CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

Monday, November 15, 1999

6:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

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

ABSENT: Councilmember King

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 6:37 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Montgomery and Councilmember Ransom were present. Councilmembers Gustafson, Hansen and Lee arrived shortly thereafter. There was consensus among those Councilmembers present to excuse Councilmember King.

Councilmember Gustafson arrived at 6:39 p.m.

3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

Bill Conner, Public Works Director, received Council consensus on the joint City-State proposal to create bioswales along the on and off ramps of I-5 at 175^th St. as environ-mental mitigation for the Washington State Department of Transportation project to improve interstate access at this location.

4. COUNCIL REPORTS

Mayor Jepsen mentioned a meeting with King County Executive Ron Sims in Shoreline at which various issues of mutual concern were discussed. He expected a follow-up report from County staff.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT: None

6. WORKSHOP ITEMS

There was Council consensus to take Item 6(b) first.

(b) Preferred Option for the Richmond Highlands Recreation Center Master Plan

Wendy Barry, Director of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services, outlined the public involvement process, which included two open houses, one survey and two meetings with the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services (PRCS) Advisory Committee. She said the survey revealed the need for more multi-purpose recreational space in the community.

Continuing, Ms. Barry said staff investigated the historic significance of the Richmond Highlands Recreation Center. Although it does not meet all of the criteria typically applied to determine historical significance, the building does have a social and cultural history. She said the preferred option does not change the building and ensures that it can continue to be used.

Councilmember Hansen arrived at 6:50 p.m.

After describing the open house process, Ms. Barry outlined the five options considered. She said the residents at the open house supported Option B, which had a total cost of $1.8 million. She then described the recommendations of the PRCS Advisory Committee. The Committee felt strongly that there is a need for more community recreation space and that the Council should pursue funding options and a consolidated planning process for facilities that meet the needs of the community, which could include partnership with the School District or building a large community center.

The outcome of the discussion about the Recreation Center was support of the following needs: 1) for recreation space; 2) to maintain existing infrastructure; 3) to stay within the budget; 4) to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; and 5) to extend the life of the facility. The preferred option, a modification of Option A, meets all of these, providing a single uni-sex ADA bathroom and replacing the electrical and mechanical systems to extend the life of the facility to the extent allowed within the $650,000 budget. The PRCS Advisory Committee supported partnering with the School District for improvements to the Shoreline Center Athletic facility building (Option E, $700,000) to provide approximately 3,000 square feet of multi-purpose rooms for public recreation use.

Ms. Barry concluded that Council will be asked to consider funding and phasing decisions when the Capital Improvement Program is presented next week.

Councilmember Lee arrived at 6:58 p.m.

Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.

(1) Naomi Hardy, Richmond Highlands Neighborhood Association, distributed a letter asking Council to consider restoring the Recreation Center rather than just taking "stop gap" measures. This is accomplished by Option B, which is the option the PRCS Committee supported at its final public meeting. She also said that Marilyn Brockman, the architect involved in the planning process, believed the building has restoration value. Ms. Hardy advocated the provision of enough funding to restore the Recreation Center.

(2) Ken Howe, 745 N 184^th St., distributed a letter written in 1949 that discusses moving the Recreation Center and making it a clubhouse. He said the building, which dates from 1918, is Shoreline’s historic landmark and should be preserved because it fits the criteria set forth in Ordinance No. 53 relating to the preservation of landmarks.

Mayor Jepsen said the discussion is not whether the building meets landmark criteria but whether the Council wants to invest in the current building to bring it up to Code/federal requirements or to rebuild it to a grander scale.

Councilmember Ransom asked whether the stated price of $300/square foot for the renovation is reasonable. Mayor Jepsen responded that renovations are always expensive.

Councilmember Hansen commented that Option D adds 1,600 square feet of classrooms for $637,000 or $400/square foot. Option E adds 3,000 square feet for $700,000 or $233/square foot. He felt these figures are high for classroom space. He believed that to keep the Recreation Center in use, Council will have to support the preferred option.

Ms. Barry said the PRCS Committee also thought the costs per square foot were high. The figures identify all hard costs and add 45 percent to include sales tax, furnishings, etc. She said the School District provided the numbers for the Shoreline Center renovation.

Responding to Councilmember Lee, Ms. Barry said the proposed work should provide the Recreation Center with a ten-15-year life span. She said the staff recommendation would not preclude additional work in the future. Councilmember Lee commented that this facility is critical to meeting the needs of teens and that she did not want to leave it the way it is for the next 15 years.

Councilmember Gustafson asserted that the timing is right to partner with the School District and that such a partnership is a worthwhile venture.

Mayor Jepsen was not as enthusiastic about the partnering as he had been before passage of I-695 because now new budget constraints must be addressed. He felt this is a low priority until he reviews the entire capital improvement budget. He was also waiting resolution on the Memorandum of Understanding with the School District and on Meridian Park usage. He summarized the consensus to bring back the preferred option next week, noting there are a variety of opinions on how far to go through the three steps outlined in the packet. The decision will be based upon the discussion next week.

Councilmember Gustafson asked that Council be briefed on what the School District plans for the Shoreline Center, stadium and gymnasium. He felt Council should determine where the School District facilities fit into the recreational needs of the City.

(a) Departmental Presentations for the 2000 Proposed Budget

Mr. Deis pointed out that staff produced the budget before the public vote on Initiative 695 and before the Council decision on utility taxes and franchises. As a result, the budget contains reduction scenarios which are no longer needed. He said the year 2000 budget will have $500,000 more in revenues than anticipated because of utility taxes and additional franchise revenue, and this can be used the following year to balance losses resulting from I-695. He noted the discussion of user fees scheduled for the Council meeting on November 29. Depending on Council decisions, the budget will be balanced for the next three years. He noted a question about whether the City will receive the local option vehicle license fees ($435,431). The assumption in the budget is that this money will be lost.

Larry Bauman, Assistant City Manager, presented the planned activities and analyses of change for the City Council, City Manager and City Clerk.

Joyce Nichols, Community and Government Relations Manager, presented the planned activities and analysis of change for the Community and Government Relations Division. She assured Council that, based on three years of history with neighborhood mini-grants, the proposed budget includes sufficient funding for the number of neighborhoods that apply.

Rob Beem, Health and Human Services Manager, presented the planned activities and analysis of change for the Health and Human Services Division.

Councilmember Ransom opposed the transfer of Senior Center funding to the Health and Human Services budget, since only part of what occurs at the Senior Center is related to human services; the remainder is recreational activities. He said if the Senior Center did not provide these activities, the City would be required to do so. Now the Senior Center will have to compete in the annual human service grants competition. He felt that the Senior Center should be evaluated for its effectiveness in providing recreational programs. The competitive process in the Health and Human Services budget involves review by individuals involved in social services, rather than recreation, which could put the Senior Center at a disadvantage.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery reminded Council that making this change was discussed and decided at the budget retreat.

Councilmember Hansen noted that several South King County cities have withdrawn from the Human Services Roundtable and that the City could save $10,000 by doing the same.

Responding to Councilmember Hansen’s question about the value of the Roundtable, Mr. Beem said it is a legislative presence, and its legislative agenda is generally balanced and not dictated by Seattle and King County. The Roundtable gives staff such as himself access to information that would be unavailable otherwise. Councilmember Hansen said the withdrawing cities have suggested that some other organization could put forward the legislative agenda.

Mayor Jepsen supported continued participation because the Regional Finance and Governance process is not moving forward, and the County is making decisions about human services. Shoreline needs to be at the table to advocate for Shoreline interests.

Councilmember Gustafson concurred, agreeing that the Roundtable provides an opportunity to provide input. He said Mr. Beem is an asset for Shoreline at the Roundtable.

Mr. Deis committed to evaluating Shoreline participation in the Roundtable over the next year and reporting back for next year’s budget.

Ian Sievers, City Attorney, presented the City Attorney’s planned activities and analysis of change.

Joe Meneghini, Finance Director, presented the Finance Department’s planned activities and analysis of change.

Mr. Bauman presented the planned activities and analysis of change for the Information Services (IS) budget.

Mayor Jepsen suggested reductions of five percent to the City Council and IS budgets ($5,000 and $100,000, respectively).

Councilmember Lee wondered "how wired" the whole City is and proposed a study to determine this. She explained that this is not only related to economic development but to services for all Shoreline citizens. She said she could support a five-percent budget reduction in IS if the money were used to fund the study she proposed.

Councilmember Hansen did not oppose a five-percent cut for City Council, but he felt that overall the City has a lean budget. Although there may be specific areas where cuts can be made, in the absence of some factor imposing further cuts, he did not feel compelled to do an across-the-board cut. He noted the City has a low employee-to-population ratio.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery said she had no problem with either of the proposed cuts.

Councilmember Ransom wished to ensure funding for Council trips, which he said are very educational and beneficial to the City. He identified IS as the area in which he feels least capable of determining whether the City is getting its money’s worth.

Mayor Jepsen commented that Council spent $3,000 less than it had budgeted this year for Professional Services and $5,000 less than it had budgeted for travel. He asserted that a $5,000 cut would, therefore, not affect current activities. He said a $100,000 reduction in IS could come from a combination of savings in Technology Plan implementation and salaries.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery asserted that, like Councilmember Ransom, she is not in a good position to judge spending for IS.

Mr. Deis said it is difficult to quantify the costs and benefits of technology, but the low staffing levels at Shoreline are one result of the use of technology. He said costs may have increased because of the delay in implementation of some elements of the Technology Plan. This will not be known until the bids go out for software applications for building permits, code enforcement, Public Works and Parks maintenance management, and an upgrade of the Customer Response Tracking program.

Mayor Jepsen summarized that he did not hear overwhelming support for his proposal to cut the IS budget.

Mr. Meneghini presented the analysis of change for the Citywide budget, emphasizing the changes in the budgeting for contingencies. He noted that the operational contingency, the General Reserve Fund, the undesignated fund balance and the insurance reserve represent 13.9 percent of the General Fund discretionary revenues. The $250,000 operational contingency will be used only as a last resort and with Council approval. The $255,000 insurance reserve will cover liability areas not covered by insurance policies or the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA). He also noted that $116,821 has been set aside for the 2.88 percent Cost-of-Living salary adjustment.

Mayor Jepsen wished to ensure that the amount of money allocated for 2000 election costs will be sufficient. Mr. Deis said the immediate consideration of fees should preclude the need for elections in the year 2000. He added that the fee schedule will have an automatic Cost-of-Living adjustment.

Responding to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Deis explained that including the cost-of-living salary adjustments in the Citywide budget, rather than spreading them throughout the departments, allows Council to identify a specific increase.

Marci Wright, Human Resources Director, presented the planned activities and analysis of change for Human Resources.

Councilmember Ransom noted his opinion that the Human Resources Department is overstaffed with 2-1/2 employees for a staff of 100 employees.

John Hawley, Senior Budget Analyst, presented the budget for jail and judicial services, noting jail costs will increase $139,000. He said staff will review the impact of recently enacted DUI legislation on this increase and develop options to decrease the number and length of prisoner days.

Mayor Jepsen commented that the City is pursuing with the County the issue that at-home detention costs are currently no lower than jail stays.

Police Chief Sue Rahr provided the analysis of change for the Police Department budget.

Responding to Mayor Jepsen’s question about School District/City funding of the School Resources Officer (SRO), Chief Rahr said the Police Department and the School District are still waiting on one federal and one State grant to fund a full-time SRO officer for the high school. The hope is to continue with the SRO program in the elementary and middle schools, with the City and School District each contributing $10,000 to an overtime fund to pay for officers in the program.

Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, presented the planned activities and the analysis of change for the Planning and Development Services (PADS) Department.

Mayor Jepsen noted that staff time to deal with historic preservation issues is budgeted for 2000 as recommended by the Council of Neighborhoods. Continuing, he said PADS is the area which generates the most citizen contact for Council. He asked that PADS focus on how to deal with "getting all the staff on the same page and dealing with the issues in the same way."

Mr. Stewart concurred with this focus. He noted that PADS plans to implement systems to allow staff, the community and Council to understand permit processes and procedures and to insure consistent handling. He said it is also important to measure customer satisfaction. Mayor Jepsen pointed out that the customer is not only the person applying for a permit, but the entire City.

Mr. Deis noted that half of the Council’s work plan this year was assigned to PADS. Staff has focused on these goals, as well as dealing with some contentious land use issues and representing Shoreline on the Growth Management Planning Council. Next year the management analyst position should assist in focusing on customer service.

Councilmember Lee was not as concerned about the number of complaints because it is human nature to verbalize complaints more often than satisfaction.

Responding to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Stewart said staff expects a decrease in single-family permits next year and an increase in commercial and multi-family activity. However, this was not reflected in the budget in order to take a very conservative posture.

Responding again to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Stewart said the management analyst position is funded 80 percent from the General Fund and 20 percent from fees. Mayor Jepsen clarified that the budget reflects the current fee structure.

Councilmember Ransom stated the perception of the business community along Aurora Avenue that the permit process is much slower than it was two years ago. He felt something must be done to change this perception.

Mr. Stewart shared the concern about the timeliness of permit review. He said staff needs to do a better job monitoring the permit process to identify problems as they come up. He pointed out that sometimes the problems are not timing issues, but ones where the applicant resists compliance with permit conditions. He concluded that as a level of certainty is developed about the Aurora Corridor project, the number of complaints should decrease. He noted the plan to implement fast-track permitting to promote economic development. There will also be over-the-counter permitting, but staff resources must be available to develop the project. This is justification for the new management analyst.

Mayor Jepsen said many of the business owners he has talked to realize that permitting is a two-way street. He said there is a huge learning curve for business owners who do not deal with the permitting process very often. He also noted that Shoreline has a number of special districts that need to be involved in the permitting process.

Councilmember Hansen and Deputy Mayor Montgomery were aware of only a few complaints about delays.

Councilmember Gustafson said Shoreline is much more efficient than King County.

Responding to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Stewart explained that the "walk-in" budget category includes the intake process and all requests for information. A great majority of this work is with citizens, not developers. Based on experience, staff time for certain individuals has been allocated to this category.

Councilmember Ransom wished to address cost recovery for development fees because he cannot attend the meeting on November 29^th. He felt this walk-in education effort should be fully funded by the General Fund. He had some reservation about 100 percent cost recovery for permits because he did not want the fees to be too high.

Ms. Barry presented the planned activities and analysis of change for the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department.

Mayor Jepsen proposed a five-percent cut for the Arts Council and the Historical Museum.

Councilmember Ransom felt that since the utility tax supplements the loss from I-695, there is no reason to make these cuts. He said the Museum has been very effective at leveraging its funding with grants, as has the Arts Council to a lesser degree.

Mayor Jepsen noted his concern with the long-term implications of I-695 revenue losses rather than with the 2000 budget alone.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery commented that Council should start looking at ways to be more conservative in funding. If it doesn’t, the cuts could be a lot more than five percent in the near future. Councilmember Lee commented that she could also support a five-percent cut.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Barry said the bicycle patrol is funded next year. The Eastside Teen program has shared funding between Lake Forest Park and Shoreline. If Lake Forest Park chooses not to participate, the City would be faced with additional costs, in which case staff would re-evaluate the programming. There will be programmatic and operating changes in any case, but the framework of a Friday and Saturday night program should remain.

Responding again to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Barry said the maintenance of the ball fields does not present a problem. Although the fields are heavily scheduled, maintenance can occur during non-prime times. Although there is always room for improvement, the ball field maintenance is sufficient to provide a safe playing surface.

Councilmember Ransom turned to cost recovery from fees. He noted that King County recovers 50 percent of their costs for park programs, although he was not sure what indirect costs were included in this figure. He wanted to ensure that those who cannot pay the full amount for recreation services—the elderly, severely handicapped, teens, senior citizens, and the poor—will still have programs. He said the issue is what is a fair rate. He noted that Mountlake Terrace had a 75-percent cost recovery policy.

Ms. Barry said the analysis being prepared does include all direct costs related to the activity. Determination of a fair subsidy is a policy issue. She suggested that Council should consider a continuum of subsidy levels. The teen program has been highly subsidized, and there is no recommendation to change this.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Barry said in Mountlake Terrace all costs, both direct and indirect, were included in the total cost of service. The goal was 70-75 percent cost recovery, with no options for fee waivers.

Returning to Mayor Jepsen’s suggestion, Councilmember Gustafson said he was reluctant to cut five percent from the basic pieces of the budget that are essential. He agreed that Council must look for savings. He reiterated his suggestion to have departments determine savings goals for non-essential services. He wanted to wait for decisions until after the fee discussion, when Council will know what the total budget will be. He felt it premature to cut five percent at this time. If, in a couple of years, the City is low on revenues, then his preference was to cut one, two or three percent across the board from non-essential items.

Responding to Councilmember Hansen, Ms. Barry said funding for the Arts Council is at the same level as last year, $1.10/capita. The Museum requested $50,000, the same amount as last year.

Councilmember Hansen said it does not bother him to cut five percent from these organizations, but he favored funding them to some level.

Continuing, Councilmember Hansen asked about partnerships with users for maintenance of ball fields. Ms. Barry said this is an option, but from the liability standpoint, the City needs to maintain a level of control. However, there could be some degree of participation for some tasks. This has not actively been pursued at this point.

Responding to Councilmember Hansen, Ms. Barry said that the recreation programs recover all direct costs and anywhere from ten to 30 percent of overhead in the fees.

This applies to all programs, with the exception of summer playground programs, the teen program, and the special recreation program.

MEETING EXTENSION

At 10:00 p.m., Councilmember Ransom moved to extend the meeting 15 minutes. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion, which carried 6 - 1, with Deputy Mayor Montgomery dissenting.

Councilmember Gustafson commented that money could be saved for both the City and the School District by partnering on field maintenance programs.

After Mayor Jepsen summarized the discussion points, Councilmember Hansen said he will take into consideration in his decision that Lake Forest Park may not be able to support the Arts Council to last year’s level due to I-695 impacts.

Councilmember Gustafson offered to bring forward his list of essential and non-essential services.

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS

(a) Scott Keeny, 19710 21^st Ave. NW, President of the Arts Council, commented that other funding agencies for the Arts Council are looking at budget cuts. He pointed out that if every organization that funds the Arts Council cuts five percent, it will have a severe impact. He said the programs produced by the Arts Council are a good return on the City’s investment.

8. ADJOURNMENT

At 10:10 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.

________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk