Showing posts with label city council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label city council. Show all posts

Notes from Shoreline council meeting April 25, 2022 - responding to homelessness in Shoreline

Friday, April 29, 2022

Pam Cross, reporter
Shoreline City Council Meeting
April 25, 2022

Notes by Pam Cross

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

All Councilmembers were present.

Approval of the Agenda
The agenda was approved by unanimous consent.

Report of the City Manager, Debbie Tarry
Presented by Ms. Tarry




Public Reminders

The PRCS/Tree Board will hold a remote meeting on Thursday, April 28.

Council Reports

CM Mork attended the King County - Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) which was the first meeting for electeds. It was very informative. They talked about the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the kinds of money that are available. Dow Constantine was the Chair. The City of Bellevue talking about the second half of the bill which is about their Vision Zero Plan (zero fatalities from traffic accidents), and how that works in conjunction with the climate change initiative because if people feel safe biking or walking, then they won’t be driving and this saves us from greenhouse gas.

DM Robertson attended the Regional Transit Committee for King County. One of the highlights was the announcement of the opening of the electric charging station for the Metro bus fleet. It can charge up to 9 buses at a time. It will also be used for other electric vehicles in their fleet.

Public Comment

Each speaker allowed 3 minutes.
There were no written comments at the time this report was prepared.
Link to public comment received

The Oaks Enhanced Shelter
Jackie Kurle, Shoreline
Heidi Shepherd, Shoreline

Saving Shoreline Trees
Nancy Morris, Shoreline
Kathleen Russell, Shoreline

Dealing drugs, racing etc. with limited police response
Rodrigo Celis, Shoreline

Proposed 7-story apartment on Linden Ave N
Derek Blackwell, Shoreline

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

Study Item 8(a) Update on Lake City Partners and King County Regional Homelessness Authority

Presented by Bethany Wolbrecht-Dunn, Community Services Manager

In 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 379 supporting King County’s proclamation of emergency regarding homelessness in King County. We also had a Council Goal to site a shelter in North King County. The availability of The Oaks location and the King County Regional Homelessness Authority made this possible.

In addition to The Oaks Enhanced Shelter, Shoreline’s Severe Weather Shelter is in its 3rd season. In 2021-2022 it was activated 12 times with an average of 7 guests each night. This is done in partnership with St. Dunstan’s Church and the North Urban Human Services Alliance (NUHSA).

The City also funds an outreach specialist at Lake City Partners (LCP). This person comes out to the severe weather shelter site to provide additional support and services. They also spend time in the community and the parks, and respond to calls placed to the Crisis Response Team (CRT).

Homelessness is a regional and national problem so it is important to coordinate with our other North King County cities and other agencies. Shoreline belongs to NE Funders, North Urban Human Services Alliance, North King County Shelter Task Force and King County Regional Homelessness Authority.

The Oaks Enhanced Shelter opened April 1, 2021, and has a 60-person capacity. It is operated at capacity with a waiting list. It is managed by Lake City Partners (LCP) who previously ran a rotating overnight winter shelter (not severe weather). They also manage a Day Center called God’s Lil’ Acre in Lake City.

A total of 96 people were served at The Oaks.



Presentation by Walter Washington, Outgoing Executive Director of LCP

My transition is going to take some time. I anticipate I will be intimately involved with this for the foreseeable future.

We just celebrated one year at The Oaks. We are happy and proud to say we have helped more people into housing, and we’ve had a great deal of resiliency with our staff considering the difficulties resulting from COVID, especially for a 24 hour program. We think it’s the most progressive 24 hour shelter in the region. 60 individual rooms with 60 guests. It’s a fantastic facility with high ceilings and wide hallways. More than 15 bathrooms. There is a secret garden located in the middle which allows people to safely go outside.

We are the first contact for some of the people and many have been homeless for many years.

Housing readiness can take about 4-6 months. We want to place the people who leave in a community they are familiar with. When they move into a familiar community they have access to senior centers or other services they might have used before. And we want to follow up in 6 months to see if they still are where we placed them and if they have connected to the community.

We are focusing on community-based case management following outreach. The contract with Shoreline has been really successful. The outreach worker does a lot of triage work and resource navigation no matter where folks are located - in a park, in a car, or standing in front of a store. She gets to know them by name. She works to get them either on the waitlist (we call it the service lobby) at The Oaks, or to connect them to other resources in the area.

At The Oaks we know where they are so we can provide them with services. The next step is community-based case management. We had some fantastic success with the diversion program at the end of the year. Stemming from the cold weather and with United Way funding and our relationship with St Dunstan’s Church providing cold weather shelter, the diversion program was able to get some folks out of the cold weather shelters and directly into housing - skipping the shelter entirely. These people were housing ready and just needed the housing. We placed one individual in Florida.

We are lucky to have a nurse on staff so we are include health services. This was helpful not only for our guests but for our staff as well.

There are challenges: the wait list. We have only 60 rooms and we try to keep 25 people on the waitlist.

Housing inventory is a problem by itself, but that is coupled with where is it located. If it’s located in the southern part of the county, many of our participants want to stay in north king county where they have lived for many years.

We need more diversion funds. That way we can work with folks to get them housing ready. Sometimes all they need is just an ID.

Presenter Mark Dones, CEO KCRHA

The King County Regional Homelessness Authority (Authority) was formed because a regional coordinating solution was necessary if we were going to make any meaningful change in King County.

The Authority started with just me as an employee, after a few weeks there were three of us, and Alexis made four. We are now about 55 folks. Most of our core operating systems are in place. Our contracting is about halfway implemented. We have 220 contracts.

We started out with zero infrastructure. We were a start-up and I had to do everything from setting up an email account and using my own credit card to get a Zoom account. There aren’t a lot of guide books for a government start up.

This year we are going to publish our 5 year plan in September. So 2023 is when we should start seeing significant change.

Our Theory of Change
If we create a homeless response system that centers the voices of people with lived experience, then we will be able to meet needs and eliminate inequities, in order to end homelessness for all.

Our staff is about 50% those with lived experience, including me. We also have technical expertise. I’ve been working in public policy for over a decade and I’m a Psychiatric Anthropologist by training.

Collaboration is important to us. This is not the Authority’s road show. We play a coordinating function and a funding function, trying to set goals and help folks move towards them. The level of crisis that we are at is so significant that it will only be possible to solve if we are actually all behind it, and that doesn’t happen when you force people. That happens when you build a relationship and really hold and share a common value for how to move forward.
 
Part of our role was the creation of a new Ombuds Office to serve as a single point of contact to support system navigation and maintain accountability to people experiencing homelessness.

We are also responsible for the establishment of clear metrics and milestones for measuring success, and for ensuring accountability and transparency.


We are the thing that people think of when they think of the homelessness crisis response system. But we are not housing capital and development or encampment clean. We are not the behavioral health system (although we may coordinate with them).

The Authority’s staff breakdown is, and I’m quite proud of this:
  • 62% identity as non-white
  • 42% identify as LGBTQ+
  • 50% identify as having lived experience
This is reflective of our attempt as the leadership team to shape an agency that reflects the community we serve. To my knowledge, the number of people who stated Shoreline was their last place of residence prior to experiencing homelessness was 210. Our goal, just to be very clear, is to make sure that every community in the county has the infrastructure necessary to support the number of people who experience housing instability in their community, and that folks are not forced to migrate around the county in order to get services.

There is a hyper concentration of services in Seattle, in particular Downtown Seattle, that pull people in. But when I talk to folks around the county who are experiencing homelessness, what I hear most often is they “don’t want to end up in Seattle.” That’s the thing they are trying to avoid - they want to stay in their community. For this reason we are attempting to align shelters and supporting services for each community based on what we see from the data.

We do work within an equity-based framework. We lead with the people who are most impacted; identify existing inequities and power dynamics; act with transparency and accountability; and proactively eliminate racial inequities and advance equity.

Presenter Alexis Mercedes Rinck, KCRHA Subregional Planning Manager

Some of you remember me from when I was with the Sound Cities Association where I was staff for human services, public health committees, and so forth with services relating to homelessness. Coming to this position I have experience and understanding of jurisdictions outside of Seattle. I did an initial canvass on what is actually our landscape and who are the players regionally when it comes to addressing homelessness.

The 7 subregions are North KingCo, East KingCo, the Snoqualmie Valley, Seattle Metro Urban and unincorporated KingCo, South KingCo, and SE KingCo. 

Snoqualmie Valley and SE KingCo are more rural and the types of services the homeless community is able to access are dramatically different.

In North King County we are engaging with the North Urban Human Services Alliance (NUHSA) and the North King Co. Coalition on Homelessness (which evolved from The Oaks). We are in contact not only with the various service providers in N. KingCo but the various system partners that are serving N. KingCo. 

While they’re not specifically a homelessness service provider, they are often serving people that are experiencing homelessness. I’m thinking of the RADAR/Navigator program as well as the Center for Human Services. We are also working with some of our other countywide partners such as King County Public Health and the library locations. Many libraries are serving as kind of default day centers for those who are experiencing homelessness and are a tremendous community resource.

We recently underwent our Understanding Unsheltered Homelessness Project

We invited folks to share their stories and we asked a variety of questions that were formed by a series of workshops that we conducted around the region. We had over 200 participants in these workshops.

The Aurora Commons is located at 8914 Aurora Ave N, Seattle so we provided bus tickets to people from Shoreline so they were able to get to the location. All people that agreed to be interviewed were compensated for their time. We had an unprecedented 600 interviews - the most this country has collected at a single time. We hope to turn out a community report on the findings by this summer.

In the North KingCo subregion, we have about 143 emergency shelter beds that are specifically for children, in addition to the adults at The Oaks. There 18 beds for transitional housing in Bothell primarily for young adults, and 63 beds for permanent supportive housing. All 63 beds are serving veterans, so that’s an important element to add that these are very subpopulation specific beds. (Total 224)

Our Homelessness Management Information Systems (HMIS) data on North KingCo individuals accessing homelessness service showed (as of 3/10/22) 410 people who identified a North KingCo city as their last residence. 210 (51%) of them specified Shoreline. Note that these numbers do not include those who are not currently accessing services.

FOR MORE INFORMATION


DISCUSSION

We appreciate all you do. And Alexis does a great job but she has a lot of territory to cover (seven sub-regions). So in the future we would really like a subregional planning director for North King County.
  • Reply: We are trying for a more robust operation budget for 2023 so that we can expand some of our planning functions. We are less than optimally staffed right now.
I continue to advocate for The Oaks. We know that it’s successful and we want to secure that future.
  • Reply: I think The Oaks is a remarkable program. It is one of the most significantly advanced non-congregate shelters in the county. The model is sound and the data is good. I would certainly encourage that LCP to look at our non-congregate shelter funding and start applying. We do have to fund through competitive procurement, though. We cannot fund something that does not win a bid through a competitive process.
I was impressed by my tour of The Oaks. We’ve found that short stays don’t work. It is not the facility I thought it would be - it is better. People stay there for a while to get housing ready. I hope we can work with other regional partners to provide the needed services.

Is there any tracking of long term follow up for people who just leave enhanced shelters? Say at 6 and 12 months.
  • Reply: There haven’t been funds available to do follow up of people who just leave. If we can secure resources it would be something we want to do.
Everything is centered around Seattle. We don’t want everything centralized around Seattle. In the 5 year plan, how are you working to establish an equitable distribution?
  • Reply: We created 7 subregions, created by Alexis and her team. We will have subregional planning strategies, both initial goals for the subregions and also longer term targets.
You talked about deep collaboration with communities. What can the Council do to help collaborate with your efforts? Should we look into move in rental caps like Kenmore? Should we advocate for more low income housing? Would it be helpful to advocate for another enhanced shelter in Shoreline?
  • Reply Mark Dones: Housing solves homelessness. If we had the affordable housing stock we need in this country, we would not have this problem. We need housing for the very low income. Not everyone needs permanent supportive housing. This is a very specific housing type with very specific service attachment that is for some people. Many people just need low income housing. But low income housing does not pencil without significant assistance from the government. The more that we can do through zoning, and waiving fees etc. to make it pencil in for people who are developing housing in that space, the better off we are. Again, we do not control any of the housing stuff.
I do think Shoreline needs at least one more enhanced shelter in order to hit the number we’re seeing in Shoreline. I think that will be important. Obviously the siting and facilities conversation is going to be really key. I would love to see it more like The Oaks than some of the other shelters that have existed in the past.

And we need to ensure that there is throughput - people are actually able to move from the shelter into the appropriate housing. That is going to be on KCRHA to really assist both from the technical assistance perspective as well as a resource outreach perspective.

It really matters for those who hold elected office to be vocal about how important this work is. Across the country there is a kind of sophisticated movement that is blaming everything that is bad in society on folks experiencing homelessness and is undermining housing first as a fundamental way forward. 

Elected leaders need to be able to step up and say no, this is what we need to do. That housing first does not create the problems you’re being told it does, and this is what it really is. It is only through the creation of the appropriate housing resources that any of this ends. It does not end in a more complex and more byzantine shelter system. 

In New York they have a billion dollar shelter system and no path out of it. They don’t have a way to get into housing because they hyper invested in shelters and that’s all they can do now. We don’t want to follow that path. Rather than becoming like NY in 15 years, I hope that the KCRHA is made up of 4 people who are maintaining a steady state of the right shelter resources and the right housing resources and are simply updating the planning. This is a little Pollyanna, but I think we need to start having this conversation, in public, with our various constituencies in order to drive towards the change we need to see.

I’m concerned that one of the requirements for a grant application through KCRHA is to have a City of Seattle business license. If you don’t have one from Seattle, are you ineligible? This is a regional issue and must be approached in a regional manner.
  • Reply: I would need to look into what that specifically applies to. We are working through this type of thing because some of the funds came from Seattle. Seattle and King County have to work towards equitable outcomes. We are committed to infrastructure development in helping to equip every community with the threshold of services they need to have to keep folks stabilized.
King County bought quite a few hotels. What type of services are those folks receiving? 
  • Reply: This is something we follow closely in terms of how they’re making progress because our fates are intertwined. This is considered permanent supportive housing so services include case management, support for recovery, behavioral health counseling and things like that.
Metrics are important. When do you think more will be available?
  • Reply: The 5-yr plan should be ready in September so they should be available then.
When I was on the continuum of care committee a few years ago, one of the thing we talked about from Sound City’s perspective is how to get all of these things? Nobody knew what a lot of what it was. 

Alexis was with Sound City at that time so I’m glad that we have somebody who understood the problem from a long time ago. What I’ve heard tonight is fantastic. I note that the funding is part of the problem - it’s coming mostly from King County and Seattle. Of course we all pay county taxes. Do we need to look at paying into it as a city in order to get more equitable treatment, or will it balance it out?
  • Reply: We would to love to move in a direction of what it would mean for North KingCo cities particularly to partner together in a potential pooling of funding and how it would work.
End of discussion.


Council retires into Executive Session

No further action taken following the Executive Session.

Meeting adjourned.



Read more...

Shoreline council meeting for May 2, 2022

Thursday, April 28, 2022

Shoreline City Council 2022

The agenda for the May 2, 2022 Shoreline City Council meeting contains no items for discussion, study or action. 

Agenda Highlights:
  • Proclamation of National Bike Month (City Manager's Office/Public Works)
  • Proclamation of Mental Health Awareness Month (Recreation, Community and Cultural Services)
  • Adoption of Ordinance No. 943 - Amending Certain Sections of Shoreline Municipal Code Chapter 13.10 Surface Water Utility for a New Source Control Program (Public Works)
  • Adoption of Resolution No. 487 - Approving the Relocation Plan and the City Manager Property Acquisition Authority for the N 175th Street, Stone Avenue N to I-5 Project (Public Works)
  • Adoption of Ordinance No. 956 - Authorizing the Use of Eminent Domain for Acquisition of Certain Real Properties to Construct the N 175th Street, Stone Avenue N to I-5 Project (Public Works)
  • Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with the Transportation Improvement Board to Obligate $600,000 for the Complete Streets Work Program (Public Works)
  • Link to full meeting agenda

Read more...

Notes from Shoreline council meeting April 18, 2022

Saturday, April 23, 2022

Pam Cross, reporter
Shoreline City Council Meeting
April 18, 2022

Notes by Pam Cross

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

All Councilmembers were present.

Proclamations

I, Keith Scully, Mayor of the City of Shoreline, on behalf of the Shoreline City Council, do hereby proclaim the week of April 17 through April 23, 2022 as VOLUNTEER WEEK in the City of Shoreline and encourage all residents to continue their good work supporting the community, and express appreciation to those who have helped others during the challenges of the last two years.

And I proclaim April 25, 2022 as EARTH DAY in the City of Shoreline. There are several events happening around Shoreline that provide a great opportunity to give back to the planet this Earth Day.

Approval of the Agenda
The agenda was approved by unanimous consent.

Report of the City Manager, Debbie Tarry




Space is limited so sign up soon. All volunteers must be vaccinated.


Council Reports

DM Robertson attended a meeting of the North King County Coalition on Homelessness about the enhanced shelter at The Oaks. There will be a presentation next week so she didn’t go into any detail other than they are still in the final stages of transition for a new executive director. They have had 8 people move to stable housing in the last month and 2 more are scheduled in the next month.

Public Comment (topic, name, city)
Each speaker allowed 3 minutes.
There were no written comments at the time this report was prepared.

Triplexes and Duplexes in single family zoned neighborhoods
Con: Corinne Mossman, Shoreline
Con: Barbara Twaddell, Shoreline
Con: Janet Way, Shoreline, Shoreline Preservation Society
Con: Courtney Ewing, Shoreline

The Oaks Enhanced Shelter
Jackie Kurle, Shoreline

Saving trees in Shoreline
Nancy Morris, Shoreline

Proposed 7-story apartment on Linden Ave N
Con: Derek Blackwell, Shoreline


Presented by John Featherstone, Surface Water Utility Manager
He was joined by Christie Lovelace, Surface Water Program Specialist


There is a difference between surface water and stormwater. Surface water is any water on the surface of land. Stormwater is a type of surface water. This slide shows the runoff from a developed area picking up pollutants as opposed to a forested area where rain water gets soaked into the ground. All of this flows from our wastewater system directly into lakes, streams, and Puget Sound.

The Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (Permit), authorizes the discharge of stormwater from the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) into Puget Sound. The City is required to comply with Permit requirements. The City’s Surface Water Utility is primarily responsible for ensuring the City’s compliance with the Permit.

The permit requirements cover multiple things from education, planning, public involvement and mapping to illicit discharge, detection and elimination (IDDE). This is about eliminating sources of water pollution after they happen. We have added code language so that we can enforce it.
The Source Control Program is for finding and eliminating potential pollution before it happens or becomes water pollution. The permit-required City inspection program is intended to minimize the risk of stormwater pollution originating in areas of existing development by inspecting businesses and institutional sites prioritized as having higher risk for pollution-generating activities.

Here you see hazmat barrels, leaking dumpsters, kitchen grease, car washes, and leaky vehicles.

These sources of pollution can be addressed by cleaning up existing spills, and adding secondary containment pallets so if a spill occurs it will go into the secondary container, thereby preventing a spill into the nearby creek or pond.

And since we don’t want this stuff getting into our sewers either, we also have inspection by the Shoreline Wastewater System.
 
What are the targeted industries in Shoreline? It will be those that are deemed at a higher risk of having on-site pollution activities: gas stations, repair shops, restaurants, bars, mobile restaurants, grocery stores, nurseries, or any operation that has a maintenance yard. These can be either public or privately owned entities.

Site inspections will use education and outreach to help site owners adopt appropriate pollution prevention practices.

We estimate 550 sites for source control out of 7,400 businesses licensed in Shoreline. This would result in about 110 permit-required inspections per year, and 1 enforcement case per year.

We already have robust code, so we are proposing some pretty minor changes: allowing the Utility to conduct inspections and require the site’s owners to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs).

The total cost is estimated to be under $100,000 which is primarily staffing.

DISCUSSION

This was a very technical staff report so thank you for this clear presentation.

How do you plan to prioritize 110 inspections out of 7,400 businesses?
  • Reply Christie Lovelace: We have a prioritization process in place. We look at two main factors:
    • The type of pollution generating activities going on at the site. Some are more serious than others. Although they are all considered high risk as part of this program, some are more concerning.
    • The history of compliance. There are some sites that had issues in the past with preventing pollution onsite. And once these inspections get underway, we will also be tracking if there are issues with onsite pollution. We will also conduct re-inspections which be included in the 110 inspections/year.
How are you defining “site”? For instance, is Shoreline CC considered one or multiple sites?
  • Reply Christie Lovelace: One site. But if we find we need to deal with multiple entities we could possibly break it up into multiple sites. This will a learning curve as we deal with large organizations.
If people call to report oil or soap in the water, does this program help at all? Or is this program just working with the source control?
  • Reply Christie Lovelace: When we get a call, we look at cleaning it up and figure out the source. If we find the site, that site will then be included in the Source Control Program. We try to be proactive, but we are also reactive.
Do you consider large parking lots an area of concern?
  • Reply: Parking lots are not considered of high risk of pollution generation unless they are especially large lots, or had a history of spills. There also could be a car parts store where some work on vehicles is done in the parking lot.
Are you relying on public reports or do you use other means to identify possible violations in area such as Boeing Creek?
  • Reply: We rely on any source, but often we get the call from members of the public who notice something is amiss. But we do have City field operative staff who are trained to identify spills or other sources of pollution. There are eyes and ears all over the City.
This will return on the Consent Calendar.

8(b) Discussion of the Transportation Master Plan Update: Draft Bicycle Plan

Nora Daley-Pang made the presentation

This is the 6th in the series of discussions of the Transportation Master Plan (TIP).

OUTREACH 3 will launch tomorrow

From the City of Shoreline: The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) team is kicking off Outreach Series 3 with three short informational videos and a survey. Many of you have participated in earlier surveys about your travel habits and needs. The City would now like your feedback on draft plans created for various travel modes (auto, transit, shared-use mobility, pedestrian, and bicycle) and the criteria for identifying and prioritizing future transportation projects.

The survey will be available from Tuesday, April 19 through Sunday, May 8, 2022.

Please access the informational videos and survey on the project webpage at shorelinewa.gov/tmp

Identifying and working to achieve a complete network of streets that supports safe, comfortable, and convenient travel by bicycle in Shoreline is an important piece of the overall transportation network. Over the past decade, how we plan for bicycling has evolved. We have shifted our focus from accommodating the types of cyclists in context to the traffic speeds and the volume of streets.

Levels 1 and 2 tend to be trails that are fully separated from vehicle traffic, or low volume low speed neighborhood streets. Level 3 can be bike lanes along collector or minor arterials. Level 4 will include arterials where no bike facilities exist so cyclists must navigate cars.

In developing the bicycle network, the project team identified a draft Bicycle LTS (Level of Stress) Vision with a network of LTS 1, 2, and 3 routes in Shoreline. In general, it is recommended that the City work towards providing a connected network where a “low stress” route (LTS 1 or 2) is available within a short distance of one’s origin and destination.

The draft bicycle plan includes existing and future pedestrian bicycle bridges, existing trails like the Interurban Trail and future trails like the Trail along the Rail. Existing and future trail connections include the existing Interurban-Burke-Gilman Trails North and South Connectors and the planned 145th Street Off Corridor Bike Network, which will help users navigate from trails to their final destinations. While these routes have various bicycle facility types, they tend to be on low-speed, low volume local streets.

Finally, the draft plan shows existing and future bicycle facilities. These are bicycle facilities along arterial streets that require specific treatments to meet the desired level (Level of Stress.)

DISCUSSION

Some of these routes seem circuitous. How clear will the directions and signage be?
  • Reply: We are looking at how easy is it for users to actually navigate and get to their destination. These routes are still being reviewed. We are trying to address these things by design.
Local streets have a wide variety of traffic volumes and I believe local streets should be categorized by volume especially regarding bicycle and pedestrian traffic.

Do striped bike lanes really work? We need a buffer, not just paint on the ground. Not just here but in other states, you might not recognize a painted bike lane. You might think of it as just a shoulder or something like that. We need to put in protected bike lanes as our standard.

I agree with that protected lanes are really essential for people that aren’t hardcore bicyclists to feel comfortable. But people sometimes take shortcuts so they find a way to get around the hold up with their car and go on roads that perhaps weren’t thought of as a regular path. We need to be cognizant of that.
  • Reply: In terms of neighborhood streets and keeping them low volume and low stress, we have looked at future traffic and volume. But another piece of it is the design aspect. We are talking about a biking network. If we are seeing during the time of design that volumes are creeping up on those other streets, there are some things that we can do to discourage more auto trips in terms of traffic diversion.
8(c) Discussion of Resolution No. 487 - Approving the Relocation Plan and City Manager Property Acquisition Authority, and Ordinance No. 956 - Authorizing the Use of Eminent Domain for Acquisition of Certain Real Properties, to Construct the N 175th Street, Stone Avenue N to I-5 Project

Presentation by Randy Witt, Public Works Director

Proposed Resolution No. 487 increases the City Manager’s signing authority to $1,000,000 for property acquisition in the early acquisitions ROW (right of way) phase for the N 175th Street Project. Additionally, it approves the Relocation Plan that authorizes the City Manager to approve documented relocation claims up to the limits prescribed by federal or state law regardless of amount.

Council has talked about this a couple of times since the beginning of the year on the 145th Street Project. So I will review quickly.

The project is approved by Council and acquisitions are fully funded. The project follows the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy and the proposed Resolution includes only the full acquisition of parcels at this time.

We want to move quickly because real estate prices are rapidly increasing. Also, a quicker approval process is beneficial to property owners because they get what they are deserving of, and it also allows them to get replacement property before prices rise again. The amount requested allows 100% of the 4 properties to be authorized by the City Manager.

DISCUSSION

Thank you for pointing out that there is precedent for increasing the City Manager’s authority. Plus I thinks it’s important to keep the projects moving along. Eminent domain, which we have discussed many times, is not ideal or preferable, but trying to negotiate first is appropriate and I wish you luck in that endeavor. I am comfortable using eminent domain if we have to.

I agree. And I do believe the market is on an upward climb so the earlier the better to reach an agreement with the property owners is beneficial for both sides. Eminent domain is not threatening - it’s actually favorable to both parties to avoid extra costs.

I don’t think I caught this: Is the issue with these 4 properties because the houses are so close to the road and the ROW that’s needed? Why these particular properties?
  • Reply: Broadly speaking, some houses are close. Sometimes with grade changes we can’t keep the access. Those are probably the two main levers.
So if we need a part of the driveway, that becomes a problem for the use of the entire parcel?
  • Reply: Yes, if the driveway is very steep. Think of it as taking away the use of the property because it is too steep to access.
What do we do with the remaining property once we’ve completed the project and we don’t need to meet our requirements?
  • Reply: we’re not that far yet. But in other locations we are trying to look at open space or places to locate vaults.
This will return on the Consent Calendar on May 2nd.

Meeting adjourned



Read more...

Shoreline council meeting 4-25-2022: update on Lake City Partners and KC Regional Homelessness Authority

Wednesday, April 20, 2022

Shoreline City Council 2022

The Agenda for the April 25, 2022 Shoreline City Council Meeting has one study item:

8(a) Update on Lake City Partners and King County Regional Homelessness Authority

The goal of this discussion is to share information with Council on the shelter operations after its first year as well as provide updates to Council from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCRHA). 

Staff will be joined by outgoing Executive Director of Lake City Partners, Walt Washington, KCRHA’s CEO, Marc Dones, and Sub-Regional Planning Manager, Alexis Mercedes Rinck.

Read more...

Notes from Shoreline Council meeting April 11, 2022

Sunday, April 17, 2022

Pam Cross, reporter
Shoreline City Council Meeting
April 11, 2022

Notes by Pam Cross

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

All Councilmembers were present.

Approval of the Agenda
The agenda was approved by unanimous consent.

Report of the City Manager, Debbie Tarry

In January 2017, the City Council passed Resolution 401, declaring the City of Shoreline to be an Inviting, Equitable and Safe Community For All, and prohibiting inquiries by City employees into Immigration Status.

It is important to the City of Shoreline that all community members feel valued and a sense of belonging.




Council Reports

CM Ramsdell toured The Oaks enhanced shelter. He heard from them about the challenges the shelter is having but was very impressed by the quality of the staff and the variety of services. Housing placement is the biggest challenge, followed by mental health services.

CM Mork attended the Regional Water Quality meeting. It is likely they’ll want a 5.75 rate increase in 2023 for sewage (about $6 increase per household). They also discussed sewage flow monitoring, the purpose of which is to guide investments to the conveyance system as the population grows. 3 of the 8 priority projects are in Shoreline, including the Richmond Beach Pump Station upgrade.

Public Comment (topic, name, city)

Each speaker allowed 2 minutes. There were also 8 written comments (archived here)

Topic: Saving our urban tree canopy
Susanne Tsoming, Shoreline
Nancy Morris, Shoreline

Topic: The Oaks Enhanced Shelter
Jackie Kurle, Shoreline

Topic: Duplex/Triplex in residential zones
Mallory Van Abbema, Shoreline
Kirsten Schneider, Shoreline
Doug Schneider, Shoreline

Topic: Saltwater Park tidelands
Tom McCormick, Shoreline

Topic: Planned 7 story apartment on Linden Ave N
Derek Blackwell, Shoreline
Courtney Ewing, Shoreline
Charu Lakshmi, Shoreline
Kathy Plant, Shoreline
Laura Lind, Shoreline

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

Action Item 8(a) Action on the Final 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket

Presented by Steve Szafran, AICP, Senior Planner

Original Docket Amendments were presented to Council on March 7. The Planning Commission recommended the following Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
  1. Amend the Transportation Master Plan and Transportation Element which includes updated goals and policies.
  2. 2024 Comprehensive Plan Major Update. This is a multi-year project.
  3. Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map that corrects an error. The only property covered by this amendment is the King County Park & Ride lot.

4. Amend the Land Use Element to add a new policy “Housing development and preservation of significant trees can co-exist with the goal of maintaining and increasing Shoreline’s urban tree canopy”.

The 5th Amendment to add a short term rental definition and related issues was not recommended by the Planning Commission.

During the Council’s discussion of the Draft 2022 Docket on March 7, 2022, CM Roberts introduced two additional potential Docket items for consideration.


One additional staff-initiated Docket item was brought forward to change the land use designation of one parcel in the Richmond Beach Saltwater Park from Public Facility to Public Open Space.


DISCUSSION
Move and second to approve Amendments #1, 2, 3, 4 be added to the Final 2022 Docket, and add the City initiated potential amendment #1 (land use at RB Saltwater Park).

Amendment #4 (housing and trees can co-exist) seems like a value plan rather than a work plan.
  • Reply: Yes that is accurate.
In some of the public comment that we received about potential amendment #1 (land use at RB Saltwater Park), there was a question about parcel #..9073 that contains Saltwater Park as well as the tidelands. The proposed amendment does not include the entirety of the parcel #..9073. Why not?
  • Reply: When we looked at that parcel, it was our understanding that the majority of that parcel to the north on tidelands, is underwater. This is something we would look at during our process and then decide.
But the amendment only talks about #..9010. If that’s the specific amendment, how can we expand that to additional parcels?
  • Reply: If Council would like us to look at the entirety of the park based on the public comment, we can do that.
Motion and second to amend amendment #1 (land use at RB Saltwater Park) to also include the parcel ending in #..9073

All parcels should have same designation on the comprehensive plan. We have seen this before in other areas when there is split zoning on a single parcel.

I don’t understand why staff didn’t put that in initially.
  • Reply: I don’t know. I think we were focused on the original map that was submitted. We can look into the bigger picture once it’s on the Docket.
  • Reply Julie Ainsworth-Taylor, City Attorney: The parcel that’s really at issue is usually underwater. Can we color it green? We don’t usually color it green. They are normally blue to show they are part of the park.
I don’t see a problem if it’s colored green or blue on the maps. It’s part of the park and is publicly accessible. Some accessible property doesn’t have a parcel number.

Is there any downside that staff sees with approving this amendment?
  • Reply: No
  • Reply Debbie Tarry: What you are actually doing is asking for this to be studied - you’re not implementing that change. Making the change happens after it goes through the Planning Commission process.
The second parcel is underwater almost exclusively? Under low tide as well? Is it owned by the City?
  • Reply Julie Ainsworth-Taylor: Yes, it is owned by the City and connected to and part of the park. It’s part of the legal description of the park. It is subject to tidal flow so it is underwater a lot of the time.
I don’t see any compelling reason not to add this parcel.

Vote on motion to amend amendment #1 (land use at RB Saltwater Park) to also include the parcel ending in #..9073.
Passes unanimously

Motion and second to add (CM Roberts’) potential amendment #1 (duplexes/triplexes) to the Final 2022 Docket

As a member of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) we recognize there is a shortage of housing in the region. PSRC believes we are 44,000 units short now. In order to provide a house for everyone who is living the region, this number is expected to increase by 2050 to 418,000 units. Multifamily housing is very expensive to build especially for those units that are for those under 30% AMI (area median income). To build this type of very low income housing, we need the federal or state government to come in to build it. We really need to increase supply. To do that, we need to build more housing. How do we do this?

Our existing code already allows duplexes. Plus we allow ADUs that go over the maximum density in R6 (6 residences per acre). Cottage housing got an exemption. We need to do this. We don’t restrict the number of people who can share a home. But we can’t call it a duplex or triplex. An attached garage converted to housing is ok because it’s not a duplex - it’s a house they are sharing. So we’re not being terribly bold to add duplexes and triplexes to our code.

If this passes, we are allowing the Planning Commission to study whether or not this makes sense.

There are concerns. People don’t like multi family next to single family residences.

From a business perspective, members of the younger generation cannot afford a house but a duplex could be doable and allow the next generation to continue to live in Shoreline.

Staff is opposed to this amendment not because of the concept, but because of the increased workload?
  • Reply Rachael Markle, Planning and Community Development Director: true.
  • Reply Debbie Tarry: Some of the staff concern is potentially this could result in significant change to single-family residential zones. It will require significant public outreach and comment and that is a significant amount of work. And given all the rest that is going on, that is a concern that we have. We anticipate a lot of work on the public outreach side.
Question by Rachael Markle: Was it the intent with this amendment to have an affordability component or to just allow the duplexes and triplexes?
Replies:
  • Based on the language of the amendment, I am unable to determine what the intent was.
  • The Comprehensive Plan should be broadly high level, and any kind of specifics should be in the Development Code.
  • The language is read into the record: “Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element to explicitly allow duplexes and triplexes and allow with conditions other dwelling types that are similar in scale with single family detached homes, in low density residential zones.”
Now I’m confused. What does this do differently since duplexes are currently in the code?
  • Reply: The current Land Use Element #1 in the Comprehensive Plan states: “the low density residential land use designation allows single family detached dwelling units. Other dwelling types such as duplexes, single family attached, cottage housing and accessory dwellings (ADU) may be allowed under certain conditions. The permanent base density for this designation shall not exceed 6 dwelling units per acre.”
This amendment would move where the period ends the first sentence and would add duplexes, triplexes, and other dwelling types that are similar in scale to single family type homes. (In wording to be prepared by staff.)

The current code requires we adhere to the base density standard. That means if you have enough space for one house, you can build one house. If you have enough for two houses you can build two houses or a duplex (with conditions). But you can’t put a duplex on a lot that has only enough space for one house. 

The effect of this motion would change that rule and potentially triple the base density by allowing duplexes or triplexes on a lot that is currently allowed only one home. Is this fairly accurate?
  • Reply: That would be the policy guidance which would be translated by staff into the development regulations and conditions. But that’s what it’s basically saying.

I believe that we do need to add density. This idea isn’t fully baked yet. I ‘m going to hold off on supporting it on the Docket for this year.

This can really change the character of neighborhoods and I think this needs a longer public process as mentioned in the staff analysis. This is a bigger change than what I’d heard. We can have duplexes even if we don’t have the land that prior code required in R4 and R6 zones? That’s bigger than a simple amendment
  • Reply: I believe you are correct. We want our Development Code regulations to be consistent with our Comprehensive Plan and that would require a lot of work.
I’m really interested in increasing density but the Planning Commission is already working on cottage housing and the missing middle components of this.

(Note: “Missing middle” refers to the housing gap between multi-unit housing and single family homes by providing a range of house-scale buildings with multiple units—compatible in scale and form with detached single-family homes—located in a walkable neighborhood.)

I think we need to clarify if it’s a policy that is feasible before having staff commit so much time and effort. We don’t want to take it through the process and then decide it shouldn’t be executed. Am I right?
  • Reply: Goals and policies are aspirational. That’s how we look forward to our City growing and that’s why we do these things. You don’t usually see these aspirational plans in the Comprehensive Plan if we don’t think we’re ever going to work on them.
I will be voting for this but I am really hesitant about supporting whatever comes out of this. But I’m curious to see what the options are. We put a lot of work into increasing density in carefully selected areas, increasing density where there were utilities available and a lot of other criteria. And even with that careful planning, we are seeing problems in the light rail areas - such as getting adequate power from Seattle City Light. This proposition is much broader than what we did in the station areas. 

If we did this citywide, we’re talking about tripling density, and we’re fooling ourselves if we think that would not radically transform the way Shoreline looks, the way Shoreline operates, and whether we can provide services and what those services will be like. One or two in an area will just be absorbed, but if it happens wholesale that’s a big change. 

On the other hand, we need affordable housing overall, and we’re missing the ability for folks to buy an entry-level house with a yard. Studying this make sense now. This type of thing is being looked at statewide as well as by other municipalities.

I think this is the missing middle component that we need to study which is in our Housing Action Plan. Also, the real trick is the development code to make sure we get the type of housing that we want. We want the housing to look like single-family detached homes. If we’re going to move forward, we need to amend the Comprehensive Plan to do some of this additional work to make it into code.

Is this part of the missing middle?
  • Reply: Yes, along with cottage housing and other types of housing.

VOTE on motion to add potential amendment #1 (duplexes/triplexes) to the Final 2022 Docket
Passes 4-3
Dissenting: CM Mork, CM McConnell, DM Robertson

Cottage housing in the Development Code specifies 6 units per acre (R6), but there was a density bonus that went beyond 6 units. This is an apparent contradiction. Shouldn’t the Comprehensive Plan have been changed to amend the definition of R6?
(Note: Shoreline adopted cottage housing in 2000, but repealed it in 2003. It is no longer permitted, but continues to be studied)

For low density residential, the current land use policy in the Comprehensive Plan reads R6 “may not exceed 6 units per acre.” Won’t that have to be removed or changed if we move forward with this?
  • Reply Rachael Markle: Yes.
Motion and second to add to the Final Comprehensive Plan Docket to explore striking or removing plan strike or remove R6?

Is the amendment necessary at this time? We need the Comprehensive Plan to be in sync with the Development Code.

My understanding of what we are doing here tonight is not to work out the details of a particular proposal. We will get back a proposed amendment from staff, and that proposed amendment could include language to other portions of the Comprehensive Plan that are required by what we adopt. Correct?
  • Reply Julie Ainsworth-Taylor: The Comprehensive Plan isn’t really precise - it’s not targeted to a certain element and it develops over time. Staff can’t just freeform it. Also, if we remove the density limitation for all R6, you might want to qualify that in some way because otherwise it would allow any density.
I think it should be carefully explored.

This is too nebulous for me. And not a good use of staff time.

VOTE on Motion to explore striking or removing R6
Fails 6-1, CM Roberts dissenting


VOTE ON MAIN MOTION as amended to include duplex/triplex amendment
Passes unanimously 7-0

Action Item 8(b) Public Hearing and Discussion of Resolution No. 489 - 2023-2028 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)

Presentation by Nytasha Walters, Transportation Services Manager


The City’s six-year TIP must be consistent with its comprehensive plan transportation element. The six-year TIP should include transportation projects, such as road and bridge work, as well as new or enhanced bicycle or pedestrian facilities.


Descriptions of projects including status of funding can be seen in the staff report.

PUBLIC HEARING
Todd Cullen, Shoreline, need for sidewalks and better street lighting

DISCUSSION

I’m curious about the off-corridor bike network. The current plan seems like a roundabout way through the neighborhoods to the 148th light rail station.
  • Reply: The off-corridor bike network is located north and south of the 145th corridor, and is seen as an alternative to traveling east to west along the entire corridor from Aurora to SR522. The segment you’re talking about steps down from the Interurban Trail connecting to the future 148th non-motorized bridge. That segment is on the contingency list for funding - I’m optimistic it will be funded in time for the light rail opening.

Thank you for the hard work your staff have done on this - it’s really impressive. Investments in sidewalks and bike lanes are good things and get people out of their cars. There are some projects where a little money would go a long way (stop sign or speed bump for example) and I’m concerned about how little money is left for these things.

This will come back to Council on May 9.

Study Item 9(a) Discussing the 2021 Year-End Financial Report

Presented by Sara Lane, Administrative Services Director

This report provides details on the actual revenues and expenditures for 2021 and is provided to keep the City Council informed of the financial issues and the financial position of the City as we complete the second year of our first biennial budget. This is not the audited financial statement which is not yet available.


Revenues exceed our plan and expenditures are well below our plan. 2021 was a much better year than 2020.

This detailed report is available in the staff report.

DISCUSSION

I would like thank you for how well the City handles our money in both good and bad times, obviously with the help of residents who are spending money to keep restaurants afloat. It’s important that your staff knows how much we appreciate the stability of our City’s financial picture.

Council retires to an Executive Session.


Council returns to the regular meeting.

The floor is open to an action item related to the Executive Session.
Note: since this is related to the Executive Session, no details were provided.

Motion and second to authorize the City Manager to execute a voluntary compliance plan and settlement agreement setting forth a $40,000 payment and implementation of a mitigation restoration plan.

This imposes the maximum possible penalty without some extenuating circumstances that we don’t think we have. It is a significant reduction in the potential restitution, but under all the facts and circumstances I believe it is a just result. I also believe that imposing the maximum penalty in a case like this is appropriate under the version of the code in effect at the time - that is $2,000. We recently enacted some amendments to that penalty code that will increase it for future situations.

VOTE
Passes unanimously 7-0.

MEETING ADJOURNED




Read more...

Agenda for Shoreline council meeting April 18, 2022

Wednesday, April 13, 2022

Shoreline City Council 2022

The Agenda for the April 18, 2022 Shoreline City Council meeting includes three study items.

8(a) Discussing Ordinance No. 943 – Amending certain sections of Shoreline Municipal Code Chapter 13.10 Surface Water Utility for a New Source Control Program

The City is required to implement a new inspection program under the 2019-2024 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (Permit) which governs discharge of the City’s municipal stormwater into Waters of the State. The new Source Control Program (previously called the Business Inspection Source Control program) is intended to minimize the risk of stormwater pollution originating in areas of existing development by inspecting businesses and institutional sites prioritized as having higher risk for pollution-generating activities.

8(b) Discussion of the Transportation Master Plan Update: Draft Bicycle Plan

8(c) Discussion of Resolution No. 487 - Approving the Relocation Plan and City Manager Property Acquisition Authority, and Ordinance No. 956 - Authorizing the Use of Eminent Domain for Acquisition of Certain Real Properties, to Construct the N 175th Street, Stone Avenue N to I-5 Project

Proposed Resolution No. 487 increases the City Manager’s signing authority to $1,000,000 for property acquisition in the early acquisitions ROW (right of way) phase for the N 175th Street Project. Additionally, it approves the Relocation Plan that authorizes the City Manager to approve documented relocation claims up to the limits prescribed by federal or state law regardless of amount.




Read more...

Notes from Shoreline council meeting April 4, 2022

Saturday, April 9, 2022

Pam Cross, reporter
Shoreline City Council Meeting
April 4, 2022

Notes by Pam Cross

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

CM McConnell was excused for personal reasons

Proclamation
I, Keith Scully, Mayor of the City of Shoreline, on behalf of the Shoreline City Council, do hereby proclaim the month of April as SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH in the City of Shoreline and join advocates and communities throughout King County in taking action to prevent sexual violence by standing with survivors. Together, we commit to a safer future for all children, young people, adults, and families in our community.

Approval of the Agenda
The agenda was approved by unanimous consent.

Report of the City Manager, Debbie Tarry

Volunteers for Park Planting Events
We wish to thank the volunteers who worked planting in both Twin Ponds and Darnell Parks on March 26, 2022. If you are interested in upcoming events, please visit shoreline.greencitypartnerships.org

Shoreline Walks


Public Reminders


Council Reports

CM Pobee attended the SeaShore Transportation meeting related to the new ORCA card. You don’t need a new card, they will update their software.

Public Comment (name, city, topic)


Speaking regarding 8(a) notice of tree removal in ROW
  • Melody Fosmore, Shoreline, TPCT (Tree Protection Code Team) member
  • Gayle Janzen, North Seattle, TPCT member
  • Kathleen Russell Shoreline
  • Rebecca Jones, Seattle
  • Nancy Morris, Shoreline
Jackie Kurle, Shoreline, The Oaks Enhanced Shelter

New planned 7-story apartment in Richmond Highlands
  • Courtney Ewing, Shoreline
  • Derek Blackwell, Shoreline
Approval of the Consent Calendar
The Consent Calendar was approved unanimously.

8(a) Discussion of Ordinance No. 960 - Amending Shoreline Municipal Code Chapter 12.30 Public Tree Management

Presented by Sara Lane, Administrative Services Director


The PRCS/Tree Board evaluated the TPCT’s suggested amendment, which proposed a 90-day notification period for right-of-way (ROW) tree removal, and recommended that the notification period for the removal of non-hazardous trees in the ROW be set at 45 days; less than the TPCT proposal but greater than the current 14-day requirement in the Shoreline Engineering Development Manual.

While appreciating the objective of the PRCS/Tree Board to provide greater time for public engagement relating to removal of public trees from the ROW, staff did not recommend increasing this notification period from 14 to 45 days for the following reasons:
  1. Increasing the noticing period for ROW tree removal could cause delay in City projects as well as other public and private development projects. When a ROW Permit is issued, the tree removal(s) have been reviewed and permitted through the ROW permit process and noticing on the tree for removal time greater than 14 days will not change the outcome of the removal. The permit holder may bear additional cost in time delay.
  2. Managing and responding to additional public input generated by the additional 31 days of notification time (for a total of 45 days) detracts from staff work to accomplish other priority projects, with no potential to impact or change the outcome of removal.
Staff is proposing some clean-up to the language in SMC Chapter 12.30 to reflect current delegation authority and to provide clarity for these regulations.

DISCUSSION

The length of time of notification will not change the outcome? What about the WSDOT project on Dayton?
  • Reply Debbie Tarry: The permits had not been issued yet on the WSDOT project. We are talking about notification following permit issuance.
Since everything has to be discussed before the permit is issued, I think 14 days is enough. At the most I would recommend 3 weeks but it’s important to keep things moving along in our our City. We have just made incredible changes to our code and it’s the codes that determine whether or not trees can come down and how they are replaced. There are a lot of goals that we have, there are a lot of other issues and there is a finite amount of time and staff to work on the vast number of very very pressing issues. My question to other Councilmembers is “where do we want to press pause” on those other very important issues?

My concern is not whether it’s 14 days or 45 days, but that the decision has already been made when the notification happens. Is there an easy way we could make notification earlier? They want to know what trees are going to be removed BEFORE they are removed so they can do something about it.
  • Reply Debbie Tarry: The regulations in the Development Code, adopted by Council, determine how we review development applications. That is the process that has to be followed consistently. And plans change as we go through the review process so the final plans may look a little different. It is a time-consuming process. We don’t currently have a way to report on things like the final tree removal. That would be a great goal to get to.
In the section Resources/financial impact, it says these changes will have no fiscal impact but other changes will have an impact. How?
  • Reply: The financial impact would come if we were directed to have the longer time. The expectation is that would require additional staff time in order to manage and respond to the public input. And that would mean either changing priorities and not doing something else (opportunity cost), or adding staff (direct financial cost).
I feel we need to do more analysis.

I need a clearer understanding of what public input is allowed prior to permitting. If nothing, we need to add that opportunity.
  • Reply Debbie Tarry: There are certain requirements for neighborhood meetings for certain types of developments. We will provide you with additional information.
Extending the time after it’s been decided just adds a delay. Our state is very big on transparency so that the public always has the right to comment - even if doesn’t have any effect on the project. But it will have an effect on future projects. I disagree that this is something challenging to implement. When you get a proposal that may impact a street tree, you wrap something around the trunk of that tree which says a development proposal may require removal of this tree. That allows the neighborhood or pedestrians to see what is happening. Then you provide a number to call if you want to comment. In the end, we have a set of policies in place that govern whether staff will approve or deny a particular permit application, and the fact that there is public outcry won’t change that. And shouldn’t change that. But it’s a way to let people comment.

Councilmembers are in agreement that this ordinance be brought back on the Consent Calendar.

8(b) Discussion of Ordinance No. 961 Unlimited Tax General Obligation (UTGO) Bond 2022 – Park Improvement and Park Land Acquisition and Ordinance No. 962 Amending Ordinance No. 929 Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes

Presented by Sara Lane, Administrative Services Director

On February 8, 2022, Shoreline voters approved Proposition 1 (Parks) with nearly 70% of voters supporting the proposition. Proposed Ordinance No. 961 authorizes the issuance of unlimited tax general obligation bonds (Bonds) in the principal amount of up to $38.5M to finance and refinance: parks improvements to five neighborhood parks; investments in park amenities for three additional parks; and the acquisition and improvement of new park land and public art. Current costs have driven the total past $38.5M to $41.9M, however we can fill that gap with grant funding, which we are aggressively seeking. A contribution from the General Fund could make up the difference.


Proposed Ordinance No. 962 further amends Ordinance No. 829 to allow a three-year extension of the *BAN related to the purchase of the Midvale Avenue N property while the City evaluates options for pursuing a future bond measure for an aquatics and community center.

*A Bond Anticipation Note (BAN) is a short-term interest-bearing security issued in advance of a larger, future bond issue. Bond anticipation notes are smaller short-term bonds that are issued by corporations and governments, such as local municipalities, wishing to generate funds for upcoming projects.


We have received approval to implement this process for the park improvement projects. This method is more efficient and will allow us to bring in the projects at the lowest cost with the highest level of flexibility in accomplishing what we’ve promised to the residents.

DISCUSSION

What 4 properties were purchased with bond anticipation notes (BAN)?
  • Reply: They were the properties at Rotary Park but I will confirm it.
Looking at components for making up the shortfall due to inflation, how is the General Fund allowed to support that?
  • Reply: The General Fund can support any of the City’s other funds.
I’m very pleased with the aggressive approach to these projects and look forward to seeing them.

I have a question regarding the storage property on Midvale Avenue N. We need to have a policy discussion about what we are going to do with this property: whether we’re going to hold it, what we’re going to do with it, and what’s going on. I’m concerned about putting this in with an ordinance that’s about new parks. How do we have that policy discussion? Rolling this in with a pretty unrelated bond measure means we not having a discussion for a long time.
  • Reply: Right now we’re doing a feasibility study around options for a future pool and community center so I think the policy discussion would happen at that time. With interest rates going up, we think it’s better to lock in a rate now.
  • Reply Debbie Tarry: We are getting $100k planning grant to use with the cities of Kenmore and Lake Forest Park for looking into alternatives for locating an aquatics solution in North King County. We’ll be able to see how the storage property fits into that.
We did a good analysis about where the aquatic facility should be. This property has always been central to the city and I don’t see why we would consider moving away from it unless another property became available that would be better.

Why not put the property on the market right now?
  • Reply: We have options. This extension can be prepaid anytime giving us full flexibility. Otherwise we would be holding it for 3 years and paying the interest which is less flexible.
These are two separate ordinances presented at once, so we could pull one without affecting the other?
  • Reply: Yes.
Councilmembers are in agreement that this ordinance be brought back on the Consent Calendar.

8(c) Discussion of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update: Draft Transit, Shared-use Mobility, and Pedestrian Plan

Presented by Nora Daley-Peng, Senior Transportation Planner

The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the City Council with the fifth in a series of briefings about the TMP with a presentation on the TMP draft Transit, Shared-use Mobility, and Pedestrian Plans.

The City is actively working with Sound Transit, King County Metro, and Community Transit to plan effective bus connections to/from the future light rail stations as well as throughout our city. Since King County Metro, Community Transit, and Sound Transit operate transit service in Shoreline, the City’s investments in transit service are generally limited to providing access to transit and hosting transit service on city streets.


Shoreline wants additional transit service on the priority corridors to enhance speed and reliability for the community.


Shared-use mobility is a fairly new concept in transportation planning. It focuses on providing multiple forms of transportation that people can share either at the same time such as taking a bus, carpool, or light rail or one after the other, like using bike share, scooter share, or car share.

Mobility hubs are places of connectivity where different modes of transportation come together seamlessly at concentrations of employment, housing, shopping, and recreation. They can include space for bike share, scooter share, car share, as well as curb space for ride hailing services like Uber and Lyft. 

They also can provide creature comforts like public bathrooms, information kiosks, outdoor seating, bike parking, public art, and cell-phone recharging stations. Shoreline is looking at potentially 18 mobility hubs. The study, Making Better Connections: Shoreline Shared-Use Mobility Study can be seen here.


The draft pedestrian plan considered existing as well as planned sidewalks, trails, pedestrian/bicycle bridges and pathways. Staff did not propose any additional new sidewalks since that was covered in the Sidewalk Prioritization Plan process.


Staff will return to Council to present the TMP draft Bicycle Plan on April 18.

DISCUSSION

Where will the funding come from for the Mobility Hubs, recognizing that some things will be provided by a private operator (scooter share for example)?
  • Reply: This is pretty high level at this point, and you are correct. We need to recognize that we need to maximize use of light rail by providing these hubs, but we haven’t drilled down to funding yet. We wanted to identify strategic locations as a good first step. There could be the potential for partnerships or future grants. We looked at this as an emerging technology that we want to plan for, and if there is interest, move into a feasibility study.
There is a balance between visionary and achievable. Places other than around the light rail stations may not have right-of-way property available and partnerships are unlikely outside of the station areas. I’m ok with the concept, but I don’t want to put a lot of emphasis on this because there are a lot of other priorities (sidewalks, potholes, bike lanes).

I think there are sidewalks that need to be built and should be added to this plan.

How will Outreach #3 work as we emerge from virtual meetings? Are we going to do any in-person outreach? Or all online?
  • Reply: We’ve looked at strategies to connect to all people. Pop-up Posters is one idea. We want you to see them everywhere from school cafeterias to Hopelink. We want to make them self-guided posters with comment cards. We will also include added staff hours, an online survey and yard signs with QR codes. We will also prepare shorter 3 minute powerpoint presentations instead of 5 minutes, recognizing that people’s time is limited.
Thank you for your efforts to assist in addressing climate change by encouraging people to get out of their cars. We need people to be enthusiastic.

8(d) Update on the Wastewater Rate Study Project and Policy Discussion

Sara Lane, Administrative Services Director, introduced
Gordon Wilson, Senior Program Manager, FCS Group, who made the presentation.

The City assumed the Ronald Wastewater District on April 30, 2021. After assumption,
the City retained FCS Group (FCSG) to conduct a wastewater rate structure.


Issue 1: Capital Funding Tools
The key idea here is that there is a difference between cost responsibility and financing.
Financing is just a matter of paying now or paying later. The big question is whether somebody else will need to pay (grants, contractual partnerships, property owner funding) or whether we need to pay (rate funding, reserves, debt). Changing cost responsibility makes a big difference. If it’s just a shift in the timing, it makes a smaller difference.

  • Cash funding (pay as you go) is good for repair and replacement projects that are scalable and that you can plan for far in advance. It avoids interest but adds the cost of inflation.
  • Debt financing is useful for really large one-time projects where, if you had to wait to get it funded, you’d pay a lot more in inflation costs. But you’ll add interest.
It’s a balancing act, but you don’t want to lean on debt too heavily. We’ll come back to you later this summer with what balance makes sense for this utility. Ronald WW came to the City without any outstanding debt. So the City has a good starting point.

Issue 2: Low-Income Customer Assistance Programs
Washington State may be the only state that has explicit Statutory Authority for Low-Income Rates. 

Some states prohibit it, still others are silent on it.

There are four levels of utility assistance programs. Shoreline currently has level one which applies to seniors who own their own home. Unfortunately it only reaches about 5% of the low-income residents. 

Should Shoreline expand this program? Again, there are trade-offs. Larger participation in assistance programs can affect the rates paid by others. This is a complicated topic, so the details of an expanded low-income program might not be ready within the time frame of this rate study.

Issue 3: Wastewater Rate Design Options
Current residential customers are charged two separate charges for wastewater service:
  1. City charge which is a flat charge per unit to recover cost of collection, transmission and administration and
  2. Treatment charge which is a flat charge per unit to recover treatment costs paid to King County or the City of Edmonds. Most of these costs are paid to King County, based directly on the number of residential customer-equivalents (RCEs).
There has been recent interest in whether to incorporate a volumetric component to residential wastewater rates. Having looked the considerations for Shoreline, we suggest keeping the current flat rate design.


DISCUSSION

I support the staff recommendations for #1 and #3. My only hope in terms of the broad financing piece, is that we continue to contribute enough maintenance that we’re continuing to make strides in keeping the system working well. We need to stay ahead of maintenance needs.

We are giving thousands of dollars to Hopelink for utility assistance. I realize we need to do more to remove the barriers to people applying for this assistance, but through Hopelink we’re providing this assistance already to people who are living in multifamily households. I think we can do more and I think we should. Designing our own program might be overly complicated to administer.

  • Reply: If we teamed with Seattle City Light and we accepted their qualification, it might make it a pretty limited administrative burden. SCL has about 2,200 Shoreline residents that currently receive their low income reduction. Rebates to renters would be a tremendous administrative burden so that is why we did not recommend that level of utility assistance.
  • Reply Gordon Wilson: I did not include Hopelink when I referred to only 5% of residents receiving reduced utility bills because I don’t have data on that. The question that every municipality is struggling with now: is that enough? Should we be more aggressive to make sure that all the people affected by the rate increases (that we have to consider in order to keep our system up) are provided with enough support? Do we want to go there? Right now you have 310 people in the wastewater reduced utility program. If SCL has 2,200, that means there are a lot more people out there who need help. But the rate impact of expanding from 310 to 2,200 would be really noticeable. If you broaden the base by that much, maybe we should offer something less than a 50% discount in order to keep the rate impact manageable. Also, administrative costs will undoubtedly be charged to Shoreline by SCL so we can’t really avoid administrative costs. And the rate revenue has to be made up. Is it worth charging everybody 3.1% more in order to help low income people by $31/month? That’s the question and you can’t answer that without the numbers.
  • Sara Lane responds: That is why we are recommending that we model a couple of different options that staff could bring back, because the variables are incredible. If Council is interested in exploring this further, we could model a couple of different options and see what that looks like and provide more guidance for Council. You might then realize you can’t do that option.

I don’t think people think of utility bills separately. We talk about the cost of housing which is inclusive of utility bills. So as we work to try to reduce the cost of housing, the utility bills will be a little less of a burden.

If we reduce the cost of utilities here, the money still has to come from somewhere. So we will really need to see more numbers.

Rates are going to go up, and they’re going to keep going up very significantly. We need to keep that in mind in trying to determine the most efficient way with the limited funding the we have.

The cost of utilities is a real burden on a lot of seniors and low-income adults. Paying utility bills for them can help prevent evictions.

The entry points for these homelessness programs on the West Coast are so much greater than the City can handle. So we need to keep people in their homes. There’s not much we can do about affordable housing. This is something we CAN do. Utilities are a big deal. We need to look at all options. And we need to do something rather than nothing. .

Meeting Adjourned 9:24pm



Read more...
ShorelineAreaNews.com
Facebook: Shoreline Area News
Twitter: @ShorelineArea
Daily Email edition (don't forget to respond to the Follow.it email)

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP