CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
WITH THE SHORELINE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, March 18, 2002
6:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
Shoreline City Council
PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Grossman, Councilmembers Chang, Gustafson, Hansen, Montgomery and Ransom
ABSENT: None
Shoreline Planning Commission
PRESENT: Chair Gabbert, Vice Chair Doennebrink, Commissioners Harris, Marx, McAuliffe, McClelland, and Monroe
ABSENT: Commissioners Doering and Maloney
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Upon roll call by the Deputy City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exceptions of Councilmembers Gustafson and Montgomery, who arrived shortly thereafter, and Commissioners Doering and Maloney.
(a) Presentation to Outgoing Planning Commissioners
Mayor Jepsen thanked Planning Commissioners Marx, Maloney, McAuliffe, and Monroe for their service and presented them with certificates of appreciation.
Councilmember Gustafson arrived at 6:42 p.m.
3. JOINT WORKSHOP ITEM
(a) Proposed Process to Review and Amend the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code for Compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) with Specific Emphasis on Environmental Regulations
Planning and Development Services Director Tim Stewart explained that a recent change in State law extends the deadline from September 2002 to 2004 for the City to complete a major update to the Comprehensive Plan. He said the City's update will be less difficult than those of other cities because the City adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1998, and the City has undertaken annual reviews. He said staff will present an amended recommendation to Council regarding the major update.
Continuing, Mr. Stewart explained the staff suggestion to proceed to update the environmental chapters of the Comprehensive Plan on a time schedule ending in December. He said staff can build on previous work to improve City processes, and he noted that the City has a contract with the State, including $42,000 in State funding, to update the environmental chapters before the end of the year. He introduced Anna Kolousek, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Services, as the project manager.
Ms. Kolousek said State law requires that City critical area regulations include the best available science and that the City document that the regulations are appropriate for the resources the City intends them to protect. She explained that staff proposes to meet goal four in the City Council 2001-2002 Work Plan ("Develop a water quality and environmental program to comply with state and federal regulations for 2002") and to address the requirements of the GMA and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). She said this combined approach will save the City time and expense and create a better understanding of environmental impacts. She said staff will use the Inventory and Characterization of Stream and Wetland Resources prepared by consultant Tetra Tech/KMC. In addition to greater certainty about necessary environmental protection and better understanding of the kinds of development the City can allow in critical areas, she noted the goal to reduce the time and costs to developers of applying for projects that comply with the amended regulations.
Ms. Kolousek said the City will hire a consultant and then complete four steps to prepare the amended regulations:
Mayor Jepsen acknowledged the proposal to review and update the Comprehensive Plan for consistency with State law and new environmental information. He noted that Council recently amended the Development Code, and he expressed concern about reconsidering it. Ms. Kolousek reiterated that staff will reconsider the Comprehensive Plan in light of changes in best available science and the ESA listing of Puget Sound salmon species. She commented that the resulting changes may be very minor. She indicated that staff consideration of the Development Code will focus on critical areas regulations. She explained the need to clarify the implementation and application of the regulations.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart confirmed that staff does not intend to reconsider the entire Development Code. He explained that staff and the Planning Commission deferred consideration of most of the environmental elements of the Development Code during the recent review and amendment process.
Chair Gabbert referred to the statement in the letter from Holly Gadbaw, Senior Planner at the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development, that City "regulations recommend that when buffers are averaged, the smallest buffer can be less than 10 feet" (page 15 of the Council packet). Mr. Stewart noted urban creeks throughout Shoreline. He acknowledged the availability of scientific information about rural streams and creeks. He asserted the challenge of finding the best available science for highly denigrated (e.g., piped, encroached upon, relocated, channelized) urban creeks.
Chair Gabbert said a 50-foot minimum stream buffer would be unreasonable in Shoreline. He stated the need to modify the recommended buffer widths in Ms. Gadbaw's letter. Mr. Stewart said the determination of the function and value of water resources, and of how to best protect and enhance those functions and values, may be more important than arbitrary buffer dimensions.
In response to Chair Gabbert, Ms. Kolousek said expertise in wetland biology will be one of the qualifications of the consultant the City hires to assist with the review and amendment process.
Councilmember Ransom said the recommended buffer widths in Ms. Gadbaw's letter (page 15 of the Council packet) pose concerns for projects in Shoreline. He noted the Aegis Assisted Living project on 1st Avenue NE south of NE 155th Street, and, separately, the City proposal to "daylight" or open up a stream channel on Thornton Creek south of Ronald Bog where the homeowners are very concerned about the effects of the "daylighting" on their building rights. He said Council and the Planning Commission must consider the issue of buffer widths very carefully. He noted Ms. Gadbaw's reference to the Department of Ecology publication Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness, which "concludes that buffers of less than 50 feet are generally ineffective." The State recommended that no minimum distance for wetlands or creeks be less than 50 feet. He also commented the recommended buffer distance in Peaverly Pond is considerably wider than that used by the City Planning Department.
Mayor Jepsen said Council must determine whether City regulation of stream buffers should be flexible. He encouraged staff and the Planning Commission to consider the issue to determine what makes sense in Shoreline's urban environment.
Commissioner McClelland asked if the City has a mapping system for critical areas in Shoreline. She then asked about the objectives of City environmental regulations. She mentioned that the City of Bellevue and other municipalities have adopted regulations to protect and enhance environmental resources in urban settings. Mr. Stewart said the critical areas maps that the City inherited from King County are incomplete and inaccurate. He referred to the Inventory and Characterization of Stream and Wetland Resources as the base of information the City needs to establish the goals of its environmental regulations. Noting that Boeing Creek differs in character from Thornton Creek, he advocated a basin-by-basin approach to both environmental regulation and storm water management.
Commissioner McClelland asserted that mapping, classifying and protecting critical areas will establish a balance between the natural and built environments in Shoreline.
Councilmember Gustafson asserted the importance of the stream inventory as the basis of the review and amendment process. He went on to note that comments on the Draft WRIA 8 Near-term Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat Conservation are due March 31. Ms. Kolousek commented that staff is reviewing the document carefully, that it addresses water quality more than land use and that the City's Comprehensive Plan is in line with the draft document.
Councilmember Gustafson questioned the timeline for issuance of new growth targets. Mr. Stewart explained that the King County Growth Management Planning Council will review the allocation of growth targets this spring or early this summer and make a recommendation to the County Council. He said the Suburban Cities Association will communicate the allocation adopted by the County Council, and cities will vote on ultimate ratification later this summer or early this fall.
Commissioner Marx encouraged the City to continue working on the review and amendment process during the interim before the stream inventory becomes available.
Commissioner Monroe said the 4(d) rule of the ESA, which prohibits "takings" of listed species, does not differentiate between urban and rural areas for determining setbacks.
Deputy Mayor Grossman asserted the inexactitude of the best available science and the role of politics in determining criteria such as stream buffer widths. He noted that without a complete stream inventory the City does not have a baseline from which to determine "takings." He noted his understanding that a 15-foot buffer of natural vegetation is more useful for protecting fish than a 50-foot buffer of fertilized grass treated with pesticide. Asserting the complexity of the issue of environmental protections, he advocated a focus on establishing a good process to insure the representation of the values of Shoreline residents and to provide flexibility. He noted the goal over time to improve the environment.
Summarizing, Mayor Jepsen identified steps supported by Council: 1) completion of the stream inventory to provide necessary information; 2) review of GMA policies (including optional provisions that the City chose to include in the Comprehensive Plan) and preparation of updates to the Comprehensive Plan; 3) preparation of regulations that balance environmental protection with the recognition of Shoreline as an urban area. He requested an updated schedule for the project.
RECESS
At 7:25 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared a five-minute recess, and the Planning Commission left the meeting.
Councilmember Montgomery arrived at 7:30 p.m.
4. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS
Community and Government Relations Manager Joyce Nichols summarized State budgetary and legislative activities affecting Shoreline. She began by explaining that the City of Shoreline will receive $148,000, rather than $1.5 million, in funding to backfill revenues lost when Initiative 695 (I-695) passed. She cautioned that the Governor may veto even this reduced funding.
Ms. Nichols described the State Legislature’s nine cent per gallon gas-tax increase proposal, which will go before the voters in November. She said the $7.7 billion in resulting revenue includes $10 million for the Aurora Corridor Project. She went on to describe the regional transportation bill that allows King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties to form a regional transportation board to raise taxes for transportation projects.
Ms. Nichols stated that proposed changes to video poker and electronic pull-tab taxes were defeated. She said the City needs to watch for future State attempts to increase its gambling revenues, which may come at the expense of local revenues.
Continuing, Ms. Nichols reported that the proposed County utility tax and the "Brightwater Bill" (opposing the siting of the sewage treatment plant at the Unocal site in Edmonds) also did not pass. She described House Bill 2902, which allows municipal electric utilities to include the cost of street lights in their rate base, and which the Legislature approved. She concluded by noting the extension of the GMA timeline discussed earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Burkett mentioned the Grand Reopening of the Richmond Highlands Recreation Center March 23.
Mr. Stewart discussed the building permit and the variance to engineering standards the City issued for the Safeway expansion project at Aurora Avenue N and N 155th Street. He explained that the project included the relocation of one utility pole. He said under-grounding would have necessitated undergrounding of the transmission line to the south of the project as well, or it would have required Safeway to run the transmission line down one pole, underground a few hundred feet and then up the next pole. He asserted that the variance was more logical.
Mayor Jepsen said he intends to discuss the last paragraph of Les and Adeline Nelson's March 18 letter (in which they "request that the Council recommend and require that a hearing examiner be engaged as provided for by Chapter 2.15 of the City Municipal Code") with Mr. Stewart.
5. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Ransom said he participated on the Human Development Policy Committee during the recent National League of Cities (NLC) Congressional City Conference. He said Congressional staff perceived homeland security and welfare reform as priority issues. He said the federal government is cutting the transportation budget by 27 percent to refocus funding on homeland security.
Continuing, Councilmember Ransom said Councilmembers met with Representative George Nethercutt, with Senator Patty Murray and with staff to Senator Maria Cantwell. He noted legislators' support for allowing access from the First NE Transfer Station to Interstate 5 via the Metro bus base ramps. He said Council also requested $17 million for the Aurora Corridor Project and $5 million for the Interurban Trail (including $3 million for the overpass of Aurora Avenue).
Councilmember Chang described his participation at the NLC Congressional City Conference, with mayors and councilmembers from other cities across the country, as a tremendous educational experience.
Councilmember Gustafson mentioned "Securing America's Future," a NLC position paper on six issues: 1) homeland security; 2) sustaining federal support for critical municipal programs; 3) protecting local revenue and taxing authority; 4) insuring racial justice and equality; 5) investing in children; and 6) balancing international trade agreements with local authority.
Mayor Jepsen mentioned his participation on the Community and Economic Develop-ment Steering Committee during the NLC Congressional City Conference. He said the committee has identified three priority items for study: 1) block grant funding; 2) federal economic development initiatives; and 3) updating policy language on housing. He noted the March 19 North End Mayors meeting. He said he met earlier in the evening with American Legion representatives about the organization's Poppy Day in May.
Councilmember Ransom mentioned the availability of federal funds for training welfare recipients. He suggested City participation as an employer-trainer.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Les Nelson, Shoreline, asserted the inadequacy of the City staff response to his February 24 letter regarding the variance to engineering standards the City issued for the Safeway expansion project at Aurora Avenue N and N 155th Street. He submitted a new letter to Council, including a photocopy of the March 6 letter from City staff with his handwritten comments. He requested that Council involve the Hearing Examiner in the review and resolution of the issue.
(b) Daniel Mann, Shoreline, said federal environmental law requires consideration of the socio-economic impacts of projects receiving federal funds. He advocated that the City show the same concern about jobs and about business revenues, accessibility and competitiveness as about wildlife. He noted a lack of polling of Aurora Avenue businesses about the impacts of the Aurora Corridor Project.
Mayor Jepsen reiterated his intent to discuss Shoreline Municipal Code 2.15 with Mr. Stewart in response to Mr. Nelson.
Councilmember Hansen advocated an amendment to the Development Code to require the City to notify surrounding property owners whenever "the footprint of a commercial building changes."
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Burkett confirmed that the City will be reviewing the socio-economic impacts of the Aurora Corridor Project as part of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). He said the law requires the City to identify impacts and to consider them in its decision-making process. Mayor Jepsen said the public will have the opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the draft EIS. He explained that the City must respond to public comments in the final EIS.
Mr. Burkett explained that City response to Federal Highway Administration comments delayed finalization of the draft EIS. He said staff expects to prepare the final EIS for a decision by Council this summer.
Councilmember Hansen noted considerable public input on the scoping aspect of the Aurora Corridor Project.
7. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) Discussion of Emergency Funding Recommendations
Wendy Barry, Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services, and Rob Beem, Assistant Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Beem discussed the criteria used to review the applications for emergency funding:
Mr. Beem said the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Arts Council funding application addresses the emergency funding criteria by meeting a non-continuing need and by reducing ongoing operational costs by purchasing a photocopier. He said the Shoreline Historical Museum funding application is for ongoing, operational costs and does not successfully address any of the emergency funding criteria.
Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.
(1) Beratta Gomillion spoke as Executive Director of the Center for Human Services (CHS). She thanked Council for the opportunity to apply for emergency funding. She advocated Council approval of the Emergency Allocations Committee funding recommendation for the CHS.
(2) Victoria Stiles spoke as Director of the Shoreline Historical Museum. She thanked Council for ongoing City support of the historical museum. She noted increased use of museum services and rising operational costs (e.g., for janitorial services).
Councilmember Ransom said Council intended the funding to address emergency service needs, including youth and cultural services. He noted that the funding criteria that the Emergency Allocations Committee followed focused completely on social services. He said Council must either allocate $14,000 more in funding or reduce the human services program allocations recommended by the committee to meet the emergency requests of the Shoreline Historical Museum and the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Arts Council. He indicated that City funding to the historical museum and the arts council has not kept pace with the cost of living. He encouraged Council to consider a balance of human services and cultural services funding and to provide some funding to the arts council and the museum.
Mayor Jepsen asked Scott Keeny, who participated on the Emergency Allocations Committee, to discuss committee deliberations about the balance of human and cultural services funding.
Councilmember Gustafson asked where the historical museum and the arts council would have fallen as committee priorities.
Mr. Keeny said the Emergency Allocations Committee did not review the cultural services program requests and was advised not to include them in the process of allocating the $100,000 in one-time funding. Ms. Barry said this was consistent with Council direction in January.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Keeny said the committee reviewed all of the applications for emergency human services funding, considered the reasons for the requests, compared them to the direction Council provided staff about funding and determined its funding recommendations.
Mayor Jepsen questioned cuts in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds which resulted in less funding for the Emergency Feeding Program and Hopelink/Shelter during the second year of the City biennial human services funding cycle. Mr. Beem explained that the King County CDBG Consortium Joint Recommendations Committee,
in which the City participates, awards funds to member cities in proportion to the size of their low-income populations. He said the distribution of low-income households changed, and the City’s share of funds changed as a result. Mayor Jepsen advocated reconsideration of becoming an entitlement city for CDBG funding.
In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Beem advised that the consortium receives and distributes all CDBG funds to the member cities. He reiterated that the distribution of funds varies with annual changes in estimates of the number of low-income residents. He noted that the City allocation has decreased the past two years.
Mayor Jepsen polled the Council to determine that three Councilmembers supported funding the Shoreline Historical Museum request and that four supported funding the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Arts Council request. Abstaining, Councilmember Hansen left the Council table during the vote and the subsequent discussion.
Mayor Jepsen recommended that Council group the two cultural services requests and determine whether to allocate an additional $14,000 in funding.
Councilmember Montgomery acknowledged the requests for funding as "very real needs." She went on to reference Ms. Nichols’ summary of the 2002 State Legislative Session and the City loss of $1.35 million in I-695 backfill funding. She asked what Council intends not to fund in the future in order to fund the requests under consideration.
Councilmember Ransom said the City currently has sufficient reserves. Councilmember Montgomery commented that the State has made the same assertion and that State reserves are dwindling rapidly. She expressed concern about increasing City expenditures given that the City has yet to address its declining revenues.
Deputy Mayor Grossman suggested that Council approve the Emergency Allocations Committee recommendation and cover the cultural services programs requests. He expressed concern that the historical museum has applied for one-time funding for an ongoing operational expense. He asserted that the arts council and the historical museum are important components of the community. He noted previous Council discussion about using jail contract savings to increase human and cultural services funding.
Councilmember Chang agreed with Deputy Mayor Grossman.
Councilmember Gustafson expressed his inclination to agree with Deputy Mayor Grossman. He acknowledged "that next year's going to be a tough decision," but he stressed that Council is discussing one-time emergency funding.
Councilmember Montgomery reiterated her concern about additional spending in the face of declining revenues.
Councilmember Ransom supported the suggestion to allocate an additional $14,000 to cover the cultural services programs requests.
Noting four Councilmembers in favor of allocating an additional $14,000, Mayor Jepsen advised staff to revise the proposal for Council approval at its April 8 meeting. He suggested that staff include the proposal on the meeting consent calendar.
(b) 2001 Year-End Final Report
Mr. Burkett said the City is in a much better financial position than other jurisdictions. He acknowledged his responsibility to monitor City finances as the current budget year continues and as staff and Council prepare the next annual budget.
Finance Director Debbie Tarry reviewed the 2001 Fourth Quarter Financial Report. She noted the following reasons for caution about future General Fund revenues: the .6 percent growth in sales tax revenue between 2000 and 2001 was the lowest in City history; 2001 gambling tax revenues were three percent lower than those in 2000; and the City will lose at least $1.35 million in I-695 backfill funding. She noted the need to evaluate ongoing Surface Water Management (SWM) operations and capital needs.
Summarizing, Ms. Tarry said 2001 City financial results were better than staff projections. She noted that reserves exceed policy levels and that the City is in a good financial position. In addition to the loss of I-695 backfill funding, she pointed to the following challenges for 2003: the Puget Sound area recession; and the projection of ongoing expenditure growth outpacing ongoing revenue growth.
In response to Councilmember Chang, Ms. Tarry said staff established the 2001 Proposed City Budget by late September 2000; Council adopted the budget in December 2000; and staff updated revenue and expenditure projections during the middle of 2001.
Councilmember Chang acknowledged the loss of I-695 backfill funding and the declining growth in sales tax revenue. He asked about other areas of declining revenue. Ms. Tarry noted potential reduction of federal grants for police services and the potential continued decline of building permit revenues. She mentioned the possibility of reductions in other State and federal grant funding.
Comparing actual revenues and expenditures, Mayor Jepsen said the City under-spent its revenues in 2001 by approximately $1.4 million. Noting that the City will carry forward $535,000 in activity not accomplished during 2001, he estimated a positive budget balance of approximately $900,000. Ms. Tarry confirmed this assessment.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Tarry said utility tax revenue alone does not offset the sales tax equalization revenue the City lost after passage of I-695. She agreed that franchise fee and utility tax revenues combined offset lost sales tax equalization revenue. She confirmed that the City lost approximately $3 million in sales tax equalization funding.
Responding again to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Tarry attributed the decline in parks and recreation revenue during 2001 to the closure of the Shoreline Pool and other park facilities. She acknowledged that these revenues will increase in 2002, but she noted that expenditures, related to reopened facilities, will also increase.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Tarry said staff projects a long-term increase in property tax revenue of two percent—one percent property tax levy increase and one percent from new construction. Ms. Tarry noted that staff will reassess the revenue to determine the effect of declining development activity.
Mayor Jepsen commented that City implementation of the utility tax "to stay whole," precluded the City from using it, as many other cities do, to fund capital projects.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Tarry confirmed that the City did not receive any revenue from the Shoreline Water District in 2001. She said the City is negotiating a franchise agreement with the district. She advised that the City will soon receive the first franchise fee payment from the Ronald Waste Water District. Mr. Burkett clarified that the payment applies to customers the wastewater district assumed from Seattle Public Utilities. He said City staff is undertaking negotiations with the waste water district on an agreement under which the district will pay six percent of gross revenues for its other customers.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Ms. Tarry confirmed the staff intent to retain the $900,000 fund balance from the 2001 budget in the General Fund rather than allocate it to capital.
(c) Continued Discussion of Revisions and Updates to the Capital Improvement Program
Mr. Burkett said Mayor Jepsen has expressed interest since the February 19 Council meeting in "putting a top priority on" the North City Business District Improvements Project and the Interurban Trail Project.
Mayor Jepsen advocated that the City consolidate the south, south-central and north segments of the Interurban Trail Project and proceed more aggressively than staff proposed February 19. Noting that Council will consider an amended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget April 8, he recommended that the budget fully fund the Interurban Trail, excepting the central segment (which is under consideration as part of the Central Shoreline Subarea Plan) and the bridge over Aurora Avenue.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Burkett said staff will prepare a CIP budget for Council consideration on April 8 that includes the south, south-central and north segments of the Interurban Trail and that shows the status of fully funding those three phases with available funds. He explained that staff will pursue grant funding for the bridge over Aurora Avenue and to supplement local funding for the central segment of the trail.
Councilmember Ransom said the City put the total cost of the Aurora Corridor Project at $85 million during discussions with U.S. legislators in Washington, D.C.. He noted previous total cost estimates of $75 million. He asked if the City is now anticipating additional costs. Mr. Burkett explained that the $85 million cost estimate resulted from the recent review of the Aurora Corridor Project for the updated CIP. He noted that this included more conservative, realistic cost estimates.
Interim Public Works Director Art Maronek said staff estimated the total project cost in 2001 dollars, without inflating it over time. In response to Councilmember Ransom, he confirmed that the cost of the project will be even larger in 2003 or 2004 when the City begins construction of the first phase. He said this will be particularly true of the second phase from 165th Street to 205th Street, which the City has not started.
Mayor Jepsen asked if Council supported his proposal to consolidate and fund the south, south-central and north segments of the Interurban Trail Project in the upcoming CIP amendment. He acknowledged that Council will not be able to commit to proceed until it reviews the budget.
Councilmember Gustafson supported Mayor Jepsen's recommendation. He went on to advocate that staff include a connection with the I-5 overpass at 195th Street in future plans for the Interurban Trail Project. He stated the importance of this connection to link the Interurban Trail with the Burke-Gilman Trail. He expressed concern about losing track of this connection. Mr. Burkett said the connection is not included in the scope of the current project that is estimated to cost $8 million. Councilmember Gustafson advocated that the City include the connection in the project vision and planning, thereby making it possible to address it subsequently.
Councilmember Montgomery supported Mayor Jepsen's recommendation as a means of determining the cost of funding the Interurban Trail Project. She commented that Council will need to discuss the feasibility of the project once the cost information is available.
Mr. Burkett said he is comfortable that staff can prepare a reasonable plan for consolidating and funding the south, south-central and north segments of the Interurban Trail Project. He noted a funding shortfall related to the central segment and the bridge over Aurora Avenue. He expressed confidence that staff can prepare a proposal, using City funding and grant funding the City has already received, for the consolidated three segments.
Mayor Jepsen explained that the goal of allocating funding for the consolidated segments is to proceed as quickly and efficiently as possible with design and construction.
Continuing, Mayor Jepsen asserted that the North City Business District Improvements Project, like the Interurban Trail Project, can proceed more quickly than staff proposed February 19. He said Council has a very different perspective on the North City project than staff. He advocated that the City focus on the subarea addressed during the North City design charrette and that the City fund and proceed with the proposed improvements.
Mr. Burkett said staff has issued a request for proposals (RFP) for the design contract for the North City Business District Improvements Project. He anticipated that staff will return to Council by the end of April for review and approval of the project scope and of a contract for project pre-design and design.
Mayor Jepsen asserted that the City has already completed the pre-design for the North City Business District Improvements Project.
Councilmember Ransom questioned the definition of pre-design. Mr. Burkett acknowledged that the term means different things to different people. Mr. Maronek listed five phases typically associated with public works projects: 1) feasibility analysis; 2) pre-design; 3) design; 4) construction; and 5) construction management. He said some City pre-design reports appear to be planning-level, conceptual documents. He noted the need for feasibility analysis of projects previously designated to have completed pre-design. He suggested that, in the future, the City insure the completion of feasibility analysis before adopting a pre-design report.
Councilmember Gustafson questioned the length of time necessary for pre-design and design. He said the 2001-2006 CIP included project timelines with construction beginning in 2001 and 2002. He noted that timelines for the same projects now show construction beginning in 2004 and 2005 with two to three years of pre-design and design. He agreed with Mayor Jepsen that he would like to see some City projects proceed more quickly, with construction beginning before 2004.
Mr. Burkett said staff would also like projects to proceed more quickly. Referring to the February 19 staff presentation, he reiterated that some of the project schedules that staff presented to Council in the past were not realistic. He said staff extensively reanalyzed the five major City capital projects to determine realistic timeframes. He noted that the Gray & Osborne, Inc. "Example Project Schedule" showed three to four years of pre-design and design prior to construction. He highlighted environmental review and right-of-way acquisition as time-consuming tasks.
Deputy Mayor Grossman expressed frustration that the City has invested $500,000 on a $5 million project and is still not ready to prepare construction drawings. He supported Mayor Jepsen's recommendation to proceed more quickly. He advocated that the City proceed as quickly as reasonably possible.
Mayor Jepsen asserted that the timelines that staff has presented are "far too conservative." He said it will not take nine months to prepare construction drawings.
Referring to the February 19 Council meeting, Councilmember Gustafson asked about Public Works Trust Fund deadlines. Mr. Burkett explained that the City applied for and received loan commitments for the Ronald Bog and 3rd Avenue NW Drainage Improvements Projects. He said the City must now request extensions of the related deadlines. He went on to stress the importance of determining the adequacy of SWM revenues to cover loan repayments, system operating costs and the rehabilitation and renovation of the 30-50-year-old system.
In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Burkett said poor weather has delayed the reopening of Shoreview Park. Ms. Barry explained that the turf on the new Little League ball field will not be ready for use until the spring of 2003. She mentioned efforts City staff has taken to stop groups and individuals from jumping fences to use the field prematurely. She confirmed that the rest of the park will reopen soon.
8. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Les Nelson, Shoreline, questioned the process for a City response to the letter he submitted earlier in the meeting. He noted his understanding that Councilmember Hansen directed staff to amend the Development Code to require notification of surrounding property owners of a change in the footprint of a commercial building. He recommended that change of a commercial building footprint "toward a residential area" trigger notification.
Councilmember Hansen said he, alone, cannot direct staff to amend the Development Code. He clarified that this requires a majority of Councilmembers.
(b) Dale Wright, Shoreline, commended City staff and consultants for the "down-to-earth, practical and pragmatic" preliminary design concepts that they presented during the March 5th and 6th Central Shoreline Design Charrette. He said staff and consultants listened and responded to the concerns of adjacent residents and businesses by making specific changes to the preliminary design. He advocated that the Aurora business community show its good faith to the Shoreline community by cooperating with and supporting the implementation of the plan for the Aurora Corridor.
Mayor Jepsen said he and Deputy Mayor Grossman will consult staff and prepare a response to Mr. Nelson's letter.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Burkett said staff will present the results of the Central Shoreline Design Charrette at the April 15 joint workshop meeting of Council and the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Ransom supported Council consideration of an amendment to the Development Code to reduce the size of commercial building modifications requiring City notification of surrounding property owners. Mayor Jepsen said he will talk with staff about the next available opportunity to consider such an amendment.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At 9:56 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.
________________________
Carol Shenk
Deputy City Clerk