Notes from Shoreline council meeting July 18, 2022

Shoreline City Council Regular Meeting

July 18, 2022
Notes by Pam Cross

The meeting was conducted in a hybrid manner with both in-person and virtual options to attend and participate.

Due to technical problems, the video link did not work properly but staff presentations were not affected.

The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Mayor Scully.

Flag Salute and Roll Call

Councilmember Mork attended remotely.
Councilmember McConnell was excused for personal reasons.

Approval of the Agenda
Agenda approved by unanimous consent.

Report of the City Manager, Debbie Tarry

July 12 through August 4
See full schedules at shorelinewa.gov/calendar

Tuesdays through August 2

Saturday July 23

Wednesday July 20

Public reminder

Council Reports

CM Mork attended the Regional Water Quality meeting. The Clean Water Guiding Principles were recommended to be updated.

Public Comment
Each speaker was allowed 2 minutes. Both in-person and remote attendees have an opportunity to speak. There were 9 written comments at the time of this meeting, the majority regarding 8(a) the Levy Lid Lift.

Building debris and refuse that was used years ago as fill needs so be removed from parks. There are very large pieces that require heavy equipment to remove.
Janet Way, Shoreline
Patricia Weber, Shoreline

Item 8(a) Levy Lid Lift
Mary Ellen Stone, Shoreline
Lisa Brock, Shoreline
Jeff Dairiki, Shoreline

Item 9(a) Transportation Master Plan
Kathleen Russell, Shoreline, on behalf of Save Shoreline Trees Advisory Board
Nancy Morris, Shoreline
Lee Kimes, Shoreline

Item 9(b) Westminster Park
Bill Franklin, Shoreline, Chair of PRCS/Tree Board
Andy Gregory, Shoreline
Nathan Hawkins, Shoreline

New apartments on Linden Ave N
Derek Blackwell, Shoreline

Wishing Debbie Tarry a happy and healthy retirement
Laethan Wene, Shoreline

Approval of the Consent Calendar.
The Consent Calendar was approved unanimously.

Action Item 8(a) Action on Resolution No. 492 – Providing for the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City of Shoreline at an Election to be Held on November 8, 2022, a Proposition Authorizing the City to Increase its Regular Property Tax Levy Above the Limit Established in RCW 84.55.010 to Fund Public Safety and Community Services

Presented by Christina Arcidy, Management Analyst

The City Council directed staff to bring forward a Resolution to place a levy lid lift (LLL) replacement on the November 8 General Election ballot, which was discussed in detail at the June 13 Council meeting.

Many of the the City’s expenditures grow at a rate than higher than the Consumer Price Index (CPI). For example, Public Safety represents 34% of expenditures - the largest part of which is the cost of police services. The upcoming police expenditures will increase higher than the rate of inflation due to implementation of body-worn cameras, higher field costs, rising insurance costs, higher field costs and salary increases.

The King County Assessor’s office most recent figures estimate a 17% increase in Shoreline property values, instead of the 12% staff had used. And the current rate of inflation is estimated to be 10.14%. Council could reduce the LLL from $1.40 to $1.39. This would be the maximum rate that could be assessed, subject to annual levy increases up to the rate of inflation.

The replacement levy would go into effect on January 1, 2023, if passed by voters in the November 8 General Election.

From the staff report page 8a-3:

“In 2023, Shoreline residents will be impacted by the passage of the 2022 Parks Bond and increases to wastewater rates (which also includes increases in the King County Wastewater Treatment charges included in the wastewater rate) that Council will be discussing in late July.”

“The City’s current financial forecast projects potential budget gaps, where costs to maintain existing services will exceed revenue resources, to occur beginning in 2024 with a cumulative size totaling $37.050 million over the 10-year forecast period.”

DISCUSSION

Motion and second to approve main motion.

The staff report really spells it out and I appreciate the work that went into it. Without the LLL, we are limited by State law to a 1% increase. I think this should be addressed at the legislative level so we don’t have to continually ask the voters for increases in sales tax in order to provide the quality of services that our community expects.

Assessed value is one of the driving factors. What is the key factor to arriving at $1.39?

• Reply: It’s both the assessed value and the consumer price index (CPI) going up. We were able to reduce by 1 cent and still be able to purchase the same goods and services that we outlined in a previous report.

We really don’t know what’s going to happen with property values and the CPI. But we do need to maintain our current level of services.

• Reply: Correct, the rate can be adjusted as the other figures are updated. This is the maximum rate we are talking about.

Do we collect $15.2M now?

• Reply: yes, at the current levy rate.

And the $1.39 rate will mean we will collect something like $5.2M more?

• Reply: over the course of the 6 years, it will be about $15.2M surplus and that allows for no gaps in the 6 years of the levy.
• Reply (Sara Lane): At $1.39 adjusted for the assessed valuation, we will be collecting $6.6M more in 2023 than in 2022.

So that gets us to about $21M annually instead of $15.3?

• Reply (Sara Lane): Yes

Initially you have a surplus, so at the end you don’t have such a large deficit that you can’t overcome? Do we hold the surplus until the end?

• Reply (Sara Lane): we try to balance the whole 6 years because we can’t accurately forecast the future. You could set a lower rate and anticipate that you would have a gap in the prior years and hold aside surpluses.
• Reply (Debbie Tarry): When you come to the end of the 6 year period, you are collecting less revenue to pay for the expenses, then you have much bigger gap in revenue when the levy expires.

Are we making up a gap now?

• Reply (Sara Lane): No. We had anticipated one because of the pandemic, but it did not materialize.
• Reply: We have used past expenditures for different one-time essential projects or development as well as investments in technology and so forth. We don’t typically budget for these but we know that they will come up.

Where will the extra $6.6M that we’re going to collect (over 2022) go?

• Reply (Sara Lane): Into fund balance and Council directs how it is used for one-time expenditures or reserved for future purposes.

Residents are faced with inflation, other bonds, increased valuations. There are things we would like to do but maybe can’t afford to right now. Is there a rate where we would have no reduction in current services and include RADAR?

• Reply: That rate is $1.35.

Motion and second to adjust rate to $1.35.

This shows that we are responsive to the concerns of the community.

I like the higher rate - remember that we are setting the maximum. And this is a 6-year levy while our city is growing a lot and making some dramatic changes in some of our neighborhoods.

There is a deferral and exemptions of taxes program for “qualified” seniors and disabled through King County Assessor’s office. Assistance available through Senior Services.

VOTE to reduce rate to $1.35
Fails 5-1, with CM Mork supporting

Motion and second to adjust rate to $1.39
VOTE Passes unanimously 6-0

VOTE on main motion as amended to $1.39
Passes unanimously 6-0

Study item 9(a) Discussion of the Transportation Element and Transportation Master Plan Updates: Draft Project Prioritization

Presented by Nora Daley-Peng, Senior Transportation Planner

The City of Shoreline is currently updating its Transportation Element (TE) and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) to better serve the community’s current and future transportation needs. This is the seventh in a series of briefings to Council.

The TE/TMP supports all forms of travel – by foot, bicycle, skateboard, scooter, stroller, wheelchair, transit, motorcycle, automobile, etc. With the upcoming arrival of light rail transit, new and higher frequency bus service, new pedestrian/bicycle connections, and land use changes and growth, the TE and TMP updates provide an opportunity to further align transportation vision, goals, objectives, and policies with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

Timeline, project milestones, achievements to date

There were 427 participants in our Outreach Series III. Survey results will be available soon on the project webpage shorelinewa.gov/tmp

Having clear, defined goals will help the city accomplish the transportation vision. We have developed a Prioritization Scorecard to measure the importance of potential projects, scoring them as high, medium, or low priority. Details of the Scorecard, list of projects and maps are available in the staff report.

DISCUSSION

Predetermined priority project on 145th, is there a timeline for this?

• Reply (Natasha Walters): Could you be more specific on the location?

The West end by Westminster Triangle. What does predetermined mean?

• Reply (Natasha Walters): We’re using a phased approach. This is a later phase - over 10 years from now. But you never know - you could get lucky!

How does this plan fit in with the Sidewalk Prioritization Plan and the general Transit Plan?

• Reply: Since the City operates within a finite set of resources, it is important to develop a transparent, equitable, and data-driven process for prioritizing implementation of the transportation projects over the next 20 years. We came up with 175 projects. We had to look at overlapping priorities, or a layered look.

We had the Sidewalks ranked against each other. Now it feels like sidewalks projects are competing against crosswalk projects and transit projects etc. I don’t see how these projects work together.

• Reply: The 2018 Sidewalk plan is about 75 miles of stand-alone sidewalk projects. What we are looking at in the TE and TMP is looking at the transportation network holistically. The sidewalks plan can be looked at as a prelude to the update of the TE and TMP.

The level of consideration, time and effort put into this really elevates Shoreline.

Is cost included as an element of the prioritization process?

• Reply: We were not thinking of cost as an actual metric. We are doing a whole separate financial analysis of our expenses/revenues over the next 20 years and what we can afford.

Climate resiliency needs to be replaced with another term. Surface water is an effect of climate change but not something we can fix. The urban heat island is actually the only one that fits into climate resiliency. Getting people out of their cars is the best thing we can do for the environment. We don’t want climate to be our last priority, but a high priority.

End of discussion.

Study Item 9(b) Discussion of Potential Westminster Park Design Process

Sponsored by Councilmembers Ramsdell and Roberts
Sara Lane, administrative services director, introduced Nick Borer who is the new Parks Fleet and Facilities Manager.

The land purchased for Westminster Park had uninhabitable homes that have been demolished. The park has been cleared and graded as part of the demolition, and is being scheduled for periodic maintenance.

The request from Councilmembers Ramsdell and Roberts is for Council to reprioritize the order of projects in order to move the design and development of Westminster Park to 2022 or 2023 rather than the currently scheduled 2024 timeframe. This Westminster Triangle neighborhood does not have any developed parks and there are concerns about children playing in the streets so close to two arterials (145th and Westminster Way).

The Parks Bond that was passed by voters includes eight specific Park improvement/amenity projects as well as the following moving forward with design and permitting which includes Westminster.

If Council wishes to continue with the current plan, no change is necessary. If Council wants to reprioritize design and planning for Westminster Park, they should direct staff to amend the contract to delay one of the current Park Bond Improvement Projects and accelerate the Westminster Park design. In that event, staff recommends delaying Ridgecrest.

However, staff recommends that Council not change the current prioritization of Park Bond Projects.

DISCUSSION

I believe there are safety and equity concerns. Since 2017 Westminster has been mentioned in the PROS Plan stating the need for a park. As a result the property for the park was purchased. However, no improvements have been made to make it suitable as a play area. It has not been listed as a newly purchased park property that would make it eligible for park improvements in the bond. Why?

• Reply (Sara Lane): We are considering it as part of that bond and it is programmed to begin in 2024. If the other projects move forward and we are able to get to it, it could be sooner.

Is there money available for design but not development?

• Reply (Sara Lane): At this time we anticipate that there is money available for design. Our first priority is the listed eight projects that were part of the Bond measure. But there is $4.2M for newly acquired parks. That should be enough to design, and maybe begin some construction on some of the highest priority work. We won’t know until we’re done with the design of the eight priority parks. We won’t know until then if the $4.2M will still be available.

I would like these newly purchased properties to be usable to the public in some sort of way while we plan design.

• Reply (Nick Borer): We have been in contact with a private company to try to sign a contract for them to do maintenance for at least the next three months to make it more accessible.

I am concerned about the safety issue. How can we make them usable by the public - not a formal design but access to the open space?

• Reply (Nick Borer): That depends on the location and the current condition of the property. We have put a picnic table and a garbage can there.
• Reply (Debbie Tarry): That is obviously something we need to continue to work on as we purchase park property.

We are purchasing property now because prices keep increasing and available park property is a limited resource. So we need to do it now, for our future, even if we are not able to develop it right now.

Not all parks have an active community advocating for improvements. If we are going to talk about equity, we need to apply the answer for one to apply to all, for the anticipated active use areas. It wouldn’t be fair to the other neighborhoods not to be given equal consideration.

I think we need to stick to the original schedule and not be reprioritizing any parks.

Tonight’s question is do we change the priority list? I’m not in favor of that. The bigger policy question is should we be doing this? Should we be buying properties when we don’t have funding in place to develop them yet? We’ve previously decided yes because we wanted to have land available and not spend all of our money on an exceedingly expensive piece of property when we could pick it up now for less. But the consequence of that is we have underdeveloped unutilized parks which are embarrassing to see. I’m comfortable with the pace we are working at so we have available land. And I’m very concerned about bumping Ridgecrest off their schedule. But we do need to make sure that previous decisions still make sense today.

Maybe going forward we can consider community contribution. Perhaps Westminster can use their neighborhood association volunteers to do some preliminary work.

There is no interest in bringing this back as an action item.
End of discussion.

Meeting adjourned