CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 14, 2004 Shoreline Conference Center
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, Grace, Gustafson, and Ransom
ABSENT: none
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Hansen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present. Mayor Hansen noted that June 14th is Flag Day and provided background on this holiday.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Steve Burkett, City Manager, introduced Shoreline’s new Police Chief, Tony Burtt. Chief Burtt noted his prior association with the Shoreline Police Department and said he was excited to be back in Shoreline.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Councilmember Fimia commented on her attendance at Shoreline’s First Annual Renewable Energy Fair, a collaboration of a new community-based, non-profit organization called Shoreline Solar Project and Meridian Park Elementary School.
Councilmember Gustafson said about 150 people attended the Saturday ribbon-cutting ceremony for the north segment of the Interurban Trail.
Councilmember Ransom noted that he will attend the Association of Washington Cities legislative conference. He noted that AWC wished to become more proactive in bringing forward legislation that will be beneficial to cities.
Mayor Hansen noted that he and Mr. Burkett had attended a two-day Suburban Cities Association retreat last week. He said the organization hopes to become better known and more effective.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Ruth McCurdy, Shoreline, expressed her concern about a single family home planned for 19027 Richmond Beach Dr. She said the house is too large for the lot and does not fit the historically unique character of the homes in the area.
(b) Harold Rubin, Shoreline, also commented on this home and asked Council to direct the Planning staff to consider Shoreline Development Code, Chapter 20.50.060, which deals with design standards. He said the proposed home should be compatible with the character and scale of the neighborhood and asked that the guidelines be enforced in this case.
(c) Andrea Massoni, Shoreline, is a neighbor of the proposed home. She described the size and location of the lots in question and said building such a large home will block her view and devalue her property, as well as detract from her quality of life.
(d) Bob Phelps, Shoreline, invited Councilmembers and the public to the Shoreline Auxiliary Communications Services Emergency Communications Field Day to be held the last weekend in June in Hamlin Park.
(e) Elaine Phelps, Shoreline, supported the job the City is doing with regard to the tree-cutting occurring in Innis Arden. She said the City must have the authority to go on private property to enforce permit conditions. She commented that the first Hazardous Tree Report obtained from the Innis Arden Board had said there should be a Vegetation Management Plan before trees would be removed. Then a second report was obtained from the employer of the first arborist that did not require this. Commenting on the Development Code, she noted that Innis Arden has 52 acres of reserves that are tax-exempt and are not to be developed. She recommended a land use designation for such property so that it must be retained for habitat and surface water control.
(f) Wayne Cottingham, Shoreline, provided information about board elections held in Innis Arden. He said that those who oppose the tree-cutting occurring there are not a “minority” as was stated last week.
(g) Stan Terry, Shoreline, commented on the letter sent by the City Council to the Washington State Secretary of Transportation. He said that although he supports the concept of raised medians along Aurora Avenue, he felt one last effort should be made to determine exactly what the state requires. He felt the accident information commented upon last week is not relevant because the improved Aurora Corridor will not be the same highway when the project is completed. There will be three lanes to cross instead of two, so that uncontrolled access will be even more inappropriate and unsafe.
(h) Ginger Botham, commented on the variance criteria issue. She said that over time the City has weakened the regulations. She recommended that the City should incorporate the state standards and then add more restrictive standards. She also noted that references to “artificial open watercourses” is still in the Comprehensive Plan, even though the Planning Commission directed that this be removed.
(i) Janet Way, Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund, commented on the issue of the timing of the Code amendments with regard to adoption of an amended Comprehensive Plan. She said she had many concerns about the draft plan, including the issue of artificial watercourses and design of salmon habitat. She recommended that Shoreline follow Seattle’s lead with the “SeaStreet Concept,” which addresses both water issues and sidewalks. She also noted that Aegis Corporation has sued Shoreline.
(j) Eric Vandergrissen, Shoreline, owner of North City Cleaners, feared the North City/15th Avenue NE plan would create customer loss for his business and more congestion in the area. He asked if the changes are proposed for safety reasons or to cut back traffic flow. He noted the current speed limits are not well enforced. He also submitted a letter from another business owner, Shane Hayes of Shane’s Foot Comfort Center, who said his business will be adversely affected by the project.
(k) Les Nelson, Shoreline, commented on Amendment #3 to the Development Code, which the Planning Commission did not recommend. Asking that this be reconsidered, he described the impacts to his home of the expansion of the Safeway store. He also noted many items that he considered still outstanding, including drainage, landscaping, noise, and lighting. He asked that the Planning Commission be directed to consider legislation to provide some avenue for neighbors to influence commercial development of a smaller size than the current 4,000 square feet.
(l) Walt Hagen, Shoreline, commented on the Comprehensive Plan update, saying it is not correct to consider changes to the Development Code first. He felt the Development Code should not be amended until the Comprehensive Plan is revised. He said the City should not spend money it does not have. He concluded that citizens of the state do not give up their sovereignty to elected bodies.
Councilmember Ransom asked for clarification on the home building permit addressed by the first three speakers. Mr. Burkett said a Type A building permit is not subject to appeal but staff will provide information on the issue. He said the permit would be required to comply with all the provisions of the Development Code.
Councilmember Fimia asked if design guidelines are taken into account when issuing a building permit.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor Jepsen, seconded by Councilmember Ransom and unanimously carried, the agenda was approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
8. NEW BUSINESS
(a) Presentation of the 2005 – 2010 Capital Improvement Plan
Mr. Burkett reviewed the schedule for adoption of the CIP, summarized the relationship of the CIP to other planning documents and the budget, and explained how the CIP is used as a long-term policy document and financial management tool. He mentioned the master plans currently under review, noting Council will be required to prioritize the $400 million in proposed projects. He said the CIP is not a precise project estimate, a detailed project schedule, or an outline of project specifics.
After Mr. Burkett reviewed how the CIP is organized, he said it contains $130.5 million worth of projects (30 in all). He explained the categories of projects and their funding sources. He noted that 57 percent of the funding is from grants. Eight percent will come from proposed borrowing for the new city hall. He pointed out that facilities projects and transportation safety projects make up 78 percent of the total CIP spending.
Continuing, Mr. Burkett listed and briefly described the Council’s six priority projects: City Hall; Aurora Avenue; NCBD/15th Avenue NE; Interurban Trail; Ronald Bog Drainage Improvements; and 3rd Avenue NW drainage improvements. He said the City Hall is projected to cost $20 million. There will be a down payment of about $10 million, which includes an additional $4 million from the General Fund balance over last year’s CIP. Making this allocation means the City will not have to borrow as much. This leaves a 20 percent operating reserve in General Fund ($5.5 million). Council policy is that the reserve cannot go below 10 percent of operations budget. Bonds will finance the other $10 million for the city hall, with the debt service repaid by the money saved over time in lease payments. He said the goal is to be in a new city hall in mid-2008.
Debbie Tarry, Finance Director, continued the explanation of the CIP, recapping the three funds. She said that the General Capital fund includes 12 projects for a total cost of $25 million. She described the funding sources. She said the significant changes are the City Hall Project, as outlined by Mr. Burkett, and the Spartan Gym improvements, which will not be completed until 2005. There is one new project, the Saltwater Park Pedestrian Bridge Replacement for $1.6 million. This will be dependent on grant funding of $1.3 million. She noted long term issues include limited future funding, potential for a bond issue, funding for long-term repair and replacement of facilities, and implementation of the 20-year master plan recommendations.
Continuing, Ms. Tarry said the Roads Capital Fund includes 12 projects for $96.7 million, the major ones being the Aurora Project and the North City Project. Again, she described funding sources. She said there is a new program called “Traffic Small Works,” which is a combination of the pedestrian and right-of-way acquisition programs in previous CIPs. She noted that the overlay program is projected at $500,000 plus inflation rather than $700,000 as it has been in the past. This reduction has occurred because of loss of revenue due to initiatives. She concluded that oil, steel and concrete prices have increased significantly and this may have impacts on future CIP costs.
Ms. Tarry wrapped up by explaining the Surface Water Capital Fund, which is made up of six projects for $8.7 million. SWM fees and Trust Fund loans are the major revenue sources for these.
Councilmember Ransom asked which grants will be sought for the Saltwater Park Bridge project. Ms. Tarry said there are state grants. Councilmember Ransom asked about grants for acquisition of the Hamlin Park open space. Mr. Burkett said this project was identified by the Bond Advisory Committee as one that could be funded by a bond issue. He said the City will aggressively pursue all grant opportunities. Councilmember Ransom recalled that both Sen. Fairley and Rep. Chase had indicated that there were state funds that could be applied for. Mr. Burkett responded that staff will work with them to identify the criteria for these funds.
Councilmember Ransom commented on the reduction in the Surface Water Capital fund budget and asked whether there are changes to the 3rd Avenue project, to which Mayor Hansen responded that the cleaning of the pipe running into Ronald Bog reduced the flooding there.
Paul Haines, Public Works Director, explained that in the master planning process, the City is looking for ways to spread the funding across all the drainage basins. The Ronald Bog basin is performing fairly well with the cleaning that took place. The cost reductions in this fund reflect completed projects over the next six years. He assured Councilmember Ransom that the 3rd Avenue NW project has not been reduced.
Councilmember Ransom commented on problems with the soil in the Aurora Avenue Bridge project and potential increased costs. Mr. Haines said the bridge across 155th has the highest escalation going on because it is where the softest soils have been discovered. He said staff is doing a mini-value engineering process to see what can be done to bring an option that will be within budget and how much money would be needed to fully satisfy the public process. These two different dollar amounts will come to Council on July 12 with 30 percent design of the bridge.
Councilmember Fimia expressed concern about the timing of the adoption of the CIP and the fact that is it not concurrent with the budget adoption. She supported adopting the operating and capital budgets together. She also felt it was problematic to adopt the CIP before the master plan process has been completed. She noted three projects take up 90 percent of the available CIP funds. Within the next month or two, Council will be committing the bulk of the six-year projected CIP income for these projects.
Mr. Burkett agreed but commented that the City has been working on these projects for a long time and the Council has told staff that completion of these projects are a priority.
Councilmember Fimia was of the opinion that the public does not understand the percentage of capital dollars for six years going into these three projects.
Mr. Burkett stressed that Aurora Avenue is 80 percent grant funded. For projects with grant funding, the resources are not available for other projects.
Councilmember Fimia said that grants could be used anywhere on Aurora Avenue, thus stretching the grant dollars; and the other two miles of the project will not necessarily be granted funded at this level. She asked that future documents reflect the “unmet need” in other areas. For example, the plan will only address three percent of the sidewalk needs because approximately 26 miles of arterial streets are missing sidewalks. She said the Council is being asked to make real trade-offs in the next month.
Mr. Haines said the topic of need is being considered in the master planning process. He offered to provide more specific information on sidewalks and noted there are capital projects building sidewalks.
Councilmember Fimia said other funds could be put into surface overlays and she hated to fall behind on maintenance. Ms. Tarry noted that even at the $500,000 allocation, General Fund dollars are needed, but the Council has the option of adding more.
Councilmember Fimia commented that the Neighborhood Traffic program is only being marginally funded considering the needs of neighborhoods.
Mr. Burkett said this discussion highlights that capital needs far outpace available revenue. He said Council must set priorities with the money available but it makes sense to generate additional revenue through a bond issue.
Concluding that in her view the public might prioritize spending differently from what is in the CIP, Councilmember Fimia asked if any of the mitigation projects identified in the Hazard Mitigation Plan are noted or funded in the CIP. Mr. Haines said no projects in the CIP specifically address this. Councilmember Fimia cautioned that all the available capital funding is allocated in the CIP without identifying or funding hazardous mitigation projects, which she felt should be a high priority.
Responding to Councilmember Chang, Ms. Tarry said the City has a total reserve balance of over $30 million. She clarified that the issue of long term repair and maintenance refers to major facility items, such as a roof. Operating maintenance costs are covered by the long-term financial projections on the operating side.
Referring to the timing of the CIP adoption, Councilmember Ransom said the Council made a conscious decision a few years ago to separate the CIP budget from the operating budget in order to allow more time for review before the operating budget comes up later in the year.
Mayor Hansen added that a different level of detail is required in the review of the operating budget than the six-year capital budget. In response to an earlier comment of Councilmember Ransom’s, he noted that the Surface Water budget is much lower because of the completion of projects by the end of the CIP period.
Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Burkett said the delay in the Spartan Gym improvements results from the School District schedule. The City is providing the funding and the School District is building the project. The bid should be awarded by the end of the summer.
Councilmember Gustafson noted he would like to see the last component of the Interurban Trail be a connection from Aurora Avenue to the Burke Gilman Trail across the I-5 pedestrian bridge.
Mr. Burkett concluded that pages 27 and 28 are the summary of the CIP. He asked the Council to review the available funds and make sure its priorities are reflected in this document. He highlighted where Council has some flexibility in funding sources, generally in the General Fund contribution.
Councilmember Fimia felt that grants are flexible, in that the City can select the projects for which to seek grant funding. It cannot ask for grants for everything.
Councilmember Gustafson said in his experience once a grant is received, it must be used for that purpose. He asked for further information about how locked in the City is to grants already awarded.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Action Item continued from meeting of June 7, 2004)
9. ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor Jepsen, seconded by Councilmember Chang and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
_________________________
Sharon Mattioli, City Clerk