CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP

Monday, February 1, 1999

6:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Councilmembers Gustafson, Hansen, King, Lee and Ransom

ABSENT: None

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 exceptions of Councilmembers Gustafson and Hansen, who arrived shortly thereafter.

3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS

Robert Deis, City Manager, distributed copies of the City’s first quarterly newsletter. Councilmember King recommended that the newsletter contain information on the next quarter’s agenda items.

Noting that the City uses many volunteers and received almost 9,000 hours of donated labor last year, Mr. Deis asked for Council input on the City’s volunteer appreciation event, which will be a breakfast on April 23^rd. He asked for Council input on the format of the breakfast and whether to include members of the Planning Commission, Library Board and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee.

Councilmember Gustafson arrived at 6:35 p.m.

Councilmember King did not favor splitting out groups of volunteers, arguing that this makes certain volunteers seem more important than others. She suggested that department heads and Councilmembers host the tables.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery felt the level of responsibility of the Planning Commission may call for special recognition of that group.

Councilmember Hansen arrived at 6:40 p.m.

Councilmember Ransom spoke strongly in support of volunteer recognition.

Mayor Jepsen pointed out that the Council gets together with the Council of Neighbor-hoods separately and perhaps it should get together separately with the Planning Commission. He supported the idea of having Councilmembers and department heads serve the breakfast.

Councilmember King agreed that Council should meet with the Planning Commission but she felt the Planning Commission should also be part of the larger event.

Councilmember Gustafson suggested that volunteers who contribute in special ways should be acknowledged at Council meetings throughout the year and urged the City to promote and seek out such groups.

Mr. Deis asked Tim Stewart, Director of the Department of Planning and Development Services, to report on two items recently or soon to be in the news. Mr. Stewart explained that on January 8, 1999 the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearing Board issued a lengthy and complicated decision regarding the Woodway Comprehensive Plan. It said that the plan does not comply with various sections of the Growth Manage-ment Act (GMA). The plan was remanded to Woodway with directions to comply with GMA no later than May 11^th. Subsequently, Woodway has appealed this decision to Superior Court.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Stewart said the decision does not address how many housing units can be built on the property effected by the Comprehensive Plan change in question. He said that Shoreline will be watching this situation carefully, but Councilmember Gustafson suggested it might be beneficial to be more proactive. Mr. Stewart agreed there are a number of options available, which could be reviewed by Council before a policy decision is made on how to proceed.

Mayor Jepsen noted that Council has supported a moderate number of homes being built, rather than fighting the development. He said the Council can discuss the merits of joining the suit on either side, but he feared the outcome of litigation will be a much greater density than Shoreline had hoped to see. Councilmember Hansen added that the acreage in question has a potential of 360 housing units, so he concurred with Mayor Jepsen that the goal should be cooperation toward a moderate proposal from the developer.

Mayor Jepsen recommended continuing to push for eastern ingress and egress.

Mr. Deis expressed the view that the best strategy is to work with the developer. He felt GMA will prevail and the goal should be something less dense than GMA allows. This will require cooperation between the parties.

Mayor Jepsen concluded that Council can review the information presented at the hearings on this matter held last year to see whether any concerns should be eliminated or added. Councilmember Hansen noted that one change in circumstance is the street vacation by the City of Edmonds.

Turning to a second item, Mr. Stewart briefly noted that the North City Business Association and staff have been working on economic development in the area. He said this presents a good opportunity for the group to show leadership in planning development. A full report on this item will come forward at the next workshop.

Mr. Deis reviewed future agenda items, including "Celebrate Shoreline," a 4^th of July event, and the 2000 Census. Councilmember Ransom suggested that Shoreline should be its own statistical metropolitan area.

4. COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmember Hansen noted that at the National League of Cities Conference he observed the operations of Kansas City’s Ethnic Commission. He thought it would be a good idea for Shoreline to have something similar.

Councilmember King noted the Council’s receipt of her testimony before the King County Council Committee-of-the-Whole regarding wastewater treatment.

Mayor Jepsen reported on a meeting with King County Councilmember Maggi Fimia; a meeting with Mr. Deis and the President of the Shoreline School Board and the Superintendent of the Shoreline School District to prepare for next Monday night’s dinner meeting, the main subject of which will be the skate park and Paramount Park; and a meeting of mayors and city managers who discussed how to work together to represent each other’s regional issues. He said this group committed to meet at least once each month. Next month’s discussion will focus on legislative agendas and identification of the highest legislative priorities to determine where cooperation may be possible.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery reported on a meeting of the Seashore Forum, where she heard a report on the recommendations of the King County Chambers of Commerce on allocation of Referendum 49 (R49) funding for transportation projects. $10 million is recommended for funding Shoreline’s portion of the Aurora Corridor.

Responding to Mayor Jepsen’s question about whether the decision has been made to allocate R49 funding through the counties, Joyce Nichols, Community and Government Relations Manager, explained that the goal of the group that made the list referred to by Deputy Mayor Montgomery was to try to get the King County legislative delegation to agree on projects to be funded in King County with R49 dollars. The next step is to gather written support for the list in King County and then to go down to the legislative delegation to try to get them to bring some of the funding back to King County. This is where congestion relief is needed and where much of the money comes from in the first place.

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: none

6. WORKSHOP ITEMS

(a) Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Plan for Shoreline’s Road System

Doug Mattoon, Public Works Director, reviewed the staff report, which provided the basis for this policy discussion of how to bring road conditions to an appropriately maintained service level. He explained the "Pavement Life Cycle" found on page 5 of the Council packet, noting that roadway systems usually have pavement in all five categories from "Excellent" to "Failed." Noting Shoreline’s roads currently score an average of 64, Mr. Mattoon used overheads to demonstrate the roadways in various categories. He emphasized that the question for Council is whether to maintain the roadways at this level, to improve them or to let them worsen. He also noted that as the pavement life and condition drop to "Poor" and below, the only maintenance options are extremely expensive, and the condition of the roadway deteriorates very rapidly.

Referring to Table 4 on page 8, Mr. Mattoon said that staff ran nine models of differing expenditures on an annual basis with different types of treatments. He said that continuing the status quo of spending $400,000/year over the next ten years will mean that the average condition of the system will continue to decline. Going to all overlays at a cost of $590,000/year will result in a system that declines very slightly. The "mix method" approach at the same $590,000/year will result in a slight improvement of the system.

Explaining the mix method, Mr. Mattoon said $400,000 would continue to be spent in overlays on arterial streets. For the local access residential streets, an alternative treatment, such as seal coat, would be used. This mix method process will maximize the dollars and keep deferred maintenance costs steady from year to year.

Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Mattoon said the staff recommendation was based on selecting the most significant increase in service level for the least amount of money and a point where the deferred rehabilitation costs almost level out. Mayor Jepsen said it does not make sense to ignore the streets and then have to rebuild them, which is an extremely expensive process.

Responding to Councilmember Lee’s question about sources of funding, Mr. Deis reminded Council that the Seattle City Light franchise will generate about $500,000 in new revenue.

Commenting on the cost to repair potholes, Councilmember Ransom wished to be sure that this type of maintenance is included. Mr. Mattoon said pothole repair is covered under routine maintenance, and the goal of this program is to reduce this cost.

Councilmember Lee asked how much control the City has in terms of overlays on state highways. Mr. Mattoon responded that the City has limited control over what the State does but that the State has continued responsibility for major maintenance. He reviewed work done in the past year.

Responding to Councilmember King, Mr. Mattoon said road edges are one of the things that will be addressed. He said the report did not study liabilities, but there will be a decrease in operating costs to motorists if rough roads are repaired.

Responding again to Councilmember King, Mr. Mattoon said that the upkeep of private roads is a real issue. There are old private roads in the City that were not built to the same standards as public roads, although now this has changed and the City is getting away from allowing private roads at all. It would be a major liability for the City to take over the old private roads unless they were brought up to current standards. He noted that this situation is not unique to Shoreline.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom’s question about what would be needed to appreciably increase the standards, Mr. Mattoon recommended waiting until the City has its own pavement management system and can do a more detailed analysis. At that time, when more data is available, the levels of service can be revisited.

There was Council consensus to move forward with the mix method pavement management program and to direct staff to return to Council with necessary budget amendments.

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT: None

8. EXECUTIVE SESSION

At 7:56 p.m., Mayor Jepsen announced that the Council would recess into Executive Session for two hours to discuss one item of personnel. At 10:00 p.m., Mayor Jepsen announced that the meeting and the Executive Session would be extended for one hour. At 10:44 p.m., the Executive Session concluded and the workshop reconvened.

9. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

_________________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk