Notes from Shoreline City Council Meeting Oct 21, 2019

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Shoreline City Hall and Council Chamber
Photo by Steven H. Robinson
Shoreline City Council Meeting
October 21, 2019
Notes by Pam Cross

Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
Councilmember Chang was excused for personal reasons.

Report of the City Manager Debbie Tarry

Last Friday was the Hamlin Halloween Haunt. At least 1,000 people attended in spite of the rainy weather. There were so many people they “ran out of everything.” A very popular family event.

Friday and Saturday, October 25-26, 2019 from 4:30 - 8:30pm
Spooky Night at Kruckeberg Botanic Garden

Keep an eye out for ghosts and other spooky visitors as you journey through drifting fog and cobwebs on a Halloween themed path. There is no street parking during this event. Please park at the Richmond Beach Congregational Church at 1512 NW 195th and take the free shuttle to the garden. Suggested donation of $10.

Public Reminders

PRCS/Tree Board will meet on Thursday Oct 24th at 7:00pm in room 303.
They will be discussing the Public Art Funding Study, and emerging trends in parks and recreation.

Council Reports

Mayor Hall advised he just signed off on the paperwork certifying Shoreline’s continued recognition as a Tree City USA.

Public Comment


The agenda was approved unanimously.
The Consent Calendar was adopted, without discussion, unanimously.

Discussion Items

8(a) 2019-2020 Mid-Biennial Budget Update

State law requires that a mid-biennial budget review be completed during the first year of the biennium between September 1 and December 31.

This provides an opportunity to formally review revenues and appropriations and adjust the budget as needed to address various emerging issues.

Staff Report presented by
Rick Kirkwood, Budget Supervisor
Sara Lane, Administrative Services Director

The City continues to maintain a healthy financial position, maintaining its AA+ bond rating and a Standard / Poor’s (S/P) ratings outlook of “stable”.

This is Shoreline’s first ever Mid-Biennial update. The purpose is to provide a review of the City’s financial update, along with proposed 2019-2020 adjustments that will be coming to Council for adoption in November.

General Fund revenue collection is estimated to exceed that planned for 2019, due to strong performance of permits, property and sales taxes.

Utility taxes are down, in part due to the competitive factors that provide consumers an increasing number of choices, particularly in the telecommunications and cable industries. Staff is monitoring this closely but anticipates that overall, all revenue will exceed budgets for 2019 and are looking strong for 2020.

General Fund expenditures are trailing the budget plan, which is not unusual and the good news is that with the Biennial Budget, the City won’t have to go through a carry-over process like it has in the past. Projects not completed in 2019 will carry on to 2020.

Salary and Benefit Considerations: Our Cost of Living adjustment of 2.2% matches the forecasted 2.2% so there are no changes to the salary table.

The 10 year financial sustainability model was updated. With the strong revenue position, projected budget gaps are pushed out from 2023 to 2024.

We are not doing a full update to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) but we did review the revenue source. Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) has been a strong revenue source for the past few years, but it is slowing down. It is a volatile source but our conservative budget practices mitigate the impact.

Following tonight’s Mid-Biennial Budget update discussion, there will be two Public Hearings on November 4th: One to discuss the general budget (2019-2020 Biennial Budget and the 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Plan) and the other to discuss the property tax levy.

The adoption of the 2019-2020 budget update and 2020 property tax levies is scheduled for November 18th.


The City has spent $100k in pool maintenance so far this year which is more than budgeted for. If we continue to exceed the budgeted amount, Council needs to have a discussion about how long those repairs should continue, and have a broader discussion about how to maintain the existing pool.

Staff proposes to add a fee for publicly initiated, non- site specific Comprehensive Plan or development code amendments. For example, a property owner requesting that an additional use be added to a specific zone or an advocacy group requesting a change to a Comprehensive Plan policy. The proposed fee is $6,000 plus an environmental (SEPA checklist) review to capture staff time needed to process the request.

Question: Why are we adding a new fee? The fee seems high and will discourage people from participating in the Comprehensive Plan process. 
Answer: rather than try to answer here, prefer to put it in the Council Matrix to get a more robust response from the experts.

We got grant funding to get some of our projects done. We’ve been talking about these projects for a long time. The fact that we’ve got millions of dollars of grant revenue to help move things forward at 145th and I-5 and the pedestrian bridge is all very good news. The vast majority of these changes we are looking at is backed by new revenue that’s going to improve our community. And staff has shown a remarkable ability to obtain matching funding.

Question: We’re not doing the Capital Improvement Plan until December 2nd. If we make changes in the budget now that affect the CIP, will they will be included in the Dec 2 conversation? 
Answer: Yes.

Councilmember Roberts is pleased that the City is taking its responsibility seriously to assure residents participate in the Census. Most of the information may be through Currents, but he wonders if a separate mailing would be of value. Since the Federal Government is providing less money to encourage participation, it is important for the City to make sure our residents are counted.

8(b) Discussing the Shoreline Aquatics, Recreation and Community Center Project – Alternative Delivery Method

Staff report by Randy Witt, Public Works Director

Staff have been conducting preliminary work in preparation for moving the ShARCC project forward should Proposition 1 be passed by voters in November. This is informational only.


With the traditional “design-bid-build” model used on most city capital projects, the City hires an architect/engineering firm and later, a general contractor and its subs (2 contracts). It’s a little slower, costs are in the middle of the options, and risks are increased because the city has selected the design and said it’s good. This is a large and complex facility. “Design-bid-build” (DBB) is a sequential process that takes more time resulting in a later opening date. There’s a risk of change orders and increases in cost of construction. It is also less flexible once you get to construction.

In reviewing project delivery methodologies, it became apparent that the traditional “design-bid-build” approach would likely not have the ShARCC in operation in a timely fashion nor provide the City with the best ability to control costs. Staff are looking into whether an alternative method for contracting for the park improvement projects would provide better cost and schedule control.

Staff reviewed Chapter 39.10 RCW – Alternative Public Works Contracting Procedures, which provides for alternative project delivery methodologies and authorizes the State Capital Projects Advisory Review Board and its Project Review Committee to certify the use of the design-build (DB) or general contractor/construction manager (GC/CM) contracting procedures. Although Shoreline City Hall was constructed using the DB method, the City is not “certified" to use these procedures and will need to apply to the Project Review Committee to use one of them for the ShARCC.

Design/Build (DB)

The benefits of DB generally include faster delivery, reduced cost, better quality, singular responsibility, decreased administrative burden, reduced risk, and less claims and litigation.

Design build is a method of project delivery in which City would execute a single contract with the DB entity – a team that performs both the design and construction of the project. The DB entity holds single-source responsibility and contractual risk for every aspect of the design and construction of the project,

Progressive Design/Build

This method has a step in front of the traditional design/build. You go through and select your team from design/build teams that have self-partnered (designer/engineer/architect/contractor) so they should have a good relationship. The City will go through a more traditional request for qualifications, and select the team without them putting up a 30% design as required with the other options. We then initiate a design process with the team we have selected. This way we can better inform the design. We get more flexibility in the design because we’re involved in the design from day one. And again, we hold only one contract.

General Contractor/Construction Manager (GC/CM) Method

General Contractor/Construction Manager Method is a two contractor agreement. One with the architect/engineer and one with the general contractor and its subs.

The GC/CM project delivery method allows the City to hire a designer then engage a construction manager during the design process to provide constructibility input during the design phase before the start of construction.

The Construction Manager is generally selected based on qualifications, experience or a best-value basis. During the design phase, the construction manager provides input regarding scheduling, pricing, phasing, risks and other input that helps the designer design a more constructible project. At approximately an average of 60% to 90% design completion, the owner and the construction manager negotiate a 'guaranteed maximum price' for the construction of the project based on the defined scope and schedule. If this price is acceptable to both parties, they execute a contract for construction services, and the construction manager becomes the general contractor and construction begins. The City manages the separate designer and GC/CM contracts.

Advantages to using the GC/CM process include that the contractor acts as the consultant in the design process and can offer new innovations, best practices and reduced costs and schedule risks. This process would allow the City to employ new innovations, assist in the design process, and make informed decisions regarding cost and schedule. It would also help the City better understand risks and explore mitigation options with feedback provided by the contractor. It has a higher administrative burden.


Staff recommend using an alternative project delivery method to the traditional “design-bid-build” model to meet the planned opening date and hold costs within the budget. The ShARCC is a large and complex project with a fairly aggressive schedule. In addition, use of alternative project delivery method is not an activity that staff are experienced in, and that lack of experience would likely not meet the experience requirements of State Capital Projects Advisory Review Board and its Project Review Committee to allow the City to proceed alone on an alternative project delivery method project. These factors warrant the use of a consultant for assistance on delivery of the ShARCC and potentially the park improvement projects.

Through evaluation of the statement of qualifications and interviews of the best qualified firms, the City has selected Parametrix as the most qualified firm to assist with the ShARCC project. They also have experience doing an indoor pool community center.

If Prop 1 passes, staff will return to Council on November 18 for consideration of an agreement with Parametrix followed by a November workshop to select the Alternative Delivery Method, submit an application to the State Project Review Committee in December, presentation to and decision from that committee in January, and finally return to Council in early 2020 with a staffing plan for the project.


It’s important to Councilmember McGlashan that the City maintains control. The process for building the City Hall involved little input from the City and the design/build team pretty much did what they wanted. One of the biggest issues we’re hearing from the community is that issues and changes that they want are not being listened to or acted on by the City.

Question:When you say it is staff intensive throughout the whole process, is it too early to measure the difference in staffing dollar amounts we’re talking about between the different methods? 
Reply: Yes, it’s too soon. That will probably be something discussed at the workshop in November. For example, the area for senior activities that wasn’t considered during the conceptual design work, needs attention. The layouts aren’t set up the way they should be. Senior Center stakeholders should and will be brought into the discussion under any of the methods. A couple of approaches might be more receptive than others. After it’s ready to go, staff is not needed as much.
We selected Parametrix to help us work through it, regardless of which one we select. Their work will probably be broken down into three phases: (1) go through the project review committee process which will include the workshop and to see which method makes the most sense, (2) working through the application and helping in the presentation of it, and (3) developing a charter for the process where we can get a better feel for staff time, and what are the roles and responsibilities of Parametrix and staff. That would be followed by the design stage and the contract stage.

Councilmember Robertson asks if staff has a recommendation.

Answer: The staff is just advising Council that we are looking into selecting an alternative method. And if Council thought that was a bad route or was uncomfortable with it, they could instruct us to move in another direction.

Councilmember Scully commented that with such a technical and unfamiliar issue, he would appreciate an ask from staff. Please let us know what method staff wants and why. We are more comfortable with design/build because it’s something we all understand, but he certainly doesn’t want to not run a project more efficiently just because we’re unfamiliar with the system.

Councilmember Roberts wanted to clarify that regardless of which way we go, there will be plenty of opportunity for the public to weigh in.

Answer: Absolutely. We need to have the stakeholders involved and the community informed. When we get into consultant selection we will be talking about public and community outreach.

Deputy Mayor McConnell added how important community outreach is especially in the design stage. We have already moved around some rooms and things because of community outreach. And when you get down to it, stakeholders really need to help design the building because they know what works and what doesn’t for their particular use.

Mayor Hall hasn’t heard any strong objections to exploring these options. The current pool is nearly dead; past the end of its useful life, and almost past the end of its repaired life. So exploring methods to deliver this project faster and more efficiently is a benefit to everybody. Thanks for getting this lined out now even before the ballot.

Meeting adjourned 7:46pm


Post a Comment

We encourage the thoughtful sharing of information and ideas. We expect comments to be civil and respectful, with no personal attacks or offensive language. We reserve the right to delete any comment.
Facebook: Shoreline Area News
Twitter: @ShorelineArea
Daily Email edition (don't forget to respond to the FeedBurner email)

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by 2009

Back to TOP