Shoreline City Manager's report - week of 2/2/2015

Weekly Update for Week of 2/2/2015

By Debbie Tarry, Shoreline City Manager

January 26 Council Meeting

·         Regular Meeting

o   Follow-up Question from Affordable Housing Discussion

1.    Can Property Tax Exemptions (PTE) be used in conjunction with Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)(LCLIP)? The answer is yes. TDR as envisioned for the Catalyst Program (TDR instead of Affordable Housing) can’t be combined with at 12 year PTE, but could be combined with an 8 year PTE.

February 2 Council Meeting

·         Dinner Meeting

o   185^th Planned Action Ordinance Adoption Process: Council discussed the adoption process for the 185^th Station Area Planned Action Ordinance.

·         Regular Meeting

o   Proclamation of Black History Month: Council recognized the month of February as Black History Month. Student members of the Shorecrest BSU (Black Student Union) were present to receive the proclamation.

o   Execute a Contract with Ralph Anderson and Associates for a Classification and Compensation Study: Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a contract with Ralph Andersen for $50,000.

o   Discussion of the 2015-2017 Information Technology Strategic Plan

o   Discussion and Update of Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA) 8 Projects: Council discussed the City's interaction with WRIA 8 and were given an update on the Salmon Recovery Council's current efforts. This was presented by Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz, WRIA 8 Watershed Coordinator.

February 9 Council Meeting

·         Dinner Meeting (5:45 p.m.): King County Councilmember Dembowski will be in attendance.

·         Regular Meeting (7:00 p.m.)

o   Adoption of Ordinance No. 704, Amendments to Shoreline Municipal Code Chapter 3.01 - Fee Schedule: Proposed Ordinance No. 704 corrects some minor errors and omissions in the City’s adopted 2015 fee schedule. Council previously discussed Ordinance No. 704 on January 26, 2015.

o   Adoption of Ordinance No. 694: Proposed Ordinance No. 694, which would amend the City's Property Tax Exemption Program (PTE), was discussed by Council on January 26, 2015. Council subsequently directed staff to bring back proposed Ordinance No. 694 for adoption.

o   Discussion of the 185^th Street Station Subarea Plan: Council will review ordinances that the Council will ultimately adopt as the185^th Street Station Subarea Plan package:

1.    Ordinance No. 702:  Subarea Plan, Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map  - The Subarea Plan contains policy direction for future development of the 185^th Street Station Subarea, including implementation strategies that will require additional work following adoption of the Plan. The Subarea Plan also amends the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to include Station Area (SA) designations that implement the proposed zoning designations.

2.    Ordinance No. 706:  Development Code Amendment and Proposed Zoning Map.  This discussion will include a review of zoning and phasing options.

 

3.    Ordinance No. 707:  Planned Action - A Planned Action is a development project (in this case a development area) whose impacts have been addressed by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) associated with a plan for a specific geographic area before individual projects are proposed. The Planned Action Ordinance includes the boundaries of the Planned Action and mitigation measures identified in the EIS.

January 29 Planning Commission Meeting

Last Thursday, the Planning Commission held a special meeting, which included the Public Hearing on the Aurora Square Community Renewal Area DEIS and a presentation of the 145^th Light Rail Station DEIS. Unfortunately, it was discovered Friday morning that the audio recording of the meeting did not work. As a result the Planning Commission will have to hold a new public hearing on the Aurora Square Community Renewal Area DEIS, potentially scheduled for March 19. All parties that testified on January 29 will be notified. This will likely result in pushing out Council action on this item until April.

Point Wells

The City responded to Richmond Beach Advocates’ motion to intervene with the Growth Management Hearings Board case. The City’s response asks the Board to deny RBA’s motion to intervene.

145^th Corridor

·         Mayor Winstead, Intergovernmental Relations Manager Scott MacColl, and I headed to Washington DC on Tuesday to meet with our federal delegation. Our primary focus is to make sure that our congressional delegation is prepared to be a key partner in helping secure funding for the 145^th infrastructure project. We shared our 2015 Federal Policy Agenda memorandum.

·         State Transportation Package/145^th St. Funding Update

o   Governor's proposal - As you may be aware, the Governor has presented his transportation proposal to the Legislature. In his proposal, he only designated specific large, statewide projects for direct funding and only left a (relatively) small amount of $350 million over 12 years for 'other high-priority projects across the state'. Funding that would be available to cities is mainly available through existing grant programs such as the Regional Mobility Grants and Complete Streets program, etc. There is a local options funding component, but Councilmembers would have to act locally to impose the funding options.

Tolling Questions Follow-Up from January 12, 2014

·         Provide the Council with timeline and costs related to adoption of impact fees and the adoption of the TBD ordinances and fees – as this may be a good indication of timeline/cost for tolling to move to a ballot measure.

o   In 2009, the City began to develop concurrency and impact fee regulations as part of the process to adopt and develop the Transportation Master Plan. The total cost for the contract to develop the concurrency and impact fee regulations was approximately $285,000. The sub consultant who prepared the ordinances, calculated the impact fee and prepared the rate study represented approximately $100,000 of that contract. The work included development of a traffic model to identify locations of future potential traffic problems and the projects needed to fix them. 

Many of the aspects of the work to develop concurrency and impact fee regulations and the development of the Transportation Master Plan were tied to one another. And, extracting only the costs associated with developing the ordinances, calculating the impact fee and preparing our rate study may not provide an accurate portrayal of the potential timeline and costs for developing a tolling package. Also, there are key differences between the development of concurrency and impact fee regulations and developing a tolling package. For example, concurrency and impact fee regulations, and the Transportation Master Plan do not require voter approval whereas a tolling package via the Shoreline Transportation Benefit District does. Further, there is a well-established path to development and adoption of concurrency and impact fee regulations and a Transportation Master Plan. Developing and implementing a tolling package does not have such a well-established path.

·         Does the ballot language for approving tolling have to include the geographic area in which the toll will be implemented? Or, can it simply state that tolling may be implemented in the City? Can ballot language be ‘not-so-specific’ about the location?

o   Per RCW 36.73.065, the proposition must include a specific description of (a) the transportation improvement or improvements proposed by the district; (b) any rebate program proposed to be established under 36.73.067; and (c) the proposed range of tolls imposed by the district to raise revenue to fund the improvement or improvements or rebate program. RCW 36.73.015(6) defines a transportation improvement as a “project contained in the transportation plan of [the city]”. Projects aren’t just roads but include the operation, preservation, and maintenance of the improvements. Thus, while a specific geographic area does not need to be defined, it does need to specifically describe the project – the transportation improvement(s) - that the toll is intended to address. In addition, the requirement to provide a range of tolls indicates a need to demonstrate that the toll is linked to the identified improvement and the TBD isn’t asking for more money than is necessary to achieve the project.

·         If voters approve tolling, are there any timing requirements for implementation? Would the authority to implement tolling expire after a certain time period?

o   RCW 36.73 does not set forth any timing requirements for implementation. But, since the toll is required to identify a project that is contained in the City’s TMP, there should probably be some alignment with that project’s implementation timeline in the TMP. It may be the authority to toll that is lost after a period of time or the toll-to-project cost may be lost. In addition, most propositions go before the voters because immediate action is wanted – even if that means the start of planning for a future action. If the decision is made to put a proposition on the ballot identifying projects and toll range, then the intent would be that tolling implementation and the projects are moving forward in a timely manner.

·         Does there have to be a relationship between the toll and the projects it is used for? I would feel queasy about tolling drivers for something out of which they would get no benefit.

o   See response above. RCW 36.73.065 does establish a relationship between the toll and the transportation improvement project that it is intended to address. And, of course, the drivers tolled would be the ones using the project so they are benefited.

This and That

•      Thank-you letter from Superintendent Miner for the City’s response to the incident on Meridian Park Elementary's campus on January 7.

•      2014 fourth quarter administratively approved budget adjustments.

•      Seattle City Light will begin charging Shoreline ratepayers for the Aurora Phase 3A project on April 1. This charge will represent about a 0.6% increase to Shoreline rates ($0.0005 per kWh). This charge will collect the $2.9 million in costs associated with the completed Aurora Phase 3A undergrounding project. It will be collected over 25 years.

•      Seattle City Light will shut-off power to 490 residential customers and 11 businesses beginning at 8:00 p.m. on Sunday, February 15. The approximate geographical area is Aurora and N 192nd St. Notices were mailed to customers earlier this week.

•      Letter regarding rate changes in the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program that will be effective April 1, 2015.

•      Final 2014 jail costs were $2,285,064, approximately $239,000 more than was projected. Fortunately there were other budget savings to cover this cost (which had been anticipated), but still a large increase from previous years. Staff is reviewing projections for 2015, as the adopted budget is $1,600,000, while actual costs could be closer to $1,875,000 if 2014 year-end trends carry over to 2015.