CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING
Monday, January 4, 1999
6:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Councilmembers Gustafson, Hansen, King, and Ransom
ABSENT: Councilmember Lee
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exception of Councilmember Lee, who was absent and Councilmember Ransom, who arrived shortly thereafter.
Upon motion by Councilmember Hansen, seconded by Councilmember King and unanimously carried, Councilmember Lee was excused.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS
Robert Deis, City Manager, commented on the success of the City’s Christmas Adopt-a-Family program. He also distributed the "Owner’s Manual," which will be mailed next week to Shoreline residents, and he reviewed upcoming agenda items.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember King reported on the process for Suburban Cities Association appoint-ments.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
6. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) Update on District Court Negotiations
Steve Oleson, Budget Analyst, reviewed the staff report, noting that 20 city contracts for district court services will expire on December 31, 1999. The contract cities have been working together with the County to develop a new contract. Preliminary agreement has been reached on the critical issues of the five-year term of the contract, the services to be provided, and the fact that no new capital costs are proposed. The major issue of court costs and revenues has been resolved by replacing the current per case filing fee approach with a 75/25 percent revenue split. This is projected to result in a net benefit to Shoreline of $22,059.
Councilmember Ransom arrived at 6:45 p.m.
Responding to Councilmember King, Mr. Oleson said the new district court proposed for Bellevue will be addressed separately by the eastside cities.
Councilmember Ransom commented on the City’s program of having volunteers call individuals to remind them of court dates. He emphasized the importance of receiving the lists in a timely manner. Mr. Oleson responded that the contract calls for a committee to discuss such issues, and Mr. Deis added that this issue will definitely be brought up at this committee.
Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Oleson said there has been some reluctance to make projections about revenues. However, the revenue from fines has gone up over the last ten years and will probably continue to do so. The County has agreed to the split regardless of the revenue situation. If the revenues were to decrease, the cities would not be asked for additional funding.
Mayor Jepsen expressed Council consensus that staff return with the final recommended contract as discussed in the report.
(b) Update on Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Financial Planning Task Force Work
Mr. Deis reviewed the report in the Council packet describing the background for the formation of the King County EMS Financial Planning Task Force, the proposals recommended, the funding alternatives considered, and the decisions yet to be made. He expressed his belief that the Task Force will probably end up recommending a funding source that depends on the property tax, since increases in sales tax, utility taxes and Business and Occupation (B&O) taxes are politically unpalatable.
Mayor Jepsen commented that the Task Force was formed to identify a permanent funding source for EMS other than the super-majority levy approach. However, after a year’s discussion, it appears most members support the status quo in terms of funding proposals, although there is some support for a performance system that ensures the highest quality, most efficient level of service.
Mr. Deis noted that one idea was to require the local agencies to fund Basic Life Support (BLS) and provide regional funding for Advanced Life Support (ALS) only. This would cost the Shoreline Fire Department approximately $300,000.
Responding to Councilmember King, Fire Chief J.B. Smith said that the proposal to have BLS services provided locally could impact the response times.
Noting that the region seems to be suffering from a certain sense of inertia, Mr. Deis pointed out that the accountability approach with performance measures, as recom-mended by the Task Force, is a step forward.
Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Chief Smith said the work of the Task Force was a good impetus for providers to look at the regional system. The Shoreline Fire Department is working actively with King County and the Evergreen System to coordinate, or perhaps even merge, these two systems in order to achieve better cost efficiencies and to run more medic units out of one system. This may provide a model to other providers.
Responding again to Councilmember Gustafson, Chief Smith justified that this EMS system is called "the best in the world" because it has the best survival rate for patients suffering from heart attacks. Mr. Deis added that the issue of cost per patient can be raised and must ultimately be considered.
Responding to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Deis said he is giving the Council his analysis of the discussions of the Task Force. He said the user fee approach does not produce much revenue and the service providers feel strongly that this would impact the high level of service currently available.
Responding to Councilmember Hansen, Chief Smith stated that the problem with most of the proposed funding mechanisms is that they require a change in State law. The Task Force is looking at a King County issue, which is not necessarily shared by the rest of the State.
Mayor Jepsen concluded that the goal is still to identify a stable, long-term funding source that is not dependent on the periodic levy vote.
(c) Economic Development Briefing
Tim Stewart, Director of Planning and Development Services, introduced this topic by noting that some of the components of an economic development program are fairly common, e.g., developing a city image, providing information to local businesses and real estate markets, and putting interested buyers and sellers together. A more aggressive approach, and the most controversial, is when the City moves into the area of actively partnering with the private sector to develop economic development projects.
Mr. Stewart introduced Ross Cutshaw, the City’s Economic Development Coordinator, who updated the Council on his recent activities. He noted that one of the obstacles to redevelopment along Aurora Avenue is that business is good and business owners have the attitude of "if it’s not broke, why fix it?" He also pointed out that the secondary properties behind Aurora Avenue will become integral parts of a future development program, e.g., Stone Avenue behind QFC.
Continuing, Mr. Cutshaw said economic development involves a collaborative effort between the private and public sector and the City’s role is to create an environment for business growth to prevent deterioration. He felt Shoreline is currently at a crossroads in its economic development and gave as an example that Sears is a viable candidate to relocate to Northgate Mall, which would create a 200,000 square foot vacancy at Aurora Square. This could be used for office development, which Shoreline needs.
Mr. Cutshaw reported on the networking and collaborating that is taking place now and may have future results. He pointed out that an inherent problem along Aurora Ave. is that there are many small parcels that are hard to develop and control. He said the goal is to create a long-term plan for Aurora Avenue, but this will take time. However, one good project can be a catalyst to other development.
Mr. Stewart added that if the sites to be developed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and do not require a zoning change, the proposal will be easy to put together. If the project involves a zoning change or the expansion of a mixed use area, it will obviously involve a more elaborate planning process, which will include the neighbors. He said a related goal will be to look at code enforcement and ensure that situations such as the burned out restaurant on Aurora Ave. are not allowed to continue. He concluded that staff needs to know from Council how aggressively to pursue economic development, since some projects can become controversial. He stressed the importance of collaborating with all parties on these efforts.
Mr. Deis summarized ways in which the City can encourage economic development: 1) street vacations to make properties more visible or marketable; 2) purchasing property with the goal of packaging it with other parcels; 3) conditioning developments to do major street improvements; and 4) forgiving property taxes on future improvements when certain conditions are met. He noted that this has been allowed since a state law change in 1995. Mr. Deis concluded that Mr. Cutshaw is talking with developers about various possibilities, but he needs to know which options Council will support down the road.
Mr. Cutshaw added that it is important to know what Council’s vision for the City is.
Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.
(1) Walt Hagen, 711 N 193rd Street, recalled Council’s actions on December 14, 1998 to approve three developments which he said the citizens did not want. He asked Council to listen to citizens, who are not asking for a City Hall, a Main Street U.S.A., or major economic development. He said citizens want to keep Shoreline a quiet, residential community.
Councilmember King stated her desire to provide more activities for older youth, such as a skate park. She pointed out that a movie complex would provide a gathering place and more "white tablecloth" restaurants would be an asset. She also noted that Shoreline has spectacular views in certain places if the buildings are tall enough to see them. She also suggested contact with the Pratt Art Institute about relocating to Shoreline, since in the past the institute indicated an interest in doing so.
Mayor Jepsen noted that Councilmembers responded during the election process to questions about their vision. He expressed the view that a focused approach would be preferable to the shotgun approach in order to allocate resources in a way that makes a difference. He said Council must now give Mr. Cutshaw direction about economic development priorities.
Turning to Mr. Deis’ options, he said if the land assembly approach is adopted, it is necessary to do so with a strategic plan in mind. He hoped Shoreline will not have to resort to tax abatement and expressed reluctance to provide this option unless it is the only way to achieve a dramatic project that everyone supports.
Mayor Jepsen added that he had lunch with the Director of the King County Housing Authority, who mentioned a mixed use project in Tukwila. The Director wanted to work with Shoreline to do something similar. Mr. Stewart said staff is following up on this.
Mayor Jepsen concluded that his vision for development in Shoreline is based on the mixed use approach. He liked the concept of gathering places with ongoing activities at various times of the day. Mayor Jepsen asked staff to develop more specific information for Council review.
Deputy Mayor Montgomery supported Mayor Jepsen’s comments about the mixed use approach. She responded to Mr. Hagen’s statement that citizens want a quiet, residential community by noting that he represents one group. There is another group who wants a more vibrant community with more services and amenities. She said it is time to start thinking about how to develop specific areas and about what is affordable.
Councilmember Ransom said the community wants strong schools and a quality of life through parks, recreation and cultural services. The Interurban Trail will be part of this, as is the large park system. He said Shoreline needs more retail trade to maintain the quality of life and offset the potential loss of sales tax equalization. Shoreline needs about $200,000,000 more in retail sales to generate taxes, as well as more square footage of retail space. He suggested having more office and medical facilities. He felt that redevelopment of Aurora Square should be the first priority. He said if Sears pulls out, Aurora Square is "dead".
Mr. Cutshaw noted that a private investment firm from Colorado recently bought the lower portion of Aurora Square. He said this indicates the investment world is noticing the potential there.
Councilmember Gustafson concurred with Councilmember Ransom in emphasizing the importance of the development of the Interurban Trail and Aurora Square. He felt that as a bedroom community, a great deal of economic development is not the goal, but it is important that there are jobs and homes in Shoreline. He liked the idea of theme development and getting the schools and the community involved.
Councilmember Hansen also wished to see redevelopment at Aurora Square, where he felt a street vacation is a real possibility.
Responding to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Cutshaw updated Council on the Top Foods and Comfort Inn developments, as well as the status of the corner of 145th Avenue and Aurora Avenue. He said Top Foods intends to demolish the present structure fairly soon, which will be an improvement.
Councilmember Hansen felt right now the City should proceed with the scattered approach that considers as many opportunities as possible. Then when something starts to develop, the City can focus on a project. He did not know what could be focused on at this time other than Aurora Square. He believed in letting the market bring forward the options.
Mr. Stewart said one of the challenges of briefing the Council on specific developments is not to describe the negotiations or preliminary plans in a way that might "wreck" a deal. He noted that the Comfort Inn project still has a storm water issue that staff is seeking to resolve.
Mayor Jepsen asked staff to come back with specific initiatives. He noted that Councilmember Lee had left a message asking Councilmembers to think about the role the legislative body can play in providing the right atmosphere for economic development.
Councilmember Hansen concluded that he would like to see the City provide the impetus for the redevelopment of the North City Post Office.
(d) Public Works Department Development
After Mr. Deis noted that the development of the Public Works Department has been a Council goal for the past two years, Doug Mattoon, Public Works Director, reviewed the staff report. He noted that in order to develop this report, staff and consultants had to review the street and surface water maintenance tasks currently provided by King County and their costs; determine the staffing needed to implement the Capital Improvement Program (CIP); review the professional engineering staffing needed to support Planning and Development Services and other City functions; and develop a multi-year implementation plan for a transition of services from King County. He reviewed the current organization of the department, noting that one additional project engineer is requested for the engineering division and the remaining increases are in the operations division.
Mr. Mattoon focused on the operations area. He said the City must go through the following three-step process to respond to the lack of fundamental street, traffic and drainage management and maintenance in Shoreline: 1) transition from King County as the sole provider for street maintenance services to a mix that will include the hiring of in-house staff, contracting with other public agencies or private contractors, and remaining with the County where it is advantageous to do so; 2) design the information systems, including infrastructure inventories and condition assessments and create the City’s maintenance management system; and 3) with direction from the Council, determine appropriate levels of service, e.g., how often and what kind of maintenance is done.
While discussing why the staff recommends moving away from dependence on King County, Mr. Mattoon explained that the County does not provide the level of service that it has committed to. This is mainly because of inclement weather responses, demands on County resources and competing County priorities. The County’s maintenance plan also fails to address the cumulative impacts of not accomplishing the work in previous years. This problem is compounded by the fact that the City is unable to adequately inspect the County’s work in the field due to insufficient staffing. Because the County does not have a modern maintenance management system that allows work to be coordinated, prioritized and assigned between Divisions, many maintenance needs "fall through the cracks", reducing the life of the infrastructure. Finally, through the maintenance contract the City is paying 60-65 percent administrative overhead for King County services in addition to the City’s own overhead costs.
Mr. Mattoon then demonstrated with overheads the costs for implementing the proposed plan compared to the King County contract, as demonstrated on page 59 of the Council packet.
Responding to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Mattoon said that these costs pay for higher levels of service than what is currently being received from King County.
Mr. Mattoon pointed out that the City will need space for the personnel and the equipment to be purchased. However, all these costs will not have to be incurred in 1999. He concluded that if plan implementation begins in 1999, the estimated City cost for maintenance is $1,498,524 including $476,712 in start-up costs. This means a difference between the County contract and the proposed plan of about $600,000 in the operating budget. The 1999 cost of the Project Engineer will be borne by the Capital Budget.
Responding to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Mattoon said there will only be a marginal drop in the cost of the King County contract for 1999. The pay-off for the transition really begins in the year 2000.
Responding to Mr. Deis, Mr. Mattoon said that changes can be made in the County contract up to ten percent with essentially no notice, but for significant changes the County must receive notification by April 1st for the following year’s contract.
Mr. Mattoon reiterated the steps beyond the implementation plan, including the performance of the inventory and condition assessments, which must occur before the levels of service can be adequately set. The development of the Operations maintenance management system is part of the City’s Technology Plan.
Mr. Deis pointed out the high one-time start-up costs in 1999, which will continue into 2000 because there is an overlap between the services provided by the County and the City or private contractors. After these two years, the difference goes down to only $164,181 in additional costs than would be paid to the County contract, with much more capacity for enhanced levels of service.
Mayor Jepsen expressed dismay at the costs to provide the level of maintenance that the County plans and has never attained. He said even disregarding the double overhead issue, it would appear the mixed service proposal is much better, particularly if private contractors can handle some of the tasks, as they have in parks.
Councilmembers Hansen and King concurred with the staff recommendation.
Responding to Councilmember King, Mr. Mattoon said there may be options to contract with other public agencies, such as the Sewer District, for certain services.
Mr. Deis said the next step is a budget adjustment to fund the work suggested for 1999. He said staff will be further analyzing how to finance the "big bubble" that will occur for the next two years.
On another topic, Mr. Deis noted his commitment to return to Council with possible places to allocate the 1999 Seattle City Light (SCL) revenues, as well as information on the costs of undergrounding. His list included: 1) development of a basic Public Works Department; 2) funding a basic road overlay program; 3) transfer to the Capital Improvement Program; 4) increasing reserves/ contingency; and 5) funding a proactive economic development program.
Turning to undergrounding, Mr. Deis distributed a fact sheet on undergrounding and pointed out that the City requires by ordinance undergrounding on major capital projects. Undergrounding is typically funded either by the City and/or a local improvement district if it is in a business district. The second type of undergrounding is a neighborhood improvement program which is typically funded entirely by a local improvement district. This is very labor intensive to administer and often controversial.
Mr. Deis recommended that other funding priorities take precedence over underground-ing of capital projects. He highlighted that even when the City pays for the undergrounding, individual homeowners are responsible for converting their service connection to accommodate the change at an approximate cost of $1,500 - $3,000 per house. He also outlined approximate costs for doing various types of projects:
There would be additional costs for undergrounding the remaining utilities, including telephone and television.
Councilmember King continued to support the use of SCL funds for undergrounding.
8. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Walt Hagen, 711 N 193rd Street, asked if the County would continue to provide services to the City if Shoreline were to go bankrupt after discontinuing the contract and assuming responsibility for providing those services.
Mr. Deis noted that once Shoreline became a city it had to assume responsibility for these services. The County would not perform the services if the City could not. Councilmem-ber Hansen added that if the City could not pay for the services, the County would not perform on the contract.
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 9:25 p.m., Mayor Jepsen announced that the Council would recess into Executive Session for five minutes to discuss one item of potential litigation. At 9:30 p.m., the Executive Session concluded and the workshop reconvened.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At 9:31 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.
_______________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk