CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

Monday, November 2, 1998

6:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Spartan 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 6:34 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.

Councilmember Gustafson moved to excuse Councilmember Lee. Councilmember King seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS

Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, introduced Ross Cutshaw, the City’s first Economic Development Coordinator. Mr. Stewart then distributed copies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Noting that no agenda items are coming forward on November 16, Robert Deis, City Manager, suggested cancellation of the workshop on that day. Council agreed. Mr. Deis then reviewed upcoming meetings and future agenda items.

Kristoff Bauer, Assistant to the City Manager, reported on meetings with the neighbors of Paramount Park. He said those living directly adjacent to the park opposed construction of a skate park there, although there was support to find another location. Some of those who lived further from the park indicated some level of acceptance of the project.

Mr. Deis said he would discuss the Paramount Park issue with the Superintendent of the Shoreline School District. He noted that district staff led City staff to believe that a skate park might be an option at the Paramount Park site. Mayor Jepsen said the school board expressed the opinion that the site will ultimately have a school on it and that any City investments should be consistent with that plan.

Concluding, Mr. Deis noted that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department’s "Hamlin Haunt" was a big success.

4. COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmember Ransom reported on four items:

• the members of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee will be appointed next week;
• the regional Law and Justice Committee is using Shoreline as a model for increasing defendants’ court appearance rate; calls by Shoreline volunteers to remind people of hearing dates has increased the appearance rate from 33% to 70%;

• at the October Gambling Commission meeting, he learned about the organization of the casino industry and the status of Shoreline’s casinos. He noted that casinos pay a livable wage and that 300 applications have been received statewide, with 29 already approved, five of them Phase II casinos. The timeline of six months for a casino to be operational has been condensed to two months because the new casinos are hiring staff already experienced in casino operation. The Drift-on-Inn expects to be a Phase II casino by January, 1999, with Goldie’s joining Parker’s as a Phase I in 1999, bringing the number of casinos in Shoreline to three; and

• his receipt of the "Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Municipal Leadership Award" for his participation at a variety of AWC training programs.

Councilmember Hansen noted his attendance at the Edmonds Sister City Celebration. He expressed his hope that Shoreline will eventually have a sister city program.

Councilmember King reported on several regional meetings she has attended. She noted that attendees of the meeting of the Suburban Cities Association (SCA) Board with King County Executive Ron Sims were told that the SCA Regional Governance and Finance Report will not "go anywhere, at least for now." She described the political situation at the County and the tension between the executive and the County Council over the 1999 budget.

Responding to Mr. Deis’ question about cuts to the health and human services budget, Councilmember King said Mr. Sims had stated to her that he was "going to try to find some" funding. She said he is being cooperative with the suburban cities, but his budget is subject to County Council approval.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery pointed out that, despite lobbying efforts by the City, the draft Regional Express Bus Implementation Plan still does not show any stops in Shoreline.

Councilmember Gustafson reported that the Lake Washington Cedar River Watershed Committee is requesting support for the 1999 budget. Shoreline’s assessment is $2,000. Mr. Deis said this money has been budgeted.

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None

6. WORKSHOP ITEMS

(a) Draft Workplan for Investigation of the Regional Wastewater Services Plan’s Implications for Pt. Wells

Mr. Bauer provided the background on the Regional Wastewater Services Plan, noting that the County executive’s preferred alternative calls for the construction of a new wastewater treatment facility in north King County or south Snohomish County. The County does not expect to finalize the siting process and the list of preliminary sites for this facility until early 1999. However, Pt. Wells is believed to be a potential site. He said Shoreline needs a workplan to provide information to help the City to be a participant in the siting process. This process has yet to be recommended by the Regional Water Quality Committee (RWQC) and approved by the King County Council, but the expectation is that it will include the creation of a committee, probably in June, 1999, to review sites and make a recommendation to the County executive. Mr. Bauer explained that several localities may wish to compete for the treatment facility because of the amount of mitigation that goes along with it. To address this situation, it has been suggested that King County do a Request for Proposal along with the siting process.

Continuing, Mr. Bauer referred to the key questions to be answered by the proposed workplan, as outlined on page 1 of the Council packet, and the two phases of the workplan described on page 2. The workplan anticipates the hiring of an engineering consulting firm experienced in the design and siting of wastewater treatment facilities to provide analysis of these issues.

Mr. Deis noted the City will work with the Richmond Beach community to share information and to develop a collaborative process because the impacts of a treatment plant at Pt. Wells would fall most heavily on that community.

Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.

George Mauer, 1430 NW 191st St., speaking for the Richmond Beach Community Council, reiterated that a Pt. Wells site would impact Richmond Beach. He wished to ensure that the community would be included with the City in analyzing the plan. He felt that the costs associated with the siting of the facility (including Shoreline’s engineering consultant) should be charged back to the County as part of the cost of the plan. He also recommended that the City develop a competitive process among architectural firms for plans showing other options for the Pt. Wells site.

Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Bauer said the vote before the County Council in January is on the preferred services plan. No particular locations will be considered at that time. He noted that strong support for a northend treatment plant has existed since the beginning of the development of the plan.

Mayor Jepsen asked for an update in May so that the Council will have an adopted statement to present to King County when the siting process begins. He also wanted to ensure that the community will be involved in this process along with the City.

Councilmember Gustafson asked what will be discussed at Wednesday’s SCA general membership meeting. Mr. Bauer said the meeting will focus on financing. Council-member King clarified that the November 12 vote of the RWQC will address financing, not siting issues.

Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Bauer explained why Pt. Wells has a strong potential for an outfall site. He added that more information is needed about the size of the treatment facility site.

Mayor Jepsen said the City should not go into a study "full bore" at this point, but Shoreline needs enough information not to rely on the County’s siting process. Coun-cilmember Gustafson agreed that it is important not to commit a great deal of funding to consultant services if Pt. Wells will be eliminated early in the process due to size constraints.

Councilmember King described the make-up of the RWQC, which includes a representative from Bothell and Mayor Tanner of Renton. She said Bothell has not yet made a decision about lobbying for a facility there. She noted her belief that Pt. Wells will always be on the list, simply because of its outfall potential. She pointed out it has the advantage of being easy to reach by barge and rail.

Councilmember Hansen asked about possible expansion at the West Point or Renton sites. Councilmember King said an expansion at West Point was not politically feasible at this time. She said Renton has room for expansion, but Mayor Tanner opposes elimination of a northend site.

Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Councilmember King listed the membership of the RWQC, which provides six votes to the County and two votes each to Seattle, the sewer districts, and the suburban cities. She said Larry Phillips, RWQC Chair, has done a good job of bringing the committee to consensus on the executive’s preferred plan, except for two County Councilmembers who oppose it. She noted it takes a super-majority at the County Council (eight votes) to override any recommendation of the RWQC.

Mayor Jepsen wished to ensure that Pt. Wells is not considered solely as a wastewater treatment facility but that other options for the site are analyzed as well.

Turning to the financing proposal, Mr. Bauer explained that a technical committee was created to develop a financial plan. One of its goals was to try to achieve a uniform monthly rate. He referred to a matrix of cost drivers, which were allocated to new customers, existing customers and shared in proportion to all customers. The uniform monthly rate is determined by the costs that must be recovered from existing customers. The excess for new customers is to be recovered through a capacity charge, which will be applied for a period of 15 years to the bills of new customers. Mr. Bauer explained the rates proposed in the executive’s plan and those proposed by the committee. The committee’s rates show the average costs going up at a slower rate and recovering more of the costs from the capacity charge. This meets the objective of having growth pay for itself.

Continuing, Mr. Bauer said the technical committee failed to resolve two key issues, both related to proposals by the City of Seattle. The first concerns the capacity charge—Seattle argues that growth outside urban areas is more expensive than in-fill growth and that it should, therefore, be assessed a higher capacity charge. Mr. Bauer said this analysis is flawed.

The second Seattle proposal concerns the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) benefit charge. Mr. Bauer explained that Seattle combines stormwater run-off with wastewater. During periods of heavy rain, the sewers overflow. Federal and State laws regulate this. King County and Seattle are both out of compliance with these regulations. King County has assumed the responsibility for resolving this problem. At present, Seattle reimburses some of the cost of the CSO program to the County. Under the current plan and the committee’s scenario, Seattle must continue to pay the CSO benefit charge. Seattle has proposed the termination of the charge. This would increase monthly rates by 32 cents. Mr. Bauer explained that Seattle feels that it has paid more than its fair share in the past, and that it is unfair for it to continue paying. Seattle also argues that the CSO problem is regional and that it should be paid for regionally.

Mr. Bauer pointed out that the elimination of the CSO benefit charge would increase rates both outside and inside Seattle. The suburban cities would give up over $40 million over the forty-year period. He said this proposal was presented to the RWQC on Thursday. The King County facilitator proposed the rejection of Seattle’s suggestion for a differentiating capacity charge and a study in five years to determine whether empirical evidence exists to support such a charge. The RWQC supported these proposals almost unanimously. The other recommendation was the elimination of the CSO benefit charge.

Councilmember King thanked Mr. Bauer for his work on the technical committee. She said the rationale behind the RWQC’s decision was that one million dollars a year is not much to pay for a uniform rate to everyone.

Mayor Jepsen believed that if Shoreline supports Seattle on this issue, Seattle should be willing to confirm a uniform rate on electricity. Mr. Bauer noted that the City of Bellevue had made the same argument about water rates. Mayor Jepsen wished to ensure that the message sent at this vote is that all utilities, where jurisdictions are buying from each other, should be treated the same.

Councilmember King noted that Seattle is a regional center and that everyone, to some extent, creates the run-off.

Mr. Deis said the ultimate test of the uniformity argument will be whether Seattle will support it if the Endangered Species Act forces all jurisdictions to combine wastewater and stormwater run-off, thereby giving the subsidy to others rather than Seattle.

Councilmember King supported treating both stormwater and wastewater together. She felt Shoreline should do this if the plant comes to Pt. Wells.

Mayor Jepsen pointed out that stormwater requires much less sophisticated treatment than wastewater. Rather than combining the two, he suggested different facilities to treat each. He concluded that if Shoreline is to support raising the rates by 32 cents in order to benefit Seattle, he would expect Seattle to provide a benefit in return.

(b) Second Briefing for 1999 Legislative Session

Joyce Nichols, Community and Government Relations Manager, provided a brief overview of the topic areas outlined in her staff report: economic development and the Growth Management Act (GMA); energy, utilities and telecommunications; the environment; and Fircrest. She said the Proposed 1999 Statement of Policies provides broad guidelines to assist staff in producing letters and testimony. Anything that comes up during the session that is not covered by the policies will be brought back to Council.

Continuing, Ms. Nichols said many of the items are carry-overs from the last session. She identified the right of cities to assume water and sewer districts as one important issue. She said there are many important issues in the area of energy and telecommun-ications as well, including electricity deregulation. Shoreline will support legislation ensuring that local governments have the authority to serve as "aggregators" for their citizens, and the City will oppose legislation allowing locally-produced power to leave the State in search of a higher price at the detriment of local customers. A third issue is management of rights-of-way—Shoreline will support legislation affirming and protecting cities’ ability to manage their own rights-of-way.

Moving on to the area of the environment, Ms. Nichols said if the Chinook salmon is listed as an endangered species, as proposed, the region will face an unprecedented series of challenges. Shoreline will support significant and on-going funding for local jurisdictions from the federal and State governments, as well as city involvement in financing and decision-making and in evaluations of the actions being taken to address Endangered Species Act issues to ensure that the fish are recovering and that economic development, especially in urban areas, is considered in salmon recovery efforts.

Concluding with the issue of Fircrest, Ms. Nichols said Shoreline will seek to assure that State agencies comply with the Comprehensive Plan and to assure reimbursement for City services to the area.

Mayor Jepsen suggested the inclusion of the third Fircrest policy—that State agencies update and coordinate their policy and capital plans to be in conformance with those adopted locally under the GMA—in the transportation section to highlight that the Department of Transportation should consider its role in maintaining State highways.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Nichols said transportation and right-of-way issues will be critical. Mr. Deis added that the telecommunications industry would like to use cities’ rights-of-way without permitting or review. Ms. Nichols said last year the industry was very close to getting such legislation passed.

Councilmember Gustafson commented on the importance of keeping in touch with State legislators. He also supported urging the legislature to fully fund any new regulatory requirements. Finally, he suggested that Shoreline support legislation to fund after-school education and activity programs. He asserted that this should also be a topic of discussion with the legislators. Ms. Nichols noted that the health and human services section includes language regarding youth programs and that staff can add this level of specificity.

(c) Building Facility Inventory, Condition Assessment, Preventative Maintenance Program, and Five-Year Repair Plan

Doug Mattoon, Public Works Director, explained that the City has developed a building facility inventory and condition assessment, a preventative maintenance program and a five-year repair plan. After a consultant completed the preliminary work, staff reviewed the recommendations and applied a series of questions as an additional level of review for each recommended project.

Continuing, Mr. Mattoon listed the facilities owned and leased by the City, noting the factors included in the total costs for each recommended project and the amount of each project included in the 1999 routine maintenance budget:

• eastside neighborhood police center—the major amount is for hardware upgrades and an air conditioner. Staff recommends that the addition of an air conditioner be deferred to give staff the opportunity to negotiate the landlord’s purchase of an air conditioner prior to the termination of the lease in October, 1999.
• police station—staff recommends the replacement of the roof in five years. $43,562 is budgeted in the 1999 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for a retaining wall and irrigation.
• swimming pool—some work was accomplished this summer and reimbursed by King County. The recommendation is to do a feasibility study and a master plan before starting on any of the remaining projects.
• Richmond Highlands Community Center—the building has a long list of deficiencies, with a total cost for the identified projects of $586,714, which includes improvements in almost every system. Again, a master plan is needed before expenditures beyond the $112,271 recommended by staff are undertaken.

Mr. Mattoon concluded that the two master plans are included in the proposed CIP. These will be done after feasibility studies are completed.

Mr. Mattoon concluded by explaining the baseline preventative program for all mechanical systems in the City.

Councilmember King asked staff to look into making it easier to turn the showers on and off at the pool.

Councilmember Ransom asked about the restrooms at the community center. Mr. Mattoon said the feasibility study and master plan will address the facility inside the building and that outside on the playfield. Neither is handicapped accessible at the present time. He reiterated that allocation of funding is not recommended for either restroom until the completion of a master plan.

Noting the large number of recommendations related to the community center, Mr. Deis pointed out to Council that once the costs of repair reach 50% of the costs of the building, it is important to evaluate carefully before doing the repairs. The recommendation is to do the minimal possible to keep from shutting down the program (replacement of the roof and preventing the basement flooding). He noted the pool presents a similar situation, in which a master plan is needed before improvements, such as bigger restrooms, are completed.

Councilmember Ransom said King County replaced the pool roof. Councilmember Gustafson noted that a lot of work has been done on the roof and staff should investigate this.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Mattoon explained that the deficiencies in the City Hall are the responsibility of the landlord.

Councilmember Ransom commented that the City Hall Annex does not have an elevator, which means it is not handicapped accessible.

Councilmember Gustafson supported the master planning concept for the community center and the pool. He suggested that staff investigate a partnership with the school district for use of the community center and that staff talk with the Shoreline Center management and the advisory group about additional pool parking. He also suggested partnering with the school district by trading certain specialized maintenance services (electrical, plumbing, etc.) for services by the City, such as grounds maintenance.

Mayor Jepsen commented he did not wish to identify where the additional pool parking would go. He suggested a more generic description of that project. Mr. Mattoon said schematics are being developed of parking options to see what will fit.

Mayor Jepsen asked what the County’s insurance clause covered for the pool and suggested identifying projects that will benefit from the clause. Mr. Mattoon agreed that much of what is on the list can be funded from this warranty fund.

Mayor Jepsen also commented on the amount of money to be spent on the residence at Richmond Beach Saltwater Park. Mr. Mattoon explained that to be consistent with the formula used to calculate full costs, this figure is probably much higher than it will actually cost to do the improvements.

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Ginger Botham, 16334 Linden Ave. N., talked about two projects proposed and withdrawn next to her home. For the first project, the developer would have been required to pay the costs of sewer development. The following year, this requirement was not imposed on the second project. Ms. Botham felt mitigation and development costs should always be born by the developer, and the City should be fair, equitable and consistent. She asked Council to investigate this.

(b) Dick Holtman, 2362 N. 159th, said he and his neighbors are receiving differing messages about whether his cul-de-sac is a private or public road. He noted that utilities have failed to notify property owners when utilities have been installed.

Mayor Jepsen explained that he had been contacted about this issue and that research has already been done to show that this is a private road. Mr. Mattoon added that the utilities generally have a blanket easement across a private road.

Mr. Deis pointed out that Chambers Cable is upgrading its system and that there has been some installation of equipment without prior notification to property owners. He said an agreement has been reached about future installations.

Mayor Jepsen noted that this is part of the issue of public versus private roads that has previously been brought to the Council’s attention.

Councilmember Ransom brought up a question regarding the responsibility for repair of sidewalks broken up by street trees. Mr. Mattoon said the City’s regulations make the adjacent property owner responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalk. He said there is no policy about the damage done by street trees to sidewalks.

Mr. Deis noted that the City will repair a sidewalk that is pointed out as a safety hazard. Mr. Mattoon added that in other jurisdictions the policy would be to notify the adjacent property owner and require repair of the sidewalk. Mr. Deis concluded that this is another example of the code enforcement problems the City will face when it begins enforcing regulations that have not been enforced for years.

Mr. Mattoon noted the budget contains $40,000 for sidewalk repairs, so the worst problems are being addressed.

8. ADJOURNMENT

At 9:25 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.

_____________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk