surface Water Capital Fund—she explained that requirements of legislation such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have increased SWM operation expenses. She noted that the City will also need to dedicate SWM fee revenues to PWTF loan payments in the future. She mentioned that King County raised its SWM fees in December 2001 from $85 per parcel to $102 per parcel. She said staff recommends the City implement a similar SWM fee increase in 2003 to address operational and capital SWM needs. She mentioned staff plans to review the adequacy of the rate structure to meet long-term operational and capital SWM needs as part of the 2003 budget process.

Deputy Mayor Grossman invited public comment.

(1) Kellie Swenson, Shoreline, expressed support for the Interurban Trail Project. She agreed with Councilmember Hansen that the City is managing capital projects well and keeping costs under control.

(2) Mary Jo Heller, Shoreline, said Westminster Triangle residents support the high priority of the Interurban Trail Project. She advocated serious City consideration of the bridge for the Interurban Trail over Aurora Avenue. She expressed disappointment at the loss of Paul Cornish as Project Manager of the Interurban Trail Project. She expressed concern about using contract engineers, who may have less involvement in the community, instead of staff to manage City capital projects.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Tarry said the "TEA-21 Federal" revenue referred to on page 44 of the Council packet lumps together a number of grant resources. She noted that the revised CIP reflects only those elements of the Aurora Corridor Project scheduled within the timeframe of the CIP and only those grants that have been awarded.

Councilmember Chang asked if money saved in construction of the first phase of the Aurora Corridor Project can be applied to the second and third phases. Mr. Burkett said the answer depends on the grant, and the City has received a variety of grants for the Aurora Corridor Project. Ms. Tarry said the City could apply savings in City revenues toward future phases of the project. Mr. Burkett agreed with Councilmember Chang that the City has incentive to save as much as possible.

Councilmember Hansen asked if the $28 million budgeted for the first phase of the Aurora Corridor Project includes funds to rebuild the roadbed. Mr. Burkett said the City will consider the necessity and extent of roadbed reconstruction as part of the value engineering for the project. He confirmed that the revised CIP includes the initial estimates for roadbed reconstruction.

Councilmember Ransom said the future priority of the Aurora Corridor to the State looks worse and worse. He acknowledged that the City has the funding to build the first phase of the Aurora Corridor Project. He asked what the City will do if it does not have the funds necessary for the subsequent phases. Mr. Burkett said it is too early to say. He reiterated that Aurora Avenue is a State highway and that it is unsafe, and he noted the need to expand capacity. He said City staff and the City lobbyist are working to insure the inclusion of the Aurora Corridor Project in the list of projects for the State transportation plan. He identified Aurora Corridor Project funding as one important discussion topic when Council meets with Senator Patty Murray's staff during its upcoming trip to Washington, D.C. He asserted that the City is likely to obtain additional funding for the Aurora Corridor Project "given the nature of the project and the need for improvements on Aurora."

Responding to Councilmember Chang's question about the cost of the second and third phases of the Aurora Corridor Project, Mr. Burkett referred to the chart on page 20 of the Council packet, "Aurora Avenue North: N 165 to N 205." He noted the total cost estimate of approximately $60 million.

Deputy Mayor Grossman said most of the concerns about City capital projects have related to the multiple changes in project time frames. He asserted that "a lot of it is learning curve." Noting that construction of the new Richmond Beach Library and the Shoreview Park Little League Field took 12 years, he said the readjustments to the Aurora Corridor Project should not seem surprising. He reiterated Councilmember Hansen's observation that most City projects are on budget. He indicated that he feels comfortable with the refined project cost estimates and timelines.

Councilmember Ransom attributed the length of the Richmond Beach Library and Shoreview Park Little League Field projects to the loose government organization before the City incorporated. He said that the City provides a coordinated, integrated process. He acknowledged that some City capital projects may take longer than Council had anticipated, but he said the project time frames are short in comparison to those of the capital projects in Shoreline before the City incorporated, and he asserted that citizens will be pleased with the results of the projects. He mentioned road and drainage improvements since incorporation as "something to be proud of."

(b) Quarterly City Council Goals Reports

Mr. Burkett reviewed the quarterly City Council goals reports.

Regarding Council goal six ("Adopt a plan for City Hall"), Councilmember Chang asked about siting a City Hall at Cromwell Park or at surplus School District property. Mr. Burkett noted a deed restriction limiting development at Cromwell Park.

Councilmember Ransom said the Forward Thrust funding the County used to establish other Shoreline parks limits their use for a City Hall. He explained that the County purchased the Cromwell Park property directly from the School District without using encumbered funds. He said the County applied the same limitations as those on Forward Thrust-funded parks to Cromwell Park before turning the park over to the City. He asserted this was an error. He said the City should be able to negotiate with the County to remove the limitations on Cromwell Park. Mr. Burkett said staff can investigate the possibility of removing the limitations and compare Cromwell Park with other potential sites.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Burkett said the City Hall project is the only one for which the City can use councilmanic bonds. He noted the option of using voter-approved bonding for City capital projects.

Councilmember Ransom said he has been concerned for some time about the adequacy of SWM revenues to cover the costs of SWM operations and capital projects. He asserted that even the recommended increase in SWM fees may be insufficient. He said the City needs to operate SWM like a utility in which the revenue stream is sufficient to complete capital projects and operate and maintain the system. He commented that the City cannot expect to use General Fund revenue to backfill SWM needs. He said the City must determine the amount of funds necessary to cover the future costs of the system.

In response to Councilmember Chang, Mr. Burkett said the City will communicate with businesses in the areas in which it proposes to locate gateways as part of the gateway master planning process.

Councilmember Hansen said the recommended increase in SWM fees will increase annual SWM revenues to approximately $2.4 million. Councilmember Ransom said the current SWM revenues of approximately $2 million have not been adequate to meet operational and capital needs. Mr. Burkett reiterated staff plans to evaluate the SWM rate structure.

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Kellie Swenson, Shoreline, supported the left-turn lanes, U-turn lanes and the raised medians proposed as part of the Aurora Corridor Project. She said raised medians improve safety and the turn lanes facilitate traffic movement.

8. ADJOURNMENT

At 8:46 p.m., Deputy Mayor Grossman declared the meeting adjourned.

_________________________
Carol Shenk
Deputy City Clerk