Notes from Shoreline Council meeting May 20, 2019

Shoreline City Hall
Photo by Mike Remarcke

Shoreline City Council Meeting

May 20, 2019
Notes by Pam Cross

Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 7:00pm

All councilmembers were present.

Report of the City Manager Debbie Tarry

Tuesday, May 21st, there is an Open House regarding 175th Street Corridor Improvements between Stone Ave and I-5 at 6:00-8:00pm in City Council Chamber. An online Open House is also available at shorelinewa.gov/175corridor

Tuesday May 28th is the final Home Improvement Workshop 6:00 to 8:00pm at City Hall. Reserve an appointment to discuss your project at shoreline.gov/homeimprovement.

There is also a vendor fair that does not require an appointment.

Thursday June 6th is the State of the City Breakfast from 7:00-8:30am at Shoreline City Hall. RSVP to Heidi Costello at hcostello@shorelinewa.gov or call 206-801-2214. The event is free.

Public Reminders

The PRCS/Tree Board will meet Thursday May 23rd at 7:00pm in room 303.

In honor of Memorial Day, City Hall will be closed Monday, May 27th. There will be no Council meetings. The next Council meeting will be held on Monday, June 3rd.

Council Reports

Councilmember Chang attended the monthly Regional Transit Meeting that featured a workshop addressing equity and sustainability when integrating Metro buses with all ride shares, scooters, bicycles etc. and how technology will assist in the coordination.

Mayor Hall met with Edmonds Mayor Ed Earling to advocate for funding for improved non-motorized access to light rail stations.

Public Comment

Susie McDowell, Robin McClelland, Jim Wigfall, Lyn Sherry, Aaron Franklin

Ed Vanna, Theresa LaCroix, and Joanne Donohue made favorable comments regarding the CAC.

Students Simon and Spencer requested Council impose a ban on plastic straws. They can’t be recycled with current equipment. The benefits to the environment outweigh the cost.

The agenda was approved unanimously.

The Consent Calendar was adopted, without discussion, unanimously.

Action Item 8(a) Public Hearing and Discussion on the Reprogramming of 2018 and 2019 Community Development Block Grant Capital Funding to Implement Approved Programs and Projects

Staff report by Bethany Wolbrecht-Dunn, Grants Administrator

This City receives City General Fund dollars and federal CDBG funds (approximately $320,831) annually. After allocation to regional projects, administration and local capital projects, about $154,00 remains. A Public Hearing is required to “reprogram” these funds. The recommended projects are (1), $108,000, (2) $44,189, and (3) $42,404.

“Housing set aside” has been used in Shoreline, however there are no housing projects currently able to use the funds.

There are four applications for use of these funds

• Center for Human Services (CHS) – Fire Escape/Play Area
• Compass Housing – Water Leak Repair at Ronald Commons**
• Hopelink – Shoreline Service Center Capacity Improvements (carpet and room divider)
• Contingency to Compass and Hopelink to reach total funds

**The water damage is caused by water flowing between floors, not by improperly installed or damaged water pipes. See discussion below.

The Council is expected to vote on this June 3rd.

No questions from Council.

No public comments.

Council discussion

Compass Housing water issue: City would have to sue the contractor/designer in order to recover funds if negligence can be proven. It was designed and built to code and is a newer building, but there are gaps from floor to floor allowing water to travel down to lower floors.

Housing set aside: why do we set it aside if it’s so hard to use? It isn’t a large amount of money, and there are federal rules and “strings” attached. This money can be added together to use for a larger project. Unfortunately federal funds are decreasing from year to year. We always ask for more.

In the future, hope we can attract more and larger projects. Hate to have to find these smaller projects that aren’t high priority. When we ask for increased funds we need better projects to show how we’re spending the money.

Study Item 9(a) Discussing Community and Aquatics Center and Park Improvements Priorities and Funding

Staff report by Eric Friedli, PRCS Department Director

Thanks to staff members and for input from the community.

This project started in 2011 and included outreach efforts to various stakeholder and community groups as well as concept designs, forming an advisory committee, and a community survey.

The 2017 PROS Plan established a goal to build a new Community and Aquatics Center with an objective to “place a proposal for a new community/aquatics center before the voters by 2020 and open a new facility in 2022.”

The most recent cost estimate for the Community and Aquatics Center is $88.1 million. In summary, the staff recommendation is for the following:

• Provide a Community and Aquatic Center that includes an 8-lane lap pool, a pool viewing area for approximately 500 spectators, increases the community facility space by 6,000 square feet which will include a commercial kitchen to provide for dedicated time for senior use or could proceed without these options

• Site the Center at 17828 Midvale Ave N and proceed with acquisition of this property at about same cost if built on SD property

Staff requests Council to direct staff to prepare legislation and other materials for placing a 20-year $88.1M bond measure on the ballot at the November 2019 General Election.

Does the Council concur with staff’s recommendations of:

1.  Additional features included in CAC (listed above)

2.  Location on Midvale instead of offered SD property on a 50 year lease (cost is about the same at either location)

3.  Size and duration of bond measure (SD may contribute $2.4M and/or there may be funding from the King County Levy $5M). If we request less money than we need, a new bond measure will be required to fund the difference. If we approve more than we need, repayment would be lower because the grants or gifts would go to pay off the bond.

The contribution by the SD was based on earlier negotiations regarding the use of their land. They offered three options: the land, capital investment of $2.4M, or providing operation and maintenance costs. Their preference was the land.

KingCo Parks Levy includes funding for pools in form of grants with a maximum of $5M. It will be a competitive grant we would have to apply for but don’t know the details and won’t know until after the primary if this will even be available.

4. Timing of the bond measure. An alternative to the November ballot would be a Special primary or general election in 2020.

5. Not including additional park improvements in the bond measure for Brugger’s Bog, Hamlin (Briarcrest), Richmond Highlands, and Hillwood. Including them would increase the bond to $106M.

Next Steps:

• 6/10 for continued discussion, or
• 6/24 discussion of a resolution authorizing the placement of a ballot measure on the 2019 General Election
• 7/29 Adoption of the resolution
• 8/06 Deadline to submit!

Discussion

Additional features

The recommendation from staff is still expensive but the additions of senior center space and two additional swimming lanes will be a real asset.

It doesn’t make sense to spend a lot of money on a big building and not fulfill some of the basic needs of the community. It is a relatively small increase to add the senior center and extra lanes.

Without the diving well, the pool will be deep enough at one end to dive and play water polo. The six lanes had already included the extra depth. A separate well would add too much cost for half a dozen users.

The space for the senior center is not dedicated - it is shared-use with programming, parks, and classes - with priority to senior center and their offices.

This project is a “legacy piece.” Council has listened and incorporated the improvements that have been included.

Is this the right size and the right cost for all of the elements that have been included? Answer: staff has gone through numerous iterations, what we offer and want to offer, hours of operation, cost of operations, maintenance and construction etc, We believe this is the right size of building for Shoreline. Also, building as one project is less expensive than separate rec and pool centers.

Location

“Free” land from the School District was very tempting but further research determined that the it was revenue neutral. The reason is the MUR zone of that location has different environmental regulations. It would have to meet “passive house.” The building proposed will not meet passive house because it would then be “$10M more expensive.” Passive house is really designed for residential structures and there’s no way to determine how it would affect greenhouse gas savings in this type of building. The Midvale site is designed LEED Gold.

The Midvale location is centrally located and has less impact on neighborhoods than it would at the SD property. And investing a large amount of money on a site the City doesn’t own, even with a 50 year lease, is taking an unnecessary risk. We could have the same problem we have with the senior center and the Historical Museum. Both were SD buildings that needed to move.

Construction on the SD property was going to be quite challenging.

Additionally, there were conditions on the SD property and parking was a distance away. Midvale is more accessible by public transportation.

Bond measure size and duration

How long will the building last? Maybe we should use 30 years and include some of the park issues? How long does the public want to carry that debt?

Unfortunately, the interest rate goes up if you go to 30 years. CAC is only thing being discussed now. It is possible if the SD gives $2.4M could we reduce the bond by that amount. But we won’t know about the KingCo. Levy. It is possible that there will be a lot of private fundraising, but we can’t reduce the bond amount betting on private fundraising.

A lot of people are “aging at home” and are not cash rich. Even $50/month can be too much for people on a limited income. Even $20/month could be the breaking point.

When you look at the numbers comparing a 20 to a 30 year bond, the total interest paid is higher on a 30 year term. The average annual payment is a little less, but over the additional 10 years it’s $30MM more.

We need to fund the full amount but be aware that $5-10 might be tremendously important to many benefitted by having the extra money. 20 years is preferable but should not be the deciding measure.

It is financially responsible to retire the debt sooner which would also help future Councils. With the debt gone, they can move on to other priorities that arise.

We should reduce the amount and advise the SD that they should be funding the increases that are improvements to serve the entire competitive swim programs and local SD. Why should Shoreline taxpayers pay for those increases? If we reduce the bond measure, the SD may feel more pressure to ante up. We should also include the KingCo levy. By showing we don’t have it fully funded, we are showing our need for the levy funds. We can tell the taxpayers we are looking at other revenue streams. This will show potential private contributors that we need more money, instead of asking for donations to fund a fully funded project.

4 to 3 in favor of 20 year term

6 to 1 in favor using full amount

Timing

There has been plenty of outreach and plenty of response so a November ballot does not seem too soon. The current pool is on its last legs.

2020 is a presidential year so more people vote, but every delay increases the cost.

We need to make sure this is a standalone. If there are other local measures, this would be an even higher lift .

Staff presents the right time for a bond when it has its best chance of passing.

We need to take advantage of momentum.

The Council 100% in favor of November date.

Park Improvements

We need to include the parks because we need parks for our growing population. We need to find ways to fund and improve our parks.

But the price tag for CAC is so high and yes, we need more parks, but added to this, it will be too much.

We should rely on grant funding for parks.In a few years look at a park improvement.

We are talking about improvements to four parks. No major land purchase and some areas really need work, especially this list of 4. They missed the last park bond. This is a little increase on a big ask.

It could be two separate ballots but don’t want them to be competing.

Need to keep it simple on the ballot. Don’t make voters decide between parks and pool.

Hillwood Park always get put aside.It’s a wetland, and there is nothing to draw people there unless you want to play soccer in the mud. But more people will use the pool/rec center.

We don’t want ballot confusion. More people go to parks than the pool but no one wants to threaten this big landmark.

Moved to June 24, Discussion. Last time for public comment.

Scheduled for adoption on July 29th,

Meeting adjourned at 8:50pm.