SHORELINE CITY COUNCILcosweb.ci.shoreline.wa.us/uploads/attachments/cck/council/packets/… · Shoreline City Council Annual Strategic Planning Workshop . February 19-20, 2016 | Shoreline

Shoreline City Hall 17500 Midvale Avenue North Shoreline, Washington 98133

(206) 801-2230 FAX (206) 546-1524

Agenda Line (206) 801-2236

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETINGS NOTICE

As required by RCW 42.30, the Open Public Meetings Act, you are hereby notified that the Shoreline City Council will hold its Annual Strategic

Planning Workshop on Friday, February 19 and Saturday, February 20, 2016.

City Council Annual Strategic Planning Workshop

Dates and Times: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Saturday, February 20, 2016 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

Relocated to: Council Chambers Shoreline City Hall 17500 Midvale Avenue North Shoreline, WA 98133

The purpose of this meeting is to hold a strategic planning and goal-setting workshop to monitor progress and determine priorities and action steps for the coming year. The result is the establishment of the Council’s goals and workplan. This workplan, which is aimed at improving the City’s ability to fulfill the community’s vision, is then reflected in department workplans, in the City’s budget and capital improvement plan and through special initiatives.

Dated this 12th Day of February, 2016.

Jessica Simulcik Smith City Clerk

Shoreline City Council Annual Strategic Planning Workshop

February 19-20, 2016 | Shoreline City Hall, Council Chambers

Objectives: • Review 2015 accomplishments

• Confirm and modify Council Goals, with a focus on Financial Sustainability

• Discuss policy issues

• Spend time together as a Council

AGENDA Friday, February 19

8:00 am Breakfast

8:30 am Welcome & Introductions Mayor Roberts

• Purpose

• Introduce Guests

8:45 am Agenda Overview Allegra Calder/All

• Review Agenda, Objectives and Ground Rules

• Introductory Exercise

9:00 am Significant 2015 Accomplishments John Norris/All

• Review and Brief Discussion

o What accomplishments have the potential to make the greatest impact?

o Are there any lessons learned from what was (or was not) accomplished?

9:30 am Current Council Goals Debbie Tarry/Allegra/All

• Review Completed Goals/Action Steps

• Review Council Goals 1-5

o Can anything be taken off the list (complete or no longer relevant)?

o What additions or modifications are needed?

o Are there any amendments you would make to staff’s recommended 2016-2018 Council Goals/Actions Steps?

CITY OF SHORELINE ANNUAL STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP

10:30 am Break

10:45 am Council Goals | Focus on Goal 1: Strengthen Shoreline’s Economic Base

• Council Goal 1, Action Step 3: Implement the 10 Year Financial Sustainability Plan

o 10 Year Financial Sustainability Plan Update

o Levy Lid Lift Renewal Process and Timelines

o Transportation Benefit District

o Business and Occupation Tax

o What actions are needed in the next 12 months?

o Is the Council interested in renewing the Levy with an annual escalator alone or resetting the Levy Rate?

o If the Levy Rate were reset and/or TBD were set at its maximum level, what programs would you be interested in funding beyond achieving the goals of the 10 Year Financial Sustainability Plan?

o Is the Council interested in using some portion of the TBD as a dedicated revenue source for sidewalk construction?

12:15 pm Lunch

1:15 pm Council Goals | Focus on Goal 4: Enhance openness and opportunities for community engagement

• Review Goal 4 and explore ways to integrate equity and inclusion

o Does staff’s recommended Goal 4 language and description align with your community inclusion goals?

o Are there any amendments you would make to staff’s recommended 2016-2018 Goal 4 Actions Steps?

o Are there other Goal 4 action steps that would ensure greater inclusion of Shoreline residents in the public process that you would like to include instead of the recommended action steps?

2:00 pm Break and Carpool to Food Lifeline

• 1702 NE 150th Street, Shoreline (arrive 2:45-2:50 for training)

3:00 pm Service Activity at Food Lifeline

6:00 pm Dinner with Spouses/Significant Others at Hills

Agenda 2

CITY OF SHORELINE ANNUAL STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP

Saturday, February 20

8:30 am Breakfast

9:00 am Welcome & Introductions Mayor Roberts

• Introduce Guests

9:05 am Agenda Overview Allegra

• Review Agenda

• Introductory Exercise

9:15 am Quick Review of Yesterday’s Discussion Allegra/All

• Review Revised Goals

o Any changes or additions? Anything that occurred to you after the discussion?

9:30 am City Policy Issues Debbie/Allegra/All

• Review Issues Identified Ahead of the Workshop (see list below)

o Brief introduction of each issue

o Does Council want to move forward with this issue?

o What outreach is needed?

o What else do we need to know?

o What is the schedule?

10:45 am Break

11:00 am City Policy Issues (continued) Debbie/Allegra/All

o Continue discussion of issues

11:45 pm Lunch

12:00 pm Roundtable Allegra Calder/All

• Retreat Reflections/Takeaways

12:30 pm Adjourn

Council-Identified Policy Issues for Discussion • Development Regulations in Station Areas

• Sidewalks and Low Impact Development

• Community/Senior Center – Operations and Location

• Homelessness

• External Workforce Regulations

Agenda 3

City of Shoreline 2015 Accomplishments

Goal 1: Strengthen Shoreline’s economic base

• Implemented the 10 Year Financial Sustainability Strategies of increasing investment yields, higher economic development goals related to multi-family housing development, and reviewing cost recovery targets for recreation fees

• Completed the Planned Action EIS and sign package for the Community Renewal Area (CRA) for Aurora Square

• Conducted the annual update to the Engineer Development Manual • Processed 52 building permits for new residential construction projects and 9 building permits

for new commercial construction projects • Created the messaging and identified target markets for the Shoreline marketing campaign • Supported the Shoreline Farmer’s Market Association and helped launch the market at their new

location at Aurora Square • Continued QuickStart business workshop series

Goal 2: Improve Shoreline’s utility, transportation, and environmental infrastructure

• Completed the Aurora Corridor Project and held a project completion celebration • Implemented Phase II of CityWorks (Asset Management System) for roads/traffic and

fleet/facilities assets • Completed the Saltwater Park Bridge Replacement Project • Completed the Einstein Safe Routes to School Project • Completed the 195th Separated Trail Project • Completed the Goheen Revetment/Stream Restoration Project • Completed the 2015 Greenworks Stormwater Project • Completed Echo Lake Park drainage improvements • Continued the annual Stormwater Pipe Repair/Replacement Program • Identified priority environmental strategies to implement the City's Climate Action Plan • Continue to implement the Urban Forest Strategic Plan • Continued to work with the joint Committee of Elected Officials (CEO) with the RWD Board and

drafted an Assumption Transition Plan for assumption of the wastewater utility • Continued the 145th Street Multi-modal Corridor Study, including holding two open houses with

the community • Continued trail and environmental restoration at various parks using EarthCorps crews

1

• Completed the update of pavement condition ratings and began implementing a Pavement Management System

• Completed the 2015 Bituminous Surface Treatment (BST) Project • Completed the McAleer Creek and Lyon Creek Basin Plans • Received $294,525 in grant funding for utility, transportation and environmental infrastructure

improvements • Continued design work for Police Station at City Project • Continued design work for the North Maintenance Facility Project

Goal 3: Prepare for two Shoreline light rail stations

• Adopted the 185th street light rail station Subarea Plan, development regulations, zoning map, and Planned Action

• Completed the 145th street light rail state Subarea Plan DEIS • Reviewed and commented on the Sound Transit FEIS for the Lynwood Link Extension Light Rail

project • Began negotiating with Sound Transit on agreements and pursuing other means to obtain any

necessary mitigation and improvements that are not reflected in Sound Transit's Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Facilitated and attended 14 community engagement meetings and events regarding the light rail planning process

• Continued to work with the 185th and 145th Station Citizen Committees (SCCs), including attending both committees’ monthly meetings and co-hosting events

Goal 4: Enhance openness and opportunities for community engagement

• Developed a Strategic Communications Plan for citywide external communications • Held the State of the City Breakfast • Staffed City information booths at eight City and community events • Expanded Food Truck Thursday so that it was held in three neighborhoods –Ridgecrest, Aurora

Square and Richmond Beach - and supported the second series of seven performances presented by the Aurora Theater Company at Shoreline City Hall

• Held the annual Volunteer Soiree recognition event • Promoted technology to improve interactions with residents through the replacement of the

City’s recreation registration software and the selection of new permit software • Continued to review and update the architecture of the City’s website and conducted an annual

review of the departmental webpages for ease of use and content • Held two after-hours home improvement workshops • Continued the community garden program at Twin Ponds Park and Sunset School Park • Held the Kids Move Challenge over the summer

2

Goal 5: Promote and enhance the City’s safe community and neighborhood programs and initiatives • Coordinated law enforcement efforts with various partners to address criminal activity and

quality of life issues as part of the City’s goal to work towards data driven policing • Enhanced crime prevention communication materials and held over 50 crime prevention and

community safety neighborhood meetings • Continued the cross-departmental Safe Neighborhoods/Safe Community team • Held three Nurturing Trust Workshop Series, including two in Spanish and one at Ballinger Homes • Continued strong participation in National Night Out block parties • Conducted a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) review of North City Park ,

Paramount Open Space and Brugger’s Bog Park • Collected and analyzed traffic data and presented the Annual Traffic Report to the Council • Conducted Active Shooter and Patrol (ASAP) trainings with the joint police/fire rescue task force

with the Shoreline and North Shore Fire Departments • Received $650,000 in grant funding from the federal Department of Justice to implement the

Risk Analysis De-escalation And Referral (RADAR) program • Continued coordination of the Emergency Management Council to share best emergency

management practices and information • Initiated dialogue with King County and the Director of Therapeutic Health Services (THS)

regarding community concerns and impacts on primary commercial corridor in Shoreline

Other 2015 Accomplishments • Adopted the 2016 Budget and CIP • Received a clean financial audit and clean CDBG audit • Awarded the GFOA Distinguished Budget Award • Continued to monitor legal aspects, monitor development of the Snohomish County Draft

Environmental Impact Statement, provided communication, and completed the financial annexation alternatives model for the proposed Point Wells development

• Hired key management and policy staff including the Public Works Director, Administrative Services Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, Engineering Manager, Surface Water and Environmental Services Manager, City Traffic Engineer, and Transportation Planning Manager

• Hosted a successful fifth “Monster Mash Dash” 5K fun run/walk • Held the annual Celebrate Shoreline Festival at Cromwell Park, including the City’s first Celebrate

Shoreline Concert, along with other Celebrate Shoreline activities • Organized and promoted the Sculpture Stroll, Piano Time and Art Alfresco events • Collaborated with other community organizations on Arts Crush and Summerset Arts Festival • Accomplished the “Million Stair Challenge” at Richmond Beach Saltwater Park and "Million Step

Challenge" at Paramount School Park

3

• Earned a 2015 WellCity Award, which resulted in receiving a 2% premium discount on one of the medical plans offered

• Completed the Classification and Compensation Study and implemented the study recommendation into the 2016 budget

• Implemented SharePoint as City’s new intranet and document collaboration tool • Updated the Critical Areas Ordinance

4

2015-2017 City Council Goals and Workplan The Council is committed to fulfilling the community’s long-term vision – Vision 2029 – and being a sustainable city in all respects:

• Sustainable neighborhoods—ensuring they are safe and attractive; • Sustainable environment—preserving our environmental assets and enhancing our built

environment so that it protects our natural resources; and • Sustainable services—supporting quality services, facilities and infrastructure.

The City Council holds an annual strategic planning and goal setting retreat to monitor progress and determine priorities and action steps necessary to advance Vision 2029. This workplan, which is aimed at improving the City’s ability to fulfill the community’s vision, is then reflected in department workplans, the City’s budget, capital improvement plan, and through special initiatives. Goal 1: Strengthen Shoreline’s economic base Shoreline voters approved Proposition No. 1 in November 2010, which helped to maintain essential service levels through 2016. Whether or not Proposition No. 1 is renewed in 2016, it is vital to attract investment in Shoreline businesses and neighborhoods to enhance the local economy, provide jobs, and support the services that make Shoreline a desirable place to live. Investment will strengthen our tax base while providing our residents with greater housing choices, local employment, retail opportunities, and lifestyle amenities.

ACTION STEPS: 1. Implement the Community Renewal Plan for Aurora Square including developing recommendations

for incentives, property acquisition, and capital improvements to encourage Vision 2029 businesses to locate and thrive at Aurora Square – Ongoing

2. Enhance the attractiveness of Shoreline as a place for private investment by ensuring that the permit process is predictable, timely and competitive, and by constantly evaluating and improving the quality of regulations for the City and other local permitting organizations – Partially Complete

3. Implement the 10-year Financial Sustainability Plan to achieve sufficient fiscal capacity to fund and maintain priority public services, facilities, and infrastructure, including a continued focus on economic development and exploration of the renewal of the property tax levy lid lift in 2016 – Partially Complete

4. Initiate innovative, community-supported place-making efforts that encourage people to spend time in Shoreline – Partially Complete

5. Create and launch a marketing campaign that promotes Shoreline as a progressive and desirable community to new residents, investors, and businesses – In Progress

6. Explore development of a state-of-the-art media campus that makes Shoreline the regional center of the digital media production industry – In Progress PROGRESS INDICATORS: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 a. Annual growth of

assessed property value from new construction

0.17% 0.50% 0.41% 0.36% 0.33%

b. Percent of assessed property value that is commercial (business)

10.1%

10.3% 10.5% 9.8% 8.4%

c. Retail sales tax per capita $113 $130 $137 $134 $135 d. Number of licensed

businesses 4,474 4,784 4,945 5,045 5,166

e. Number of housing units 23,049 23,204 23,329 23,493 23,650

PROGRESS INDICATORS: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 f. Vacancy and rental rates

of commercial and multi-family properties

Comm: 4-5%;

$15-30/sf; Resid:

4%; $1.18/sf

Retail: 4%;

$17.50/sf; Office: 4.5%;

$23.63/sf; Resid: 3.2%;

$1.24/sf

Retail: 5.3%;

$19.50/sf; Office: 6.4%;

$24.27/sf; Resid: 1.9%;

$1.32/sf

Retail: 4.6%;

$20.80/sf; Office: 4.2%;

$23.00/sf; Resid: 1.3%;

$1.36/sf

Retail: 5% $21/sf

Office: 4% $24/sf

Residential: 3%;

$1.45/sf (all),

$2.00/sf (new)

Goal 2: Improve Shoreline’s utility, transportation, and environmental infrastructure Shoreline inherited an aging infrastructure when it incorporated in 1995. The City has identified needed improvements through our 20-year planning documents including the Surface Water Master Plan, Transportation Master Plan and Parks and Open Space Master Plan. Improvements are not limited to infrastructure investments – The City is also interested in improving coordination, planning, and overall information sharing among all service providers. As capital improvements are made, it is important to include efforts that will enhance Shoreline’s natural environment, ultimately having a positive impact on the Puget Sound region.

ACTION STEPS: 1. Construct the Aurora Corridor improvements from N 192nd to N 205th Streets – Almost Complete 2. Identify funding strategies, including grant opportunities, to implement the City’s transportation

master plan including construction of new non-motorized improvements – In Progress 3. Pursue water service rate reduction and increased infrastructure investment from Seattle Public

Utilities while evaluating and identifying Shoreline's opportunities for long-term water service provision alternatives – On Hold

4. Develop a plan to merge the Ronald Wastewater District into City operations as outlined in the 2002 Interlocal Operating Agreement – Almost Complete

5. Work with the City of Seattle, King County, the Washington State Department of Transportation, federal agencies and the community on a plan that will improve safety, efficiency and modes of transportation for all users of 145th Street – In Progress

6. Implement the Urban Forest Strategic Plan – Partially Complete 7. Review and update the sustainability recommendations in the City's adopted Environmental

Sustainability Strategy – Complete 8. Implement a comprehensive asset management system for the City's roads, streets, facilities, trees

and park systems – In Progress 9. Redevelop City capital facilities (North Maintenance Facility and Shoreline Police Station at City

Hall) to better meet community needs – In Progress 10. Coordinate City services to plan and prepare for housing development in the community, including

management of parking and traffic impacts and engagement of communities living in diverse housing types – Complete PROGRESS INDICATORS: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 a. Number of linear feet of non-

motorized facilities constructed 16,000 7,384 11,362 1,198 19,912

b. Number of trees planted in the public right-of-way and on City property (net)

470 145 362 -61 319

c. Tons of street sweeping waste removed

Data not available

Data not available

Data not available

Data not available

507

PROGRESS INDICATORS: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 d. Grant funds received for utility,

transportation, and environmental infrastructure improvements

$14,109,975 $5,069,407 $369,137 $7,404,884 $294,525

e. Percent of all work orders in Cityworks Asset Management System that are proactive versus reactive in nature

N/A N/A 93% 94.97% 76.1%

f. Percentage of work orders completed (or similar) in the Cityworks Asset Management System Implementation

Data not available

Data not available

1,100 2,348 3,121

g. North Maintenance Facility annual progress (percent complete)

N/A N/A N/A N/A 1-2%

Goal 3: Prepare for two Shoreline light rail stations In 2008 Shoreline voters supported the Sound Transit 2 funding package by 61%. Our community looks forward to increasing mobility options and reducing environmental impacts through light rail service. Sound Transit estimates the light rail extension from Northgate to Lynnwood to be $1.4-1.6 billion, which includes investment in two stations in Shoreline, which are planned to open in 2023. Engaging our community on how this effort benefits Shoreline and the greater region needs to start now. ACTION STEPS: 1. Adopt the 145th Street Light Rail Station Subarea Plan, land use and zoning maps and Planned

Action – In Progress 2. Review Sound Transit's Final Environmental Impact Statement to verify Shoreline's identified

mitigation from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been adequately addressed – Complete

3. Negotiate mitigation measures with Sound Transit and pursue other means to obtain any necessary mitigation that may not be reflected in Sound Transit's Final Environmental Impact Statement, including a bridge over Interstate-5 north of 145th Street connecting to the 185th Light Rail Station – In Progress

4. Develop a Transit Service Integration Plan to deliver people to both future light rail stations, as an alternative to single occupancy vehicles, including safe bicycle and pedestrian access for all ages and abilities – In Progress

5. Work with Sound Transit to design and evaluate the light rail station – In Progress 6. Implement adopted light rail station subarea plans, including programs and policies to address

parking, park mitigation, and affordable housing – In Progress PROGRESS INDICATORS: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 a. Number of City and Sound Transit

opportunities provided for public input in the light rail planning process

4 21 37 60+ 14

Goal 4: Enhance openness and opportunities for community engagement The Council values an open, transparent, and responsive government. And the City believes that the best decisions are informed by the perspectives and talents of our residents. Community involvement is vital, and finding effective ways to engage all segments of our community is key to shaping our future.

ACTION STEPS: 1. Communicate and provide opportunities for public input on key policies and initiatives, including

light rail station planning, safe community initiatives, the proposed Point Wells Development, and other City projects – Partially Complete; Ongoing

2. Continue to support neighborhood associations and volunteer initiatives and to host community forums and workshops – Ongoing

3. Continue to provide documents online, improve public accessibility and enhance the City's website and its usability – Ongoing

4. Continue to use and promote technology to improve interactions with residents – Partially Complete

PROGRESS INDICATORS: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 a. Percent of residents who believe the City is moving

in the right direction2 71% 72% 72% 65% 65%

b. Percent of residents somewhat/very satisfied with the City’s efforts to keep residents informed2

67% 67% 67% 66% 66%

c. Number of citizen volunteer hours 19,530 16,758 12,653 12,794 9,629 d. Number of annual website visits; number of

Facebook “likes”; number of Twitter followers 77,400

545 NA

111,000700 NA

151,306860 187

320,735 1,052

512

390,238 1,444 1,031

e. Number of service requests responded to through the City’s See Click Fix app

3 179 258 170 231

f. Number of Community Meetings with Police/Crime Prevention

2 9 27 52 42

g. Number of Alert Shoreline subscribers N/A N/A 1,580 1,892 2,891 h. Number of public record requests (excludes routine

requests) 161 174 179 217 307

2Indicator taken from biennial citizen survey – most recent survey occurred in 2014 Goal 5: Promote and enhance the City’s safe community and neighborhood programs and initiatives Maintaining a safe community is the City’s highest priority. The 2012 Citizen Survey reflected that 91% of respondents felt safe in their neighborhood during the day and 78% had an overall feeling of safety in Shoreline. Although these results are reflective of statistics from medium sized cities across the United States, it was a slight decrease from previous citizen surveys conducted by the City. As a result, in November 2012 the City held a public focus group on crime prevention efforts to receive citizen input. Based on this feedback, the City is pursuing a concentrated workplan to enhance our public safety communication and crime prevention efforts to ensure that our residents and businesses continue to find Shoreline a safe place to live, work, and play.

ACTION STEPS: 1. Work towards data driven policing and addressing crime trends by focusing efforts on high crime

areas and quality of life concerns; work with the City's cross-department safe community team to address problems and implement solutions – In Progress

2. Continue coordination of the Emergency Management Council to implement emergency management best practices – In Progress

3. Continue the partnership between the Parks Department and Police, focusing on park and trail safety through Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), Problem Solving Projects (PSPS) and police emphasis to improve safety and the feeling of safety – Partially Complete

4. Continue partnerships and development of best practices with Shoreline schools, the Fire Department and the community to implement school safety programs, such as Active Shooter and Patrol (ASAP) training – Partially Complete; Ongoing

5. Coordinate policing efforts with the Public Works Department to focus on high speed locations (traffic map), school zones, neighborhoods and traffic complaints and the implementation of Neighborhood Traffic Action Plans – Ongoing

6. Work with the community to establish engagement and a partnership regarding crime prevention and quality of life concerns; coordinate efforts between the Community Outreach Problem Solving (COPS) officer and the City's Council of Neighborhoods to work together with neighborhoods and businesses and crime prevention procedures and education– Ongoing

7. Explore funding opportunities to bring awareness and to develop a systematic policing approach to deal with mental illness in the community – Complete PROGRESS INDICATORS: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 a. Percent of residents who have

an overall feeling of safety in Shoreline2

83% 78% 78% 80% 80%

b. Percent of residents who feel safe in City parks and trails2

58% 56% 56% 58% 58%

c. Number of schools engaged in emergency response planning

Data not available

Data not available

Data not available

Data not available

5 (Includes the entire Shoreline

School District as 1 and 4

private schools) d. Number of CPTED reviews

completed or safety emphasis initiatives implemented on City parks or parks facilities

N/A N/A 1 4 3

e. Number of neighborhood traffic safety improvement efforts3 • Phase 1 (citizen

involvement/minor traffic control device installation or revisions)

• Phase 2 (installed Engineering solution)

30 25 27 16/0 21/1

f. Number of community outreach events/activities attended by Police and Emergency Management

3 3 3 4 22 (National Night Out

counted as one event.)

2 Indicator taken from biennial citizen survey – most recent survey occurred in 2014 3 Data distinguishing between Phase 1 and Phase 2 efforts is not available prior to 2014.

ID Task Name Status Resource Names

1 Council Goal 1: Strengthen Shoreline's Economic Base to Maintain the Public Services that the Community Expects

2 1. Implement the Community Renewal Plan for Aurora Square including developing recommendations for incentives, property acquisition, and capital improvements to encourage Vision 2029 businesses to locate and thrive at AuroraSquare

Dan E

3 Planned Action EIS Complete

4 Sewer Energy System Feasibility Dan E

5 Rebranding Aurora Square CRA; signage changes / requirements for businesses

Dan E

6 Boeing Creek surfacewater feasability study Dan E

7 Westminster Street Vacation HOLD Dan E

8 2. Enhance the attractiveness of Shoreline as a place for private investment by ensuring that the permit process is predictable, timely, and competitive, and by constantly evaluating and improving the quality of regulations for the City and...

Rachael,Jarrod

9 Annual update of the Engineering Development Manual

Tricia

10 Revised SMC 12.10 Complete

11 2015 Annual update of Engineering Development (Div. 1, 2, and 4)

Tricia

12 2016 annual update of Engineering Development (Div. 3)

Tricia

13 Standardize zoning and plan review processes Rachael

Dan E

Dan E

Dan E

Tricia

Tricia

Rachael

Oct Nov Dec Jan FebMar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan FebMar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan FebMar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan F4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Q

2016 2017 2018 2019

2015‐2017 Citywide Work Plan

Page 1 Updated Mon 2/1/16


14 3. Implement the 10‐year Financial Sustainability Plan Sara

15 Implement ways to increase investment returns Complete

16 Fee cost recovery analysis Sara

17 Recreation Complete

18 Development Rachael,Sara

19 Levy Lid Lift Sara

20 Engage the business community in a discussion regarding the possible future implementation of a B&O tax

Sara

21 Seek out efficiencies and cost‐saving strategies Sara

22 4. Initiate innovative, community‐supported place‐making efforts that encourage people to spendtime in Shoreline

Dan E

23 Prepare for Farmers Market launch at Aurora SquarComplete

24 Food Truck Shoreline and Aurora Theatre Company Complete

25 Prepare for Seattle International Film Fesival Dan E

26 5. Create and launch a marketing campaign that promotes Shoreline as a progressive and desirable community to new residents, investors, and businesses

Dan E

27 Create message and identify target markets Dan E

28 Launch initial marketing campaign Dan E

29 Measure and maintain promotional efforts Dan E

30 6. Explore development of a state‐of‐the‐art media campus that makes Shoreline the regional center of the digital media production industry

Dan E

Rachael,Sara

Sara

Sara

Sara

Dan E

Dan E

Dan E

Dan E

Dan E


2016 2017 2018 2019




31 Council Goal No. 2: Improve Shoreline's utility, transportation, and environmental infrastructure

32 1. Construct the Aurora Corridor Improvements fromN 192nd to N 205th Street

Nytasha

33 Construction Kurt,Nytasha

34 2. Identify funding strategies, including grant opportunities, to implement the City's transportation master plan including construction of new non‐motorized improvements

Nytasha

35 3. Pursue water service rate reduction and increased infrastructure investment from Seattle Public Utilities while evaluating and identifying Shoreline's opportunities for long‐term water service provision alternatives

HOLD Randy W

36 Negotiate enhanced SPU service options HOLD Lance

37 Long‐term service alternatives and analysis HOLD Randy W

38 4. Develop and implement a plan to merge the Ronald Wastewater District into City operations as outlined in the 2002 Interlocal Operating Agreement

John

39 Create Assumption Transition Plan for wastewater utility consolidation with the CEO

John

40 Implement assumption transition plan John

41 5. Work with the City of Seattle, King County, WSDOT, federal agencies and the community on a plan that will improve safety, efficiency and modes of transportation for all users of 145th Street

Nytasha

Kurt,Nytasha

Nytasha

John

John


2016 2017 2018 2019




42 Establish Public Agency Involvement Program Nytasha

43 Undertake/Complete Corridor Study Nytasha,Kurt

44 Design and Environmental Review (I‐5 to SR99) Nytasha

45 Council action on Annexation HOLD Nytasha

46 6. Implement the Urban Forest Strategic Plan Eric F

47 Young tree pruning along Aurora Avenue and othermajor corridors

Complete

48 Develop and implement a volunteer restoration management plan for Twin Ponds Park

Eric F

49 Develop neighborhood urban forest management and stewardship plans for three public open space / parks: Innis Arden, Boeing Creek, Ballinger

Maureen

50 7. Review and update the sustainability recommendations in the City's Adopted Environmental Sustainability Strategy

Miranda

51 Study the feasability of district energy Miranda

52 Adopt the Living Building Challenge ordinance Miranda

53 Institute the Solarize Program Miranda

54 Climate Wedge Analysis Rika

55 8. Implement a comprehensive asset management system for the City's roads, streets, facilities, trees and park systems

Katie

56 Implement Asset Management System

57 Implement Roads, Traffic, and Fleet/Facilities assets into the City's asset management system

Complete

58 Inentory and assess condition and risk of PW asse Katie

Nytasha

Nytasha,Kurt

Nytasha

Eric F

Maureen

Rika


2016 2017 2018 2019




59 Inventory Park assets in preparation for Cityworks implementation

Eric F

60 Perform Condition Assessment for City's assets Eric F,Randy W,Sa

61 Perform lifecycle analysis and risk assessment for City's assets

Eric F,Randy W,Sara

62 Implement Parks Asset Management system (2017) Katie

63 Inventory and assess condition and risk of Parks assets

Katie

64 Prepare for Wastewater Utility Asset Management Implementation

(2017) Katie

65 9. Redevelop City capital facilities (North Maintenance Facility and Shoreline Police Station at City Hall) to better meet community needs

Dan E,Engineer II

66 Redevelop North Maintenance Facility

67 Phase 1 Master Plan / Site Design Engineer II

68 Construction of Phase 1 improvements Engineer II

69 Police Station at City Hall development Dan E

70 Design and permit Noel

71 Grease Monkey property acquisition Dan E

72 Construction Noel

73 Employees move to third floor Facilities Mgr

74 Police move to City Hall Facilities Mgr

75 10. Coordinate City services to plan and prepare for housing development in the community, including management of parking and traffic impacts and engagement of communities in diverse housing types

Rachael,Rob B,Randy W

Eric F

Eric F,Randy W,Sara

Eric F,Randy W,Sara

Katie

Katie

Engineer II

Engineer II

Noel

Dan E

Noel

Facilities Mgr

Facilities Mgr


2016 2017 2018 2019




76 Permit fee waiver program for affordable housing projects

Complete

77 Traffic and parking management planning includingpossible Development Code amendments

Complete

78 Develop ways to engage multi‐family residents in the community (i.e. Council of Neighborhoods)

Constance,Rob B Constance,Rob B


2016 2017 2018 2019




79 Council Goal No. 3: Prepare for two Shoreline light rail stations

80 1. Adopt the 145th Street Light Rail Station Subarea Plan, land use and zoning maps and Planned Action

Miranda

81 Council Selects Preferred Alternative for FEIS Miranda

82 Council Adopts FEIS, Subarea Plan, Zoning Map, Development Regulations and Planned Action

Miranda

83 2. Review Sound Transit's Final Environmental Impact Statement to verify Shoreline's identified mitigation from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been adequately addressed

Complete

84 3. Negotiate mitigation measures with Sound Transitand pursue other means to obtain any necessary mitigation that may not be reflected in Sound Transit's FEIS, including a bridge over I‐5 north of 145th Street; connecting the 185th Light Rail Station

Nytasha

85 Develop agreements and permitting strategy Nytasha,Kurt

86 Negotiate final alternative and mitigation package Nytasha,Kurt

87 4. Develop a Transit Service Integration Plan to deliver people to both future light rail stations, as analternative to single occupancy vehicles, including safe bicycle and pedestrian access for all ages and abilities

Nytasha,Kurt

88 Transit Service Integration (Shoreline Policy Development)

Kurt

89 5. Work with Sound Transit to design and evaluate the light rail stations

Nytasha,Rachael

Miranda

Miranda

Nytasha,Kurt

Nytasha,Kurt

Kurt

Nytasha,Rachael,Tricia


2016 2017 2018 2019




90 6. Implement adopted light rail station subarea plans, including programs and policies to address parking, park mitigation, and affordable housing

Rachael

91 185th Street Corridor Study Kurt

92 Transfer of development rights Steve S

93 Develop a Station Area Park and Open Space Plan Eric F

94 Park impact fees Eric F

95 Explore citywide affordable housing program Rob B,Rachael

Kurt

Steve S

Eric F

Eric F

Rob B,Rachael


2016 2017 2018 2019




96 Council Goal No. 4: Enhance openness and opportunities for community engagement

97 1. Communicate and provide opportunities for public input on key policies and initiatives including light rail station planning, safe community initiatives, the proposed Point Wells Development and other City projects

Eric B

98 State of the City Breakfast Complete

99 City booth at summer events Complete

100 Develop Strategic Communications Plan for ClimateAction Plan / Sustainability

Complete

101 Develop Strategic Communications Plan for Citywide external communications

Complete

102 2. Continue to support neighborhood associations and volunteer initiatives and to host community forums and workshops

Constance

103 3. Continue to provide documents online, improve public accessibility and enhance the City's website and its usability

Eric B

104 Work with departments on cleaning up document library and departmental webpages to meet website guidelines

Eric B

105 Website redesign Eric B

106 Website redesign requirements analysis Eric B

107 Potential redesign with vision internet Eric B

108 RFP for new vendor (if needed) Eric B

Constance

Eric B

Eric B

Eric B

Eric B


2016 2017 2018 2019




109 New vendor onboarding website redesign (if need Eric B

110 4. Continue to use and promote technology to improve interactions with residents

Katie

111 Class Replacement Complete

112 Permit software review & selection Complete

113 Permit System Replacement Katie

Eric B

Katie


2016 2017 2018 2019




114 Council Goal No. 5: Promote and enhance the City's safe community and neighborhood programs and initiatives

115 1. Work towards data driven policing and addressingcrime trends by focusing efforts on high crime areas and quality of life concerns; work with the City's cross‐department safe community team to address problems and implement solutions

Shawn

116 Coordinate efforts with various resources to share information, identify crime trends, and focus resources to address criminal activity and quality oflife issues

Shawn

117 2. Continue coordination of the Emergency Management Council to implement emergency management best practices

EM Coordinator

118 3. Continue the partnership between the Parks Department and Police, focusing on park and trail safety through Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), Problem Solving Projects (PSPS) and police emphasis to improve safety and…

Eric F,Shawn

119 Conduct CPTED review of North City Park and implement recommendations

Complete

120 Conduct CPTED review of Bruggers Bog Park and implement recommendations

Complete

121 Conduct CPTED review of Paramount Park Open Space and implement recommendations

Maureen

Shawn

EM Coordinator

Maureen


2016 2017 2018 2019




122 Conduct CPTED review of one additional park and implement recommendations

Maureen

123 4. Continue partnerships and development of best practices with Shoreline schools, the Fire Department and the community to implement school safety programs, such as Active Shooter and Patrol (ASAP) training

Shawn

124 Conduct joint active school shooter training with police/fire rescue task force with Shroeline Fire, North Shore Fire, and local police agencies

Complete

125 Integrate fire/rescue into the scene quickly to start treatment (warm zone)

Complete

126 Ongoing active shooter and patrol training Shawn

127 5. Coordinate policing efforts with the Public works Department to focus on high speed locations (traffic map), school zones, neighborhoods and traffic complaints and the implementation of Neighborhood Traffic Plans

Troy,Kendra

128 Develop annual traffic safety evaluation report (performed during the first quarter of every year)

Troy

129 Update traffic data for police use Kendra

130 6. Work with the community to establish engagement and a partnership regarding crime prevention and quality of life concerns; coordinate efforts between the (COPS) officer and the City's CON to work together with neighborhoods and businesses on crime...

Rob B,Shawn

Maureen

Shaw

Troy

Kendra


2016 2017 2018 2019




131 Coordinate efforts with the Council of Neighborhoods for National Night Out

Constance,SteveP

132 Conduct ongoing crime prevention meetings between Shoreline neighborhoods and businesses

Shawn

133 7. Explore funding opportunities to bring awareness and to develop a systematic policing approach to deal with mental illness in the community

Shawn

134 Submit RADAR grant application Complete

135 Implement RADAR program with grant funding Shawn

136 2016 Planning Phase: identify high risk individuals, conduct community outreach, collaborate with stakeholders, develop information sharing sytem

Shawn

137 2017 Intervention Phase: implement policy, first responder training, policy goes live, link first responders with service providers, collect data

Shawn

138 2018 Analysis / Assessment Phase: RADAR continues in the field, research partners will conduct data analysis and submit final report to DOJ / BJA

Shawn

Constance,Steve P

Shawn

Shawn

Shaw


2016 2017 2018 2019




139 Priority Community Issues: Priority issues that have potential long‐term Shoreline community impact and support adopted Council policies

140 1. Address issues related to proposed development of Point Wells site located within Snohomish County

141 Complete financial annexation alternatives model Complete

142 Manage & coordinate information for Point Wells Scott

143 Monitor legal proceedings including the GMHB Margaret

144 Participate and monitor the Snohomish County EIS process

Rachael

145 Complete negotiations with BSRE, Sno. Co., and Town of Woodway

Margaret

146 Complete Transportation Corridor Study and Mitigation Project

HOLD Nytasha

147 Adopt related TMP and Comprehensive Plan amendments

HOLD Steve S

148 2. Aquatic and community center master planning Eric F

149 3. Public Arts Plan Eric F

150 4. Solid Waste RFP / contract award Rika

151 5. Evaluation of external workforce regulations Alex

152 6. Update Critical Area Ordinance Complete

153 7. Transportation Master Plan Nytasha

154 8. Surface Water Master Plan Uki

155 9. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan Eric F

156 10. Continue to deliver daily municipal services to the Shoreline community

Scott

Margaret

Rachael

Margaret

Eric F

Eric F

Rika

Alex

Nytasha

Uki

Eric F


2016 2017 2018 2019




157 The majority of City employees and resources are focused on the provision of daily services to Shoreline residents, businesses, and potential investors

All AllOct Nov Dec Jan FebMar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan FebMar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan FebMar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan F4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Q

2016 2017 2018 2019




158 Organizational Performance and Capacity Building Projects: Priority projects that are intended to enhanceorganizational performance and strengthen the organization for long‐term success

159 1. Continue to refine the on‐line performance evaluation system that provides regular feedback foremployees and integrates Council Goals, City workplan, individual work plan goals and projects, and professional development goals for each employee

Paula

160 2. Conduct Compensation and Classification Study Complete

161 3. Implement 2015‐2017 Technology Strategic Plan and technology projects that improve organizational efficiency

162 Implementation of SharePoint software Complete

163 Permit software review & selection Complete

164 Cityworks Phase II Complete

165 Class Replacement Complete

166 Implementation of new permit software Katie

167 Stabilize Technology Katie

168 IT Maturity Katie

169 Equipment Replacement Katie

170 SharePoint Phase II Katie

171 Financial System Replacement Assessment Katie

172 Financial System replacement implementation Katie

173 Customer service software Katie

174 Data Needs Analysis Katie

Paula

Katie

Katie

Katie

Katie

Katie

Katie

Katie

Katie

Katie


2016 2017 2018 2019




175 Utility Transition Katie

176 New web hosting implementation Katie

177 System Integration Katie

178 Utility Implementation Katie

179 Cityworks implementation Phase III Katie

180 Open Data Implementation Katie

181 4. Review City's health benefit policies and other personnel practices in light of the implementation ofthe Federal Affordable Care Act (ACA)

182 Review City's health benefits, policies, and AWC's plan offerings

Paula

183 5. Commission for accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA)

Eric F

184 6. APWA Accreditation Randy W

185 Conduct process documentation and identify areas for service level commitment

Randy W

186 7. Organizational continuous improvement efforts

187 Development framework for organizational processreview and improvement

John

188 Establish and re‐evaluate key organizational performance indicators

Alex

189 Explore biennial budget implementation Sara

190 Explore performance based budget Sara

Katie

Katie

Katie

Katie

Katie

Katie

Paula

Eric F

Randy W

John

Alex

Sara

Sara


2016 2017 2018 2019



Staff-Recommended 2016-2018 City Council Goals and Action Steps

Goal 1: Strengthen Shoreline’s economic base Shoreline voters approved Proposition No. 1 in November 2010, which helped to maintain essential service levels through 2016. Whether or not Proposition No. 1 is renewed by Shoreline voters in 2016, it is vital to attract investment in Shoreline businesses and neighborhoods to enhance the local economy, provide jobs, and support the services that make Shoreline a desirable place to live. Investment will strengthen our tax base while providing our residents with greater housing choices, local employment, retail opportunities, and lifestyle amenities.

ACTION STEPS: 1. Implement the Community Renewal Plan for Aurora Square including developing recommendations for

incentives, property acquisition, and capital improvements for a regional stormwater detention/retention system and intersection improvements at N 155th Street and Westminster Way N to encourage Vision 2029 businesses to locate and thrive at Aurora Square

2. Enhance the attractiveness of Shoreline as a place for private investment by ensuring that the permit process is predictable, timely and competitive, and by constantly evaluating and improving the quality of regulations for the City and other local permitting organizations

3. Implement the 10-year Financial Sustainability Plan to achieve sufficient fiscal capacity to fund and maintain priority public services, facilities, and infrastructure, including a continued focus on economic development, and exploration of the renewal of the property tax levy lid lift in 2016, and exploration of a business and occupation tax

4. Initiate innovative, community-supported place-making efforts that encourage people to spend time in Shoreline

5. Create and Launch, track, and maintain a marketing campaign that promotes Shoreline as a progressive and desirable community to new residents, investors, and businesses

6. Explore development of a state-of-the-art media campus that makes Shoreline the regional center of the digital media production industry

Goal 2: Improve Shoreline’s utility, transportation, and environmental infrastructure Shoreline inherited an aging infrastructure when it incorporated in 1995. The City has identified needed improvements through our 20-year planning documents including the Surface Water Master Plan, Transportation Master Plan and Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. Improvements are not limited to infrastructure investments. The City is also interested in improving coordination, planning, and overall information sharing among all service providers. As capital improvements are made, it is important to include efforts that will enhance Shoreline’s natural environment, ultimately having a positive impact on the Puget Sound region.

ACTION STEPS: 1. Construct the Aurora Corridor improvements from N 192nd to N 205th Streets 2.1. Identify funding strategies, including grant opportunities, to implement the City’s Transportation Master

Plan including construction of new non-motorized improvements 2. Pursue water service rate reduction and increased infrastructure investment from Seattle Public Utilities 3. while evaluating and identifying Shoreline's opportunities for long-term water service provision alternatives 3. Develop a plan to mergeImplement the Ronald Wastewater District Assumption Transition Plan 4. into City operations as outlined in the 2002 Interlocal Operating Agreement

5.4. Work with the City of Seattle, King County, Sound Transit, the Washington State Department of Transportation, federal agencies and the north King County community on a plan that will improve safety and , efficiency modes of transportation for all users of 145th Street, including completion of design of the 145th Street corridor from Interstate-5 to Aurora Avenue N, advocacy for 145th Street improvements from Highway 522 to Interstate-5 as part of the ST3 ballot measure and planning for a 145th Street and Interstate-5 interchange that meets future needsaw

5. Continue to Implement the Urban Forest Strategic Plan by developing neighborhood urban forest management and stewardship plans and a community stewardship program in collaboration with community partners

6. 7.6. Implement the 2016-2019 Priority Environmental Strategies, including adoption of a Living Building

Challenge Ordinance, examining the possibility of District Energy, and preparing to initiate a Solarize campaignReview and update the sustainability recommendations in the City's adopted Environmental Sustainability Strategy

8.7. Implement a comprehensive asset management system, including asset inventory, condition assessment and lifecycle/risk analysis, for the City's roads, streets, facilities, trees, parks systems, and utilities

9. Redevelop City capital facilitiesthe ( North Maintenance Facility and Shoreline Police Station at City Hall) to better meet community needs Coordinate City services to plan and prepare for housing development in the community, including management of parking and traffic impacts and engagement of communities living in diverse housing types

8. Update the Surface Water Master Plan, Transportation Master Plan and Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan

10.9. If adequately funded by regional grants, conduct environmental review and design for safety and multi-modal mobility improvements for the N 175th Street corridor from Interstate-5 to Stone Avenue N

Goal 3: Prepare for two Shoreline light rail stations In 2008 Shoreline voters supported the Sound Transit 2 funding package by 61%. Our community looks forward to increasing mobility options and reducing environmental impacts through light rail service. Sound Transit estimates the light rail extension from Northgate to Lynnwood to be $2 billion, which includes investment in two stations in Shoreline, which are planned to open in 2023. Engaging our community in planning for the two light rail stations in Shoreline continues to be an important Council priority. on how this effort benefits Shoreline and the greater region needs to start now. ACTION STEPS: 1. Adopt the 145th Street Light Rail Station Subarea Plan, land use and zoning maps and Planned Action 2. Review Sound Transit's Final Environmental Impact Statement to verify Shoreline's identified mitigation

from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been adequately addressed 3.2. Negotiate mitigation measuresagreements with Sound Transit and pursue other means to obtain any

necessary mitigation and improvements that may are not be reflected in Sound Transit's Final Environmental Impact Statement, including non-motorized access a bridge over Interstate-5 north of 145th Street and non-motorized improvements over Interstate-5 connecting the Shoreline Center to the 185th Light Rail Station

4.3. Develop a Transit Service Integration Plan to deliver people to both future light rail stations, as an alternative to single occupancy vehicles, including safe bicycle and pedestrian access for all ages and abilities

4. Partner with Sound Transit to host local public meetings to review the design of the light rail stations, garages and associated facilities

5. Work collaboratively with Sound Transit to support the development and review of environmental, architectural, engineering and construction plans for the Lynnwood Link facilities within the City of Shoreline design and evaluate the light rail station

6. Implement adopted light rail station subarea plans, including programs and policies to address parking, park mitigation, and affordable housing

7. Conduct the 185th Street Corridor Study between Aurora Ave. N and 10th Avenue NE to identify multi-modal transportation improvements necessary to support growth associated with the 185th Street Station Subarea Plan and the Sound Transit Light Rail Station

Goal 4: Expand the City’s focus on equity and inclusion to enhance openness and opportunities for community engagement The Council values all residents and believes they are an important part of the Shoreline community, including those that have been underrepresented. The Council believes it is important to expand the ways in which the City can develop and implement processes, policies and procedures that increase inclusion and equity in a meaningful and impactful way.

ACTION STEPS: 1. Create and implement the City’s Diversity and Inclusion Program 2. Explore ways to reduce homelessness in Shoreline, including a review of City policies and codes that may

create barriers for those experiencing homelessness 3. Explore external workforce regulations including paid sick leave [minimum wage and parental leave]

regulations 4. Enhance the City’s support for non-discrimination and accessibility for a diverse community through

compliance with Title II and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 5. Develop and maintain working relationships with diverse and underrepresented members of the Shoreline

community through the continuation of the Nurturing Trust workshops 6. Explore development of a Citizen Engagement Academy to help the community build familiarity with the

many aspects of Shoreline government and its role in providing services 1. Communicate and provide opportunities for public input on key policies and initiatives, including light rail

station planning, safe community initiatives, the proposed Point Wells Development, and other City projects 2. Continue to support neighborhood associations and volunteer initiatives and to host community forums and

workshops 3. Continue to provide documents online, improve public accessibility and enhance the City's website and its

usability 4. Continue to use and promote technology to improve interactions with residents Goal 5: Promote and enhance the City’s safe community and neighborhood programs and initiatives

Maintaining a safe community is the City’s highest priority. The 2014 Citizen Survey reflected that 92% of respondents felt safe in their neighborhood during the day and 80% had an overall feeling of safety in Shoreline. These results are reflective of statistics from medium-sized cities across the United States, and it was a slight increase from previous citizen surveys conducted by the City. The City is continuing a concentrated workplan to enhance our public safety communication and crime prevention efforts to ensure that our residents and businesses continue to find Shoreline a safe place to live, work, and play. ACTION STEPS: 1. Work towards data driven policing and addressing crime trends by focusing efforts on high crime areas and

quality of life concerns; work with the City's cross-department safe community team to address problems and implement solutions

2. Continue coordination of the Emergency Management Council to implement emergency management best practices

3.2. Continue the partnership between the Parks Department and Police, focusing on park and trail safety through Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), Problem Solving Projects (PSPS) and police emphasis to improve safety and the feeling of safety

4.3. Continue partnerships and development of best practices with Shoreline schools, the Fire Department and the community to implement school safety programs, such as Active Shooter and Patrol (ASAP) training

5.4. Coordinate policing efforts with the Public Works Department to focus on Continue to focus on traffic issues, including high speed locations (traffic map), school zones, neighborhoods and traffic complaints, and continue to implement the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program and the implementation of Neighborhood Traffic Action Plans

5. Work with the community to establish engagement and a partnership regarding crime prevention and quality of life concerns; cCoordinate efforts between the Community Outreach Problem Solving (COPS) officer and the City's Council of Neighborhoods Program to work together with neighborhoods and businesses andon crime prevention procedures and education and outreach

6. Engage and partner with businesses regarding crime prevention efforts specific to the business community to maintain a vibrant, healthy and safe economy

7. Develop and implement the Risk Analysis De-escalation And Referral (RADAR) program to create a systematic policing approach to deal with mental illness in the community Explore funding opportunities to bring awareness and to develop a systematic policing approach to deal with mental illness in the community

VISION 2029Imagine for a moment that it is the year

2029 and you are in the City of Shoreline. This vision statement describes what

you will see.

Shoreline in 2029 is a thriving, friendly city where people of all ages, cultures, and economic backgrounds love to live, work, play and, most of all, call home. Whether you are a first-time visitor or long-term resident, you enjoy spending time here.

There always seems to be plenty to do in Shoreline -- going to a concert in a park, exploring a Puget Sound beach or dense

forest, walking or biking miles of trails and sidewalks throughout the city, shopping at local businesses or the farmer’s market, meeting friends for a movie and meal, attending a street fes-tival, or simply enjoying time with your family in one of the city’s many unique neighborhoods.

People are first drawn here by the city’s beautiful natural setting and abundant trees; afford-able, diverse and attractive housing; award-winning schools; safe, walkable neighborhoods; plentiful parks and recreation opportunities; the value placed on arts, culture, and history; con-venient shopping, as well as proximity to Seattle and all that the Puget Sound region has to offer.

The city’s real strengths lie in the diversity, talents and character of its people. Shoreline is culturally and economically diverse, and draws on that variety as a source of social and eco-nomic strength. The city works hard to ensure that there are opportunities to live, work and play in Shoreline for people from all backgrounds.

Shoreline is a regional and national leader for living sustainably. Everywhere you look there are examples of sustainable, low impact, climate-friendly practices come to life – cutting edge energy-efficient homes and businesses, vegetated roofs, rain gardens, bioswales along neigh-borhood streets, green buildings, solar-powered utilities, rainwater harvesting systems, and local food production to name only a few. Shoreline is also deeply committed to caring for its seashore, protecting and restoring its streams to bring back the salmon, and to making sure its children can enjoy the wonder of nature in their own neighborhoods.

VISION2029

Shoreline is a city of neighborhoods, each with its own charac-ter and sense of place. Residents take pride in their neighborhoods, working together to retain and improve their distinct identities while embracing connections to the city as a whole. Shoreline’s neighbor-

hoods are attractive, friendly, safe places to live where residents of all ages, cultural backgrounds and incomes can enjoy a high quality of life and sense of community. The city offers a wide diversity of hous-ing types and choices, meeting the needs of everyone from newcomers to long-term residents.

Newer development has accommodated changing times and both blends well with established neighborhood character and sets new standards for sustainable building, energy efficiency and envi-ronmental sensitivity. Residents can leave their car at home and walk or ride a bicycle safely and easily around their neighborhood or around the whole city on an extensive network of sidewalks and trails.

No matter where you live in Shoreline there’s no shortage of convenient destinations and cultural activities. Schools, parks, libraries, restaurants, local shops and services, transit stops, and indoor and outdoor community gathering places are all easily accessible, attractive and well maintained. Getting around Shoreline and living in one of the city’s many unique, thriving neighborhoods is easy, interesting and satisfying on all levels.

A CITY OFNeighborhoods

The city has several vibrant neighborhood “main streets” that feature a diverse array of shops, restaurants and services. Many of the neighborhood businesses have their roots in Shoreline, estab-lished with the help of a local business incubator, a long-term col-

laboration between the Shoreline Community College, the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce and the city.

Many different housing choices are seamlessly integrated within and around these commercial districts, providing a strong local customer base. Gathering places - like parks, plazas, cafes and wine bars - provide opportunities for neighbors to meet, mingle and swap the latest news of the day.

Neighborhood main streets also serve as transportation hubs, whether you are a cyclist, pedes-trian or bus rider. Since many residents still work outside Shoreline, public transportation provides a quick connection to downtown, the University of Washington, light rail and other regional destina-tions. You’ll also find safe, well-maintained bicycle routes that connect all of the main streets to each other and to the Aurora core area, as well as convenient and reliable local bus service throughout the day and throughout the city. If you live nearby, sidewalks connect these hubs of activity to the sur-rounding neighborhood, bringing a car-free lifestyle within reach for many.

NeighborhoodCENTERS

Aurora Avenue is Shoreline’s grand boulevard. It is a thriving corridor, with a variety of shops, businesses, eat-eries and entertainment, and includes clusters of some mid-rise buildings, well-designed and planned to transi-

tion to adjacent residential neighborhoods gracefully. Shoreline is recognized as a busi-ness-friendly city. Most services are available within the city, and there are many small businesses along Aurora, as well as larger employers that attract workers from throughout the region. Here and elsewhere, many Shoreline residents are able to find family-wage jobs within the City.

Housing in many of the mixed-use buildings along the boulevard is occupied by singles, couples, families, and seniors. Structures have been designed in ways that transition both visually and physically to reinforce the character of adjacent residential neighborhoods.

The improvements put in place in the early decades of the 21st century have made Aurora an attractive and energetic district that serves both local residents and people from nearby Seattle, as well as other communities in King and Snohomish counties. As a major transportation corridor, there is frequent regional rapid transit throughout the day and eve-ning. Sidewalks provide easy access for walking to transit stops, businesses, and connec-tions to adjacent neighborhoods.

Aurora has become a green boulevard, with mature trees and landscaping, public pla-zas, and green spaces. These spaces serve as gathering places for neighborhood and city-wide events throughout the year. It has state-of-the-art stormwater treatment and other sustainable features along its entire length.

As you walk down Aurora you experience a colorful mix of bustling hubs – with well-designed buildings, shops and offices – big and small – inviting restaurants, and people enjoying their balconies and patios. The boulevard is anchored by the vibrant Town Center, which is focused between 175th and 185th Street. This district is characterized by com-pact, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development highlighted by the Shoreline City Hall, the Shoreline Historical Museum, Shorewood High School, and other civic facilities. The interurban park provides open space, recreational opportunities, and serves as the city’s living room for major festivals and celebrations.

The SignatureBOULEVARD

Shoreline residents, city government and leaders care deeply about a healthy community. The city’s commitment to community health and wel-fare is reflected in the rich network of programs and organizations that provide human services throughout the city to address the needs of all its residents.

Shoreline is a safe and progressive place to live. It is known region wide for the effectiveness of its police force and for programs that encourage troubled people to pursue positive activities and provide alternative treatment for non-violent and non-habitual offenders.

A HEALTHYCommunity

In Shoreline it is believed that the best decisions are in-formed by the perspectives and talents of its residents. Com-munity involvement in planning and opportunities for input are vital to shaping the future, particularly at the neighbor-

hood scale, and its decision making processes reflect that belief. At the same time, elected leaders and city staff strive for efficiency, transparency and consistency to ensure an effective and responsive city government.

Shoreline continues to be known for its outstanding schools, parks and youth services. While chil-dren are the bridge to the future, the city also values the many seniors who are a bridge to its shared history, and redevelopment has been designed to preserve our historic sites and character. As the population ages and changes over time, the City continues to expand and improve senior services, housing choices, community gardens, and other amenities that make Shoreline such a desirable place to live.

Whether for a 5-year-old learning from volunteer naturalists about tides and sea stars at Richmond Beach or a 75-year-old learning yoga at the popular Senior Center, Shoreline is a place where people of all ages feel the city is somehow made for them. And, maybe most importantly, the people of Shore-line are committed to making the city even better for the next generation.

BETTER FOR THENext Generation

The original framework goals for the city were developed through a series of more than 300 activities held in 1996-1998. They were updated through another series of community visioning meetings and open houses in 2008-2009. These Framework Goals provide the overall policy foundation for the Comprehensive Plan

and support the City Council’s vision. When implemented, the Framework Goals are intended to preserve the best qualities of Shoreline’s neighborhoods today and protect the City’s future. To achieve balance in the City’s development the Framework Goals must be viewed as a whole and not one pursued to the exclusion of others.

Shoreline is committed to being a sustainable city in all respects.

FG 1: Continue to support exceptional schools and opportunities for lifelong learning.

FG 2: Provide high quality public services, utilities, and infrastructure that accommodate anticipated levels of growth, protect public health and safety, and enhance the quality of life.

FG 3: Support the provision of human services to meet community needs.

FG 4: Provide a variety of gathering places, parks, and recreational opportunities for all ages and expand them to be consistent with population changes.

FG 5: Encourage an emphasis on arts, culture and history throughout the community.

FG 6: Make decisions that value Shoreline’s social, economic, and cultural diversity.

FG 7: Conserve and protect our environment and natural resources, and encourage restora-tion, environmental education and stewardship.

FG 8: Apply innovative and environmentally sensitive development practices.

FG 9: Promote quality building, functionality, and walkability through good design and de-velopment that is compatible with the surrounding area.

FG 10: Respect neighborhood character and engage the community in decisions that affect them.

FG 11: Make timely and transparent decisions that respect community input.

FG 12: Support diverse and affordable housing choices that provide for Shoreline’s popula-tion growth, including options accessible for the aging and/or developmentally dis-abled.

FG 13: Encourage a variety of transportation options that provide better connectivity within Shoreline and throughout the region.

FG 14: Designate specific areas for high density development, especially along major trans-portation corridors.

FG 15: Create a business friendly environment that supports small and local businesses, at-tracts large businesses to serve the community and expand our jobs and tax base, and encourages innovation and creative partnerships.

FG 16: Encourage local neighborhood retail and services distributed throughout the city.

FG 17: Strengthen partnerships with schools, non-governmental organizations, volunteers, public agencies and the business community.

FG 18: Encourage Master Planning at Fircrest School that protects residents and encourages energy and design innovation for sustainable future development.

Adopted 2009

Framework GOALS

MISSION Fulfilling the community’s vision through highly valued public services.

Integrity: Act with honesty, openness, and accountability.

Teamwork: Accomplish goals, resolve issues through quality communication and collaboration.

Respect: Listen, value others, and treat everyone with fairness and dignity.

Innovation: Learn from experience, explore new ideas, and implement creative solutions.

Sustainability: Exemplify and encourage sustainable practices in our organization andcommunity.

VALUES

Delivery of Public Services: Continue to make Shoreline a desirable place to live and invest by providing public services that are valued by our community.

Organizational Strength: Enhance the effectiveness of our organization through development of employee skills and knowledge.

Fiscal Sustainability: Secure and sustain long-term financial sustainability to ensure delivery of public services to ourcommunity.

Achieve Council Goals: Complete action steps included in the adopted City Council Goals.

ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS

Shoreline is a thriving, friendly city where people of all ages, cultures, and

economic backgrounds love to live, work ,and play, and most of all, call home. VISION

SHORELINE: IN FORWARD MOTION

035

City of Shoreline Organizational Goals & Action Steps

3 – 5 Years

1. Delivery of Public Services: Continue to make Shoreline a desirable place to live and invest by providing public services that are valued by our community. Establish an organizational standard for process documentation and a strategy to

document key organizational processes Develop a framework for process review and improvement and integrate into the

organizational culture Make strategic technology investments that enhance our ability to deliver public

services Establish key performance indicators used to evaluate effectiveness and guide

resource allocation decisions 2. Organizational Strength: Enhance the effectiveness of our organization through

development of employee skills and knowledge. Provide development opportunities for supervisors, managers and directors that

align with key supervisor competencies Refine the City’s performance evaluation system to include a focus on

responsibilities and feedback related to service delivery Align employee development plans to meet long-term organizational needs and

support these training opportunities

2. Fiscal Sustainability: Secure and sustain long-term financial sustainability to ensure delivery of public services to our community. Engage key stakeholders to advance the seven key strategies adopted in the 10

Year Financial Sustainability Plan Explore biennial budget and performance based budget implementation

4. Achieve Council Goals: Complete action steps included in the adopted City Council

Goals. Establish city-wide workplans that identify project manager, timelines, and cross-

functional work teams needed to accomplish Council Goal action steps

Memorandum

DATE: February 19, 2016 TO: City Council FROM: Sara Lane, Administrative Services Director RE: 10 Year Financial Sustainability Plan Strategies Update CC: Debbie Tarry, City Manager John Norris, Assistant City Manager Background The 10 Year Financial Sustainability Model (10 YFSM) presented to Council in 2014 identified potential gaps in revenues and expenditures beginning in 2018. The 10 Year Financial Sustainability Plan (10 YFSP) accepted by Council on June 16, 2014 (Attachment A) prioritized seven target strategies to reduce projected future revenue and expenditure gaps. The June 16, 2014 staff report on the 10 YFSP can be found at the following link: http://www.shorelinewa.gov/home/showdocument?id=19755, and an update to the 10 YFSP can be found on pp. 53-56 of the 2016 Proposed Budget book (available at the following link: http://www.shorelinewa.gov/home/showdocument?id=22237). Council Goal No. 1, Action Step No. 3 is to implement the 10 YFSP. The City continues to be engaged in achieving the first three targets in the 10 YSFP: economic development, reducing the expenditure growth rate, and increasing investment returns. This has occurred by adding 7,154 square feet of new retail space in 2015, increasing the multi-family unit count by 97 in 2014 and 132 in 2015, and researching ways to increase investment returns by 100 basis points (1%). Attachment B to this memo provides a chart with additional residential development that is under permit review or construction, and includes the number of affordable housing units in these developments. Beginning in 2015 staff became engaged in achieving the fourth target (evaluate possible fee and cost recovery rate increases) as the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department conducted a study to evaluate cost recovery percentages for an appropriate combination of fee-based programs with targeted implementation beginning with the 2016 budget. The Planning and Community Development Department is also conducting a study to evaluate cost recovery for development permits. The operating budget 10-year forecast chart (Chart 1 below) from the 10 YFSM shows these efforts have resulted in a delay in the projected gap from 2018 until 2019. However, potential future gaps are still projected to occur beginning in 2019 with a cumulative size totaling $21.087 million over the 10-year forecast period.

http://www.shorelinewa.gov/home/showdocument?id=19755


As discussed during the 2016 budget deliberations and as shown in chart 2 below, implementing the three remaining strategies could eliminate the potential budget gaps projected to occur in 2019 through 2021 and reduce the cumulative size by a total of $14.184 million.

The 2016 budget provides support to explore these final strategies and staff believes that the Council’s Strategic Planning Workshop would be a good forum to continue discussion on the work plan for each.

Chart 1

Chart 2

2

10 YFSP Target 5: Increasing Transportation Benefit District Vehicle License Fee to replace General Fund support of the Roads Capital Fund An increase to the vehicle license fee was first discussed with the 10 YFSP Subcommittee at its January 28, 2014 meeting (the subcommittee staff report is available at the following link: http://cityofshoreline.com/home/showdocument?id=16962) and with the City Council during the 10 YFSP Update provided on February 24, 2014 (staff report available at the following link: http://cityofshoreline.com/home/showdocument?id=16968). This option was noted as a way the City could replace the transfer from the General Fund to the Roads Capital Fund that supports the Annual Sidewalk Maintenance program and staffing allocated to the Roads Capital Fund, which are projected to total $2.387 million over the 10-year forecast period. Changes to the State’s Transportation Benefit District laws in 2015 allow the City to administratively increase its vehicle license fee an additional $20 at this time. An increase of the vehicle license fee was discussed during the 2016 budget deliberations for the purpose of addressing the underfunding of the Annual Sidewalk Maintenance program. An increase to the vehicle license fee of approximately $6 would provide a dedicated revenue source to replace the General Fund’s support of the Roads Capital Fund and leave $14 of capacity for Council to dedicate to such a program. The Transportation Benefit Vehicle License Fee Memorandum (Attachment C) further discusses the background of the Transportation Benefit District, vehicle license fees, and the level of sidewalk construction that an increase to the vehicle license fee could support. Chart 3 below shows this revenue source as being dedicated to replacing the General Fund’s support of the Roads Capital Fund beginning in 2017 and doing so could reduce the cumulative size of potential budget gaps by a total of $1.851 million over the 10-year forecast period. Should Council decide not to achieve this target another dedicated revenue source will have to be identified to have any positive reduction in potential budget gaps.

Chart 3

3

http://cityofshoreline.com/home/showdocument?id=16962


10 YFSP Target 6: Business and Occupation Tax Work Plan Exploring the implementation of a Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax was first discussed with the 10 YFSP Subcommittee at its January 28, 2014 subcommittee meeting. The subcommittee staff report for this discussion is available at the following link: http://cityofshoreline.com/home/showdocument?id=16962. This option was also discussed with the City Council on February 24, 2014 (staff report available at the following link: http://cityofshoreline.com/home/showdocument?id=16968). A B&O Tax is a tax on gross business receipts with a maximum rate of 0.2%. B&O Taxes can be set based on the class of business (retail, wholesale, etc.) and can be used for any governmental purpose. As of 2014, approximately 14% of Washington’s cities (34) impose this tax, with the majority found in the Puget Sound area. Subject to referendum, the City Council can pass an ordinance implementing a B&O Tax. The 2014 Citizen Satisfaction Survey indicated over 54% of respondents would support exploring a B&O Tax. The 10 YFSP directs staff to engage the business community in a discussion regarding the possible future implementation of a B&O Tax. Staff is planning to engage the business community in this discussion in 2016 and a draft work plan for Council discussion is included as Attachment D. In 2009, the Citizen’s Advisory Committee estimated that a 0.1% B&O Tax would generate approximately $460,000 per year. Based on sales tax data available to the City, staff estimates that a 0.1% B&O tax would generate approximately $738,000 beginning in 2018. Chart 4 below shows achieving this target, with implementation of the B&O Tax in 2018, could eliminate the potential budget gap projected to occur in 2019, and could reduce the cumulative size of potential budget gaps by a total of $6.616 million over the 10-year forecast period.

Chart 4

4



10 YFSP Target 7: 2016 Property Tax Levy Lid Lift Prior to 2011, growth of the City’s property tax levy was restricted to 1% annually plus new construction. The original Levy Lid Lift was adopted by Shoreline’s voters in 2010 to be in effect for six years (2011 – 2016). It increased the property tax levy rate and allowed future levies to grow based on the June-to-June percentage change in the CPI-U for Seattle, Tacoma and Bremerton (annual escalator) plus new construction. Setting the rate at $1.48 per $1,000 AV in 2011 generated $2.272 million in additional property tax revenues and was expected to generate an additional $3.079 million by 2016. Unfortunately, Shoreline shared the hardships of the recession with the rest of the nation and its assessed valuation (AV) temporarily declined in 2012, essentially “ratcheting down” property tax revenue in 2013. As a result, collections will be $1.980 million less than the original projection, but will still exceed cumulative projections without the Levy Lid Lift by nearly $13.966 million (See Chart 5). The rate was expected to drop to $1.28 by 2016; however, it only dropped to $1.33 (See Chart 6). If the Levy Lid Lift is not renewed, the levy rate is expected to fall to $1.30 in 2017.

The Citizen Satisfaction Survey indicated over 60% of respondents would support a renewal of the Levy Lid Lift as a strategy for increasing revenue. Property Tax Levy Lid Lift Renewal Proposition Timeline The City Manager is engaging a Financial Sustainability Citizen Advisory Committee (FSCAC) that will meet on the second and fourth Thursdays in February, March, April and May to provide input prior to placing a Levy Lid Lift proposition on the November 2016 ballot. Details about the FSCAC’s charter and work plan are provided as Attachment E. Also attached for Council’s reference are the 2010 Levy Lid Lift Mailer mailed to all Shoreline residents (Attachment F) and a map of the 2010 Levy Lid Lift voting results by precinct (Attachment G). Additionally, the City Manager will utilize polling in April in order to solicit broader public opinion for use in the recommendation/decision making process. Key future Council dates include:

Chart 6

Chart 5

5

Date Item Action 2/20/16 (Strategic Planning Workshop)

City Manager’s Financial Sustainability Plan Community Engagement Overview

Discussion

4/25/16 2015 Year End and 10 Year Financial Sustainability Plan Update

Discussion

4/25/16 or 5/9/16 (Dinner Meeting)

Levy Lid Lift Polling Results Discussion

6/13/16 Financial Sustainability Plan Community Engagement Results and Options Discussion

Discussion

7/11/16 Discussion of Potential Draft Ordinance for Levy Lid Lift Renewal

Discussion

7/25/16 Discussion or Adoption of Potential Ordinance for Levy Lid Lift Renewal

Discussion or Adoption

8/1/16 Adoption of Potential Ordinance for Levy Lid Lift Renewal (Only if unable to adopt on 7/25)

Adoption (if needed)

11/8/16 General Election N/A Property Tax Levy Lid Lift Renewal Alternatives The Council may decide to seek a renewal of the Levy Lid Lift with an annual escalator alone or additionally seek to reset the 2017 levy rate to a specific rate. The impacts of the four Levy Lid Lift Alternatives are summarized below. The table displays the expected annual levy and levy rate, and Chart 7 displays the expected impact on the average homeowner for the same period.

Total Annual Levy 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Without Levy Lid Lift 11,073,433 11,243,491 11,408,409 11,550,266 11,711,478 11,875,756 With Levy Lid Lift; CPI-U Incr. 11,227,066 11,560,586 11,888,871 12,198,938 12,523,132 12,859,172 With Levy Lid Lift; Reset 2017 to $1.48; CPI-U Incr.

12,508,309 12,900,844 13,267,615 13,616,329 13,978,501 14,353,916

With Levy Lid Lift; Reset 2017 to $1.60; CPI-U Incr.

13,522,496 13,945,255 14,341,771 14,720,371 15,111,908 15,517,762

Annual Mill Levy 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Without Levy Lid Lift 1.30263 1.27331 1.24523 1.20818 1.17591 1.14629 With Levy Lid Lift; CPI-U Incr. 1.32071 1.30922 1.29767 1.27603 1.25741 1.24122 With Levy Lid Lift; Reset 2017 to $1.48; CPI-U Incr.

1.48000 1.46948 1.45651 1.43247 1.41157 1.39339

With Levy Lid Lift; Reset 2017 to $1.60; CPI-U Incr.

1.60000 1.58844 1.57443 1.54862 1.52602 1.50637

$3,516

$3,516

$3,516

$3,516

$1,044

$625

$172

Impact on Homeowners of Levy Lid Lift Renewal Alternatives (6-year Total)

Base Amount of Property Tax Paid to City Difference Paid to City

$3,516

$3,688

$4,141 3. Renewal w/ Annual Increases and Levy Rate Set at $1.48 in 2017

1. No Renewal of Levy Lid Lift

2. Renewal w/ Annual Increases Limited to CPI-U

Total Paid to City

4. Renewal w/ Annual Increases and Levy Rate Set at $1.60 in 2017 $4,476

Chart 7

6

Alternative 1: No Renewal of Levy Lid Lift If the Levy Lid Lift is not renewed in 2017 and returns to the statutory 1% plus new construction, the City will generate approximately $68.863 million in property tax revenue over the 6 year period of 2017 through 2022. The estimated impact to the average homeowner will be $3,516 in property taxes paid to the City.

Estimated impact to the average homeowner if the Levy Lid Lift is not renewed

Assessed Per $1,000 Levy City Year Value (AV/$1,000) Rate Assessment 2016 $425,800 $426 X $1.33 = $567 2017 $439,100 $439 X $1.30 = $572 2018 $453,700 $454 X $1.27 = $578 2019 $468,600 $469 X $1.25 = $584 2020 $487,000 $487 X $1.21 = $588 2021 $505,400 $505 X $1.18 = $594 2022 $523,700 $524 X $1.15 = $600

Total over 6 Year Period 2017-2022 $3,516 Chart 8 below shows potential future gaps projected to occur beginning in 2019 with a cumulative size of potential budget gaps totaling $21.087 million over the 10-year forecast period.

Chart 8 Chart 8

7

Alternative 2: Renewal of the Levy Lid Lift with an Annual Escalator Alone Renewal of the Levy Lid Lift with an annual escalator will generate approximately $72.258 million in property tax revenue over the 6 year period, which would result in an additional $3.395 million than that generated by Alternative 1. The estimated impact to the average homeowner will be $3,688 in property taxes paid to the City, which is $172 more than the homeowner would pay if the Levy Lid Lift is not renewed, or an increase on average of $29 per year. In 2017, this would represent a 0.1% increase in the overall tax bill assuming all levy rates for other taxing jurisdictions remained unchanged from the 2015 tax year.

Estimated impact to the average homeowner if the Levy Lid Lift is renewed in 2017 and the levy is allowed to increases by CPI-U.

Assessed Per $1,000 Levy City Year Value (AV/$1,000) Rate Assessment Difference 2017 $439,100 $439 X $1.32 = $580 $8 2018 $453,700 $454 X $1.31 = $594 $16 2019 $468,600 $469 X $1.30 = $608 $24 2020 $487,000 $487 X $1.28 = $621 $33 2021 $505,400 $505 X $1.26 = $635 $41 2022 $523,700 $524 X $1.24 = $650 $50

Total over 6 Year Period 2017-2022 $3,688 $172 Chart 9 below shows achieving this target would increase revenues beginning in 2017 and could greatly reduce the potential budget gap projected to occur in 2019, as well as the cumulative size of potential budget gaps by a total of $7.069 million over the 10-year forecast period.

Chart 9

8

Alternative 3: Renewal of the Levy Lid Lift with an Annual Escalator and Reset of the Levy Rate to $1.48 As it Did After the Levy Lid Lift was Passed in 2010 Setting the levy rate in 2017 to $1.48 and allowing the levy to increase by the annual escalator will generate approximately $80.626 million in property tax revenue over the 6 year period, which would result in an additional $11.763 million than that generated by Alternative 1. The estimated impact to the average homeowner will be $4,141 in property taxes paid to the City, which is $625 more than the homeowner would pay if the Levy Lid Lift is not renewed, or an increase on average of $104 per year. In 2017, this would represent a 1.4% increase in the overall tax bill assuming all levy rates for other taxing jurisdictions remained unchanged from the 2015 tax year.

Estimated impact to the average homeowner if the Levy Lid Lift is renewed in 2017, the levy rate for 2017 is reset to $1.48, and the levy is allowed to increase by CPI-U.


Total over 6 Year Period 2017-2022 $4,141 $625 Chart 11 below shows achieving this target could eliminate the potential budget gaps projected to occur in 2019 through 2022 and reduce the cumulative size of potential budget gaps by a total of $16.207 million over the 10-year forecast period.

Chart 11

9

Alternative 4: Renewal of the Levy Lid Lift with an Annual Escalator and Reset the Levy Rate to $1.60 Setting the levy rate in 2017 to $1.60 and allowing the levy to increase by the annual escalator will generate approximately $87.160 million in property tax revenue over the 6 year period, which would result in an additional $18.297 million than that generated by Alternative 1. The estimated impact to the average homeowner will be $4,476 in property taxes paid to the City, which is $1,044 more than the homeowner would pay if the Levy Lid Lift is not renewed, or an increase on average of $174 per year. In 2017, this would represent a 2.3% increase in the overall tax bill assuming all levy rates for other taxing jurisdictions remained unchanged from the 2015 tax year.

Estimated impact to the average homeowner if the Levy Lid Lift is renewed in 2017, the levy rate for 2017 is reset to $1.48, and the levy is allowed to increase by CPI-U.


Total over 6 Year Period 2017-2022 $4,476 $1,044 Chart 12 below shows achieving this target could eliminate the potential budget gaps projected to occur in 2019 through 2024 and reduce the cumulative size of potential budget gaps by a total of $19.932 million over the 10-year forecast period.

Chart 12

10

Obviously the Council could reset the levy rate to any amount between $1.32 and $1.60. For each one cent ($0.01) levy rate increase, an additional $548,000 in revenue would be generated over the six year period. Resource/Financial Impact The operating budget 10-year forecast chart (Chart 1) from the 10 YFSM shows efforts to achieve the first four targets have resulted in a delay in the projected gap from 2018 until 2019. However, potential budget gaps are still projected to occur beginning in 2019 with a cumulative size totaling $21.087 million over the 10-year forecast period. Chart 2 shows that achieving all of the remaining three targets could eliminate the potential budget gaps projected to occur in 2019 through 2021 and reduce the cumulative size of potential budget gaps by a total of $14.184 million over the 10-year forecast period. With regard to the Levy Lid Lift, the Council may decide to seek a renewal with an annual escalator alone or additionally seek to set the 2017 levy rate at a specific rate. Setting the 2017 levy rate at a specific rate higher than that which is projected for 2017 can further reduce the cumulative size of potential budget gaps over the 10-year forecast period. For comparison, Attachment H provides a comparison matrix of 2015 City levies with a breakout by taxing authority. Shoreline’s total levy of $12.86231 per $1,000 AV is the 16th most expensive levy rate out of the 41 cities noted in the matrix. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council, as part of its 2016-2018 Council Goals, strongly consider including a Levy Lid Lift for 2017-2022 as a ballot measure for the November 2016 election. Attachments Attachment A: 10-Year Financial Sustainability Plan Attachment B: Chart of Residential Multi-Family Developments Attachment C: Transportation Benefit Vehicle License Fee Memorandum Attachment D: Business & Occupation Tax – Draft Work Plan Overview Attachment E: Property Tax Levy Lid Lift Renewal Work Plan Overview Attachment F: 2010 Levy Lid Lift Mailer Attachment G: 2010 Levy Lid Lift Voting Results by Precinct Map Attachment H: 2015 City Levy Comparison Matrix Attachment I: List of City Core and Quality of Life Services

11

Attachment A

10-YEAR FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY PLAN The Shoreline City Council has evaluated the City’s history of financial sustainability. Based on existing circumstances it appears that existing revenue sources may not be sufficient to maintain financial sustainability into the future. The City Council believes that Shoreline’s citizens have repeatedly emphasized that it is important to the community that the City maintain existing service levels whenever possible. In addition, the City Council states its intent to fulfill its obligations to the citizens, maintain public safety, and maintain existing City infrastructure. The City Council also intends to fulfill its regional obligations. As such, the City Council intends to emphasize the priorities identified by our citizens in Vision 2029, the community’s long-term vision for Shoreline. The City should invest in economic development necessary to improve its tax base. In its efforts to accomplish these things the City Council also needs to minimize the effects of new and existing taxes on its citizens and businesses.

A. FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY In order to preserve the City’s financial sustainability, and taking into account the obligations listed above, the City Council believes that it is necessary to establish various economic development, revenue, and expenditure targets over the 2014-2024 timeframe. These targets are listed below in priority order.

1) Achieve the development of an additional 160 units of multi-family residential housing and 7,500 square feet of retail redevelopment annually, beginning in 2014.

2) Reduce the expenditure growth rate to 0.2% below the average projected ten year growth rate and attempt to maintain existing service levels, beginning in 2015. Continue to seek out efficiencies and cost-saving strategies.

3) During 2014, research ways to increase investment returns by 100 basis points (1%) per year, and implement strategies to accomplish this.

4) During 2015, perform a study that will evaluate higher cost recovery percentages for an appropriate combination of fee based programs. The results will be reviewed, with target implementation beginning with the 2016 budget.

5) In 2014, begin to identify ways to replace the $290,000 transfer from the General Fund to the Roads Capital Fund with another dedicated source of funding.

6) In 2016 or later, engage the business community in a discussion regarding the possible future implementation of a Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax.

7) Monitor the City’s progress in relation to the Financial Sustainability Model. In 2016 or later, engage Shoreline residents in a discussion regarding the possibility of renewing the property tax levy lid lift.

The targets outlined above are over and above pre-existing revenue, growth, and expenditure assumptions for the City of Shoreline. The City intends to use this information to inform future budget processes.

B. COMMUNICATIONS

In addition to communications and public processes conducted to date, the Council directs staff to communicate the Financial Sustainability Project and Model to Shoreline’s residents through Currents articles. This discussion should include the final recommendation considered and ultimately approved by the City Council.

C. POTENTIAL SURPLUSES AND UNANTICIPATED SAVINGS

The City Council states that the City’s first priority is to ensure adequate reserves. If reserves are below policy levels then surpluses should be used to restore reserves to mandated levels. If reserves meet or exceed policy requirements the surpluses should be used to fund economic development investment in Shoreline, fund infrastructure improvements, fund other high priority one-time needs or be held to fund future deficits if they are forecast in the Financial Sustainability Model. If it appears that surpluses are sustainable on a recurring basis, the City Council will review and consider funding for new on-going operational needs.

Attachment B

2015-2016 New Multi-Family Residential Developments Development Name Units Anticipated

Affordable Units

Location Status

172 Project 200 40 172nd & Aurora Application under review

Potala 324 65 Aurora Square Application through significant review; in

receivership RLD Aurora Square 160 32 Aurora Square Initial application deemed

complete; under review

Arabella 2 107 22 North City Review on hold; awaiting revisions

Ballinger Apartments 108 22 Ballinger Issued permit; construction expected soon

Sunrise 11 60 12 Ballinger Issued permit; construction expected soon

Centerpointe 163 33 Town Center Issued permit; construction expected soon

Taboo Video Site 80 16 required 80 provided

Town Center Under construction

Ronald Commons 60 (Not in PTE) 60 provided

Town Center Under construction

Total 1,262 366

1

Attachment C

Memorandum

DATE: February 19, 2016 TO: City Council FROM: Sara Lane, Administrative Services Director RE: Transportation Benefit Vehicle License Fee CC: Debbie Tarry, City Manager John Norris, Assistant City Manager Problem/Issue Statement In 2015, the Legislature authorized changes to Transportation Benefit Districts (TBDs). The changes allowed cities and districts with coextensive boundaries to eliminate the separate entity status given to a TBD and for the city to assume the rights, powers, functions, and obligations of the TBD. Moreover, the changes allowed for a councilmanic increase in the vehicle license fee. During the 2016 Budget process, an increase of the vehicle license fee was discussed for the purpose of addressing the underfunding of the Annual Sidewalk Maintenance program and/or for the installation of new sidewalk facilities. Staff believes that the Council Annual Strategic Planning Workshop would be a good forum to continue the discussion of a possible fee increase and addressing sidewalk construction and maintenance. Staff has identified four possible uses for any additional vehicle license fee revenues that are discussed in detail later in this document:

1. Replace annual General Fund support of the Roads Capital Fund as identified in Council’s approved 10 Year Financial Sustainability Plan (10YFSP) to reduce the size of potential future gaps between operating revenues and expenditures;

2. Provide additional funding to the currently underfunded Annual Sidewalk Maintenance program to address needed pedestrian safety through the repair and replacement of sidewalk, curb ramps, and gutter in compliance with ADA requirements;

3. Add additional sidewalks in accordance with the Transportation Master Plan; and 4. Backfill transporation impact fee exemptions provided to certain businesses.

Background Consistent with RCW 36.73, the Shoreline City Council created a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) in June 2009 with approval of Ordinance No. 550. With this ordinance, the Shoreline TBD was formed and a new chapter to the Shoreline Municipal Code, entitled "Transportation Benefit District" was adopted (SMC 3.60). The ordinance specifies that the boundaries for the TBD be coextensive with the City limits. When adopted, the Shoreline TBD was a quasi-municipal corporation and independent taxing district created for the sole purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding transportation improvements within the district that are in the City’s transportation plan and it is necessitated by congestion levels. The 2015 Washington State Legislature amended existing laws and added new provisions to statutes regarding Transportation Benefit Districts (TBDs). These changes allow cities and districts with coextensive boundaries to eliminate the separate entity status given to a TBD and for the city to assume the rights, powers, functions, and obligations of the TBD. On October 19, 2015, Council adopted Ordinance No. 726 which authorized the City to assume the rights, powers, functions, immunities and obligations of the Shoreline TBD. Per RCW 82.80.140(2), the City may levy a $20 per vehicle license fee. In 2015, the Legislature increased the allowable non-public voted vehicle license fee up to a $50 maximum. However, the TBD can only impose an increase in the vehicle license fee as follows:

• Increase up to $40 if there has been a $20 fee in effect for a least the last 24 months. This City levied the first $20 in 2009.

• Increase up to $50 if there has been a $40 fee in effect for a least the last 24 months.

• Increases over the above amounts, up to $100, must be voter-approved by a simple majority.

Any change to the amount of vehicle license fees collected by the City would take affect six months after approval per RCW 82.80.140(4). During the 2016 Budget process, Mayor Roberts asked staff about increasing the vehicle license fee by $5, and if the additional funds could be dedicated to additional sidewalk maintenance. At the November 16, 2015 Council meeting, Council discussed the possibility of increasing the vehicle license fee by $5, and thought more engagement with the public and further discussion about the scope of the increase was necessary before taking action. Vehicle License Fee The current funds collected from the vehicle license fee are expected to generate $780,000 in annual revenues. For the 2016-2021 CIP, these funds are allocated to the Annual Road Surface Maintenance Program.

2

If Council did adopt an increase in the vehicle license fee, for every increase of $1, approximately $39,000 in annual revenue is rasied. As seen in the Table 1 below, every additional $5 of vehicle license fee is estimated to raise $195,000 per year. Table 1

Additional Vehicle License Fee Revenue Uses Use 1: 10 Year Financial Sustainability Plan (10 YFSP) As is noted in the 10 Year Financial Sustainability Plan Strategies Update Memorandum, one of the target priorities is an increase in vehicle license fees to eliminate the annual General Fund support of the Roads Capital Fund. The Roads Capital Fund receives approximately $254,000 annually in General Fund contribution. To replace the General Fund support to the Roads Capital Fund with new vehicle license fees, the fee would have to be increased by approximately $6. Use 2: Additional Funding for Annual Sidewalk Maintenance & Repair As seen on Table 1 above, the amount of revenue collected each year depends on the potential increase in vehicle license fee. One option for the use of any potential new funds would be to use a “pay-as-you-go” model. Staff believes this option would be best used to address the underfunded Annual Sidewalk Maintenance program. If the vehicle license fee was increased the total $20 by Council, after factoring out the $254,179 in replacement of the General Fund support for the Roads Capital Fund, it would leave approximately $525,821 for additional annual sidewalk maintenance. The 2016-2021 CIP identifies that the Annual Sidewalk Maintenance program is underfunded to address needed pedestrian safety through the repair and replacement of sidewalk, curb ramps, and gutter in compliance with ADA requirements (p. 363 of the 2016 Proposed Budget and 2016-2021 Capital Improvement Plan book available at the following link: http://www.cityofshoreline.com/home/showdocument?id=22237). With implementation of the City’s Asset Management System (Cityworks) staff is performing condition assessments on these assets to help quantify the needed repairs. Similarly, staff has hired a consultant to help with the assessment of Right of Way facilities for compliance with ADA standards. This information will take some time to collect and analyze. Therefore it is unknown at this time how much sidewalk repair could be conducted annually with roughly $525,000 in additional resources.

3

http://www.cityofshoreline.com/home/showdocument?id=22237

Use 3: Add Additional Sidewalks in Support of the Transportation Master Plan New vehicle license fee revenue could be used to support the construction of additional sidewalks in support of the Transportation Master plan. This could be done either through the issuance of debt or on a “pay as you go method”. Staff recommends the use of debt issuance for new construction due to the delay associated with the “pay as you go” option. If Council chose to use a “pay as you go” option to pay for new projects, Table 2 below shows how long it would take to save for the Ashworth Avenue N project. This project will cost roughly $890,000 for five (5) one-sided blocks of sidewalk design and construction. Table 2

ASHWORTH AVENUE N - Estimated Project Cost: $890,000

Extra Vehicle License Fee Years to Collect Adequate Funds $5 4.56

$10 2.28 $15 1.52 $20 1.14

On the otherhand, Table 3 below shows the estimated debt that can be issued based on the level of the fee increase over a 10-year repayment schedule. It also shows the approximate number of blocks of sidewalk that could be constructed. Table 3

If Council were to adopt an additional $20 vehicle license fee, after factoring out the replacement of the General Fund support for the Roads Capital Fund, and not addressing any annual sidewalk maintenance, there would be enough capacity for approximately $4.3 million in debt, assuming a 10-year repayment schedule. Table 4 below shows the projects that can be addressed by raising the vehicle license fee at different levels. Recognizing Council has expressed interest in revisiting the prioritization of sidewalk projects, Table 4 uses the same prioritization developed in the Transportation Master Plan, 2016-2021 Transportation Improvement Plan and provided to Council during the Council discussion of the budget.

4

Table 4

Use 4: Backfill Transporation Impact Fee Exemption for Certain Businesses Resource/Financial Impact Increasing the vehicle license fee could generate up to $780,000 in annual revenues if it is increased by $20 per vehicle. Consistent with the 10 Year Financial Sustainability Plan, $254,000 of this revenue could be used to offset the existing general fund support of Roads Capital fund, leaving approximately $526,000 for additional funding of existing or new transportation projects, including sidewalks maintenance or construction, or the issuance of debt for transportation projects. Recommendation This is only a discussion item for the Annual Strategic Planning Workshop at this time. Ultimately, staff recommends that City Council, as part of its 2016-2018 Council Goals, strongly consider increasing the vehicle license fee.

Vehicle License Fee Increase

Project Priority

Street from toTIP

scheduleblocks Estimate Cumulative

1 Ashworth Ave N N 195th N 200th one side 2016 5 890,000 890,0002 N 195th Interurban Ashworth one side 2016 3 257,000 1,147,0003 20th Ave NW Saltwater Park NW 195th one side 2017 5 700,000 1,847,0004 1st Ave NE NE 192nd NE 195th both sides 2018 6 955,000 2,802,000

5 19th Ave NEBallinger Way/NE 195th

NE 205th one side 2019 5 330,000 3,132,000

$20 Increase*(addresses 10YFSP

priority)6 Linden Ave N N175th N 185th one side 2019 10 776,000 3,908,000

7 5th Ave NE N 175th N 185th both sides 2020 20 1,500,000 5,408,0008 N 192nd Stone Ashworth one side 2020 3 130,000 5,538,0009 3rd NW NW 189th NW 195th one side 2021 6 380,000 5,918,000

10 NW/N 195th 3rd NW Aurora one side 2021 7 1,400,000 7,318,000Note: * Elminates General Fund Support to Roads Captial Fund per the 10YFSP with approximately $6.52 increase. Remaining $13.48 dedicated to sidewalk projects

Note: # Debt issuance for full $20 possible increase for sidewalk projects. Does not include replacement of General Fund support to Roads Capital Fund.

$5 increase

$10 increase

$20 Increase#

5

Attachment D

Business and Occupation Tax – Draft Work Plan Overview

February 19, 2016

Background In 2014, the City developed a 10 Year Financial Sustainability Plan. As part of the plan Council identified several strategies to address the City’s long term structural imbalance in the City’s revenue options, given the 1% limit on property tax. Options included engaging citizens and the business community to consider the potential renewal of the Levy Lid Lift and the potential for implementing a Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax. Work Plan Beginning in the spring of 2016, staff will hire a consultant to help engage the business community in a discussion around the potential of implementing a B&O Tax. The objective for engagement is to:

1. Educate the business community on the City’s services and the long term financial sustainability of current revenue sources;

2. Measure support for potential imposition of a B&O Tax to support current service levels; and 3. Identify business interests in developing exemptions and filing threshold policies should Council

choose to implement a B&O Tax. The following are the strategies and potential timing for engaging the business community:

Strategies Strategy Description Timing Engage Community Business Organizations

Conduct informational presentations and discussions with local business organizations (Chamber; North City Business Association)

June – December 2016

Engage Key Businesses Identify key businesses and where possible, arrange individual meetings to speak with senior leadership

June – December 2016

Engage the Broader Business Community

Conduct a targeted online survey of licensed businesses

July – December 2016

1

Attachment E

Property Tax Levy Lid Lift Renewal Work Plan Overview February 19, 2016

Background The City of Shoreline, like all Cities in Washington State, is limited in the amount of property tax it can collect to growth of 1% plus the value of new construction without a vote of the people. In 2008 the City engaged a Citizen Advisory Committee on the topic of Community Priorities/Long-Range Financial Planning. That committee made recommendations that resulted in the issuance and ultimate passage of Proposition 1, authorizing a Property Tax Levy Lid Lift to reset the City’s property tax rate and to grow our levy by CPI (instead of the 1% state limit) In 2012 the City developed a 10 Year Financial Sustainability Plan. As part of the plan Council identified several strategies to address projected revenue the City’s long term structural imbalance in the City’s revenue options, given the 1% limit on property tax. Options included engaging Citizens and the Business Community to consider the potential renewal of the Levy Lid Lift and the potential for implementing a Business and Occupation tax. Following is the strategy and work plan for engaging the public around the Levy Lid Lift. The process will be primarily made up of four major actions:

1. Engage the Community 2. Engage Council 3. Engage Staff 4. The Vote

1. Engage the Community

a. Financial Sustainability Citizen Advisory Committee The Financial Sustainability Citizen Advisory Committee (FSCAC) will help with implementation of the City’s 10-Year Financial Sustainability Plan (10YFSP). The committee will complete its work with a recommendation to the City Manager on how to best provide the financial resources that will ensure the long-term delivery of basic services to the Shoreline community. One of the primary goals of the committee will be to provide input to the City Manager as the City prepares to put a measure on the ballot to renew the 2010 maintenance and operations levy for basic public safety, parks, recreation, and community services. The current levy expires in 2016 and, as part of the 10YFSP; Council recommended that the City engage residents in a discussion prior to placing the measure on the ballot. The committee will learn more about current City services and finances, and the City’s 10YFSP. It will then look at whether basic services are being met and how best to maintain the delivery of services to Shoreline residents. The committee will help evaluate alternatives including: 1) Reviewing the strategies adopted in the City’s 10 Year Financial Sustainability Plan; and 2)

1

Identifying services that should be maintained, increased, and/or reduced to meet the needs of the Shoreline community. The committee will be provided information on:

• City services; • Revenue sources available to provide services; • Other information necessary to analyze potential impacts of reducing service levels; and • Information on service delivery alternatives.

The scope of the committee will be focused on operational services, specifically excluding CIP and utilities, except where capital projects impact ongoing operations. The Committee will meet on the following dates and cover the following topics: Date Time Draft Agenda Topics 2/11/2016 6:00 – 8:30

pm Introductions (Icebreaker) Why are we here (Background/Charter) Police Service Overview Community Services Overview

2/25/2016 6:00 – 8:30 pm

Recap/Intro Parks Planning Public Works

3/10/2016 6:00 – 8:30 pm

Recap/Intro Economic Development Other Services (Support, Jail, Elections, Court) How we are funded Revenue Options

3/24/2016 6:00 – 8:30 pm

Recap/Intro 2014 Citizen Survey Overview Service Delivery Options

4/14/2016 6:00 – 8:30 pm

Recap/Intro Revenue Options Continued Draft Recommendations to CM

4/28/2016 6:00 – 8:30 pm

Recap/Intro Polling Results Impact of Survey and Polling on Draft Recommendations

5/12/2016 6:00 – 8:30 pm

Recap/Intro Finalize Recommendations to CM

5/26/2016 6:00- 8:30 pm Reserve meeting if needed *Note that a light dinner will be available from 5:30-6:00pm prior to each meeting. Meetings will begin promptly at 6 pm.

2

The members of the FSCAC are as follows: NAME LAST NAME FIRST Neighborhood OSBORN KEVIN Ballinger SHEPHERD HEIDI Briarcrest GALLUCCI LISA Echo Lake SHAYLER SUZAN Highland Terrace VIRDEH LINDSEY Highland Terrace DE COSTA ANIL Hillwood DELLINO DOMENICK Innis Arden THIELKE JOHN Richmond Beach PAHRE RICHARD Richmond Highlands GERHARD PETE Richmond Highlands SUROWIEC LISA Richmond Highlands KOGUT MEGAN Ridgecrest JACOBY DAN Ridgecrest

b. Citizen Polling – April

We will utilize polling in order to solicit statistically valid public opinion for use by the Committee, City Manager and Council in their decision making process.

c. Broad Community Outreach • Meetings/briefings with Community Organizations • Currents Articles/News Releases • Brochure mailed to Residents – time with Ballots 1st to 2nd Week of October • Pre-Adoptions Outreach Road Shows (Mar-May)

o Council of Neighborhoods & Neighborhood Associations o General Public – Library o General Public City Hall o Rotary – State of the City

• Post Adoption Factual Information Sharing (Sept/October)

3

2. Engage Council

Item

Council Action

Meeting Date

City Manager’s Financial Sustainability Plan Community Engagement Overview

Discussion 2/19/16

2015 Year End & 10 Year Financial Sustainability Plan Update

4/25/16

Levy Lid Lift Polling Results Discussion 5/9/16 Financial Sustainability Plan Community Engagement Results and Options Discussion

Discussion 6/13/16

Discussion of Draft Ordinance for Potential Levy Lid Lift Renewal

Discussion 7/11/16

Discussion or Adoption of Potential Ordinance for Levy Lid Lift Renewal

Discussion (Adoption)

7/25/16

Adoption of Potential Ordinance for Levy Lid Lift Renewal (Only if unable to adopt on 7/25)

Adoption 8/1/16

3. Engage Staff

• Review process with Leadership Team – February 2 • Overview of Process at All City Staff Meeting – April • Update at All City Staff Meeting - June • Reminder of do’s and don’ts - August 2

4. The Vote

• Submit Ordinance to County by 8/2/2016 • Write the supporting Documentation • Solicit Community Volunteers to write the Pro/Con Statements

4

Proposition 1Basic Public Safety, Parks and Recreation, and Community Services

Maintenance and Operation Levy

Preserve and maintain basic public safety, parks and recreation, and community services

Preserving Shoreline’s Quality of LifeFifteen years ago, residents incorporated Shoreline as a City so they could receive better, even exceptional, services for their tax dollar. The City of Shoreline has worked hard to implement the vision created by residents and 15 years after incorporation Shoreline families, neighborhoods and businesses have much of which to be proud.

The City’s budget aims to provide the quality services that Shoreline families, neighborhoods and businesses want and deserve. Unfortunately, the City’s ability to fund these services is facing serious challenges.

Shoreline Proposition 1If approved by voters on the November 2 ballot, Proposition 1 would set the City’s regular property tax rate below the legal limit of $1.60 at $1.48 per $1,000 assessed valuation in 2011. This proposition would maintain current police and emergency protection including neighborhood patrols and crime prevention; preserve safe parks, trails, playgrounds, playfields and the Shoreline pool; and maintain community services including senior center and youth programs.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Bellevue (2010)

Shoreline (2010)

Redmond (2009)

Average

Kirkland (2008)

Olympia (2009)

Lynnwood (2009)

Burien (2010)

97%

87%

86%

85%

80%

79%

78%

95%

Percent of Residents Rating City asExcellent or Good Place to Live

PRSRT STDUS Postage

PAIDSeattle, WA

Permit No. 248

17500 Midvale Avenue NShoreline, WA 98133-4921

Postmaster:Time-Sensitive MaterialPlease deliver October 18 - 21

If approved by voters, what would be the cost of Proposition 1 for the average Shoreline homeowner?

The average Shoreline homeowner, with an assessed home value of approximately $325,000 would pay $7.60 more per month in 2011 to maintain current levels of police and emergency protection, parks and recreation and community services. If approved, any increase in the annual levy would not exceed inflation (Seattle region Consumer Price Index (CPI-U)) for 2012-16. Economists project inflation to aver-age 2.4% over this time. The typical homeowner would pay an addi-tional average of $9.25 per month over the next six years.

How would Proposition 1 affect City property tax rates?Over the last decade, the City of Shoreline’s tax rate declined by

25%. Since assessed values increased faster than the 1% limit mandat-ed by I-747, property tax rates were reduced to comply with state law.

Proposition 1 would set the City’s regular property tax rate below the legal limit of $1.60 at $1.48 per $1,000 assessed valuation in 2011.

What about seniors on a fixed income? Senior citizens or disabled persons may qualify for tax exemptions

or tax deferrals. Contact the King County Assessor’s Office at (206) 296-3920 for information.

More information:Visit the City’s website at shorelinewa.gov or contact Management Analyst Eric Bratton at (206) 801-2217 or

[email protected].

Shoreline Schools 40%

State Schools 17%

Shoreline Fire 14%

City of Shoreline 10%

King County 10%

Library District 4%Port District 2%

EMS 2% King County Floodand Ferry 1%

Resident Property Tax AllocationsIn 2010 a typical homeowner will pay about 10% of their total property tax bill to the City of Shoreline, which is approximately $392 for City services.

ProPosition 1 FAQs

Election Day - Tuesday, Nov. 2

ECRWSSPOSTAL CUSTOMER

Attachment F

Where Will the Money Go?The proposed levy will maintain current levels of service for basic

public safety programs; fund safe, well maintained parks and facilities; and maintain community services. The levy will not fund any new ser-vices, programs or facilities.

Maintain Public Safety Programs• Neighborhood Police Patrols• Crime Prevention Programs• School Resource Officer• Police Neighborhood Centers

Keep Vital Community Services• Youth programs• Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Senior Center• Human Services• Arts and Shoreline Historical Museum

Preserve Parks & Recreation• Safe, well-maintained and accessible parks and trails• Playgrounds and playfields that meet safety standards• Shoreline pool recreation programs for youth, families and seniors

Comparative Police Costs

0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350

University Place

Shoreline

Edmonds

Burien

Federal Way

Olympia

Average

Redmond

Kirkland

Renton

Kent

Lynnwood$315

$319

$309

$292

$248

$244

$238

$228

$222

$216

$168

$135

$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80

University Place

Burien

ShorelineLynnwood

Federal Way

Edmonds

Average

Kent

Redmond

Olympia

Renton $65

$58

$57

$49

$37

$32

$28

$28

$24

$18

$17

Comparative Park Maintenance Costs

How We Got HereIn 2001 Washington voters approved

an initiative measure that limited most jurisdictions to an increase in property tax revenue of 1% percent per year, un-less a higher rate is authorized by a vote of the people. Although Shoreline voters rejected the measure, it passed statewide and now presents serious challenges to Shoreline’s ability to continue providing essential community services.

Since 2000, inflation has increased by 27% while the City’s property tax levy, ex-cluding new construction, has increased by just over 9%. As a result, funding has not kept pace for basic City services.

Realizing that the City was facing long term structural issues financially, the City Council appointed an 18 person Citizens Advisory Committee in 2008.

This Committee spent nearly fourteen months studying City financial informa-tion and challenges, including twenty public meetings and three community forums, in formulating their final recom-mendations.

The Committee concluded that while the City should continue to seek savings and efficiencies, they recommended that a levy measure be put before the voters to preserve basic services.

The current recession has had an im-pact on just about everyone including the City, but that is not the cause of the City’s long-term financial challenges. The recession resulted in a sharp drop of sales tax and development revenues. The City addressed these revenue losses with a combination of cutting costs and using the City’s “Rainy Day” reserves. The Rainy Day fund cannot bridge the long-term fi-nancial challenges.

What Happens if the Proposition Doesn’t Pass?

The City is asking voters for an increase of $.28 per $1,000 to fund basic public safety, parks and recreation and community services. If the measure does not pass, the City will be required to make significant ad-ditional cuts to balance the budget.

City Cost ReductionsThe City of Shoreline has taken aggressive steps to reduce

costs and ensure efficiency, including staff reductions and more than one million dollars in budget cuts since 2005. No cost of living raises (COLA) were paid to City employees in 2010 and none are proposed for 2011.

The City also needed to find more cost-effective ways of doing business. Implemented strategies include:

• Modified employee health benefit policy in 2003 –saving nearly $1 million.

• Multi-city agreement for jail alternatives resulting in lower annual costs – saving nearly $300,000 in 2008 alone.

• Brought street sweeping services in-house to increase frequency - saving $58,000 annually.

• Police canine unit now used on an as-needed basis - saving $100,000 annually.

• Switched from an analog to an internet based tele-phone system for City Hall - saving $100,000 annually.

• Cut 20% of City training budget - saving $60,500 annu-ally.

Another way to look at how efficient we are is to compare the number of employees we have per 1,000 population to other cities. As you can see on the graph to the right Shore-line has far fewer staff than comparable cities. Our 2.5 staff per 1,000 population compared with the average 3.4 staff results in 48 fewer employees and an annual savings of over $3.7 million.

Comparing our CostsThe City continually reviews how we compare with other

neighboring cities, especially with spending. As the chart on the right shows, Shoreline is well below the annual average of parks maintenance costs at $24 per resident.

Another area where we compare costs is public safety. The chart on the right illustrates that our police costs are low compared to other cities in the region. While public safety costs continue to rise, contracting for this service continues to provide a good value for Shoreline residents. Compared to the average, our police costs result in savings of over $4 million.

Why Now?The City has not asked for a voter approved increase in its regular

property tax levy since incorporation in 1995.

Over the past several years Shoreline has taken aggressive steps to postpone this inevitable outcome through increased efficiencies, bud-get cuts, hiring freezes, savings and new revenues.

Current resources are not adequate to sustain current services. Using a six-year projection, starting in 2011 through 2016, the City’s cumulative budget shortfall is estimated to be nearly $15 million.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Redmond

Lynnwood

Olympia

Kirkland

Kent

Renton

Auburn

Shoreline

Edmonds

University Place

Burien

Federal Way

Average

5.96

4.92

4.564.56

4.22

3.89

3.58

3.41

3.11

2.47

2.00

1.92

1.77

2.52

Employees per 1,000 population

*Excludes fire, police, utilities and special programs personnel

Where Will the Money Go?The proposed levy will maintain current levels of service for basic

public safety programs; fund safe, well maintained parks and facilities; and maintain community services. The levy will not fund any new ser-vices, programs or facilities.

Maintain Public Safety Programs• Neighborhood Police Patrols• Crime Prevention Programs• School Resource Officer• Police Neighborhood Centers

Keep Vital Community Services• Youth programs• Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Senior Center• Human Services• Arts and Shoreline Historical Museum

Preserve Parks & Recreation• Safe, well-maintained and accessible parks and trails• Playgrounds and playfields that meet safety standards• Shoreline pool recreation programs for youth, families and seniors

Comparative Police Costs

0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350

University Place

Shoreline

Edmonds

Burien

Federal Way

Olympia

Average

Redmond

Kirkland

Renton

Kent

Lynnwood$315

$319

$309

$292

$248

$244

$238

$228

$222

$216

$168

$135

$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80

University Place

Burien

ShorelineLynnwood

Federal Way

Edmonds

Average

Kent

Redmond

Olympia

Renton $65

$58

$57

$49

$37

$32

$28

$28

$24

$18

$17

Comparative Park Maintenance Costs

How We Got HereIn 2001 Washington voters approved

an initiative measure that limited most jurisdictions to an increase in property tax revenue of 1% percent per year, un-less a higher rate is authorized by a vote of the people. Although Shoreline voters rejected the measure, it passed statewide and now presents serious challenges to Shoreline’s ability to continue providing essential community services.

Since 2000, inflation has increased by 27% while the City’s property tax levy, ex-cluding new construction, has increased by just over 9%. As a result, funding has not kept pace for basic City services.

Realizing that the City was facing long term structural issues financially, the City Council appointed an 18 person Citizens Advisory Committee in 2008.

This Committee spent nearly fourteen months studying City financial informa-tion and challenges, including twenty public meetings and three community forums, in formulating their final recom-mendations.

The Committee concluded that while the City should continue to seek savings and efficiencies, they recommended that a levy measure be put before the voters to preserve basic services.

The current recession has had an im-pact on just about everyone including the City, but that is not the cause of the City’s long-term financial challenges. The recession resulted in a sharp drop of sales tax and development revenues. The City addressed these revenue losses with a combination of cutting costs and using the City’s “Rainy Day” reserves. The Rainy Day fund cannot bridge the long-term fi-nancial challenges.

What Happens if the Proposition Doesn’t Pass?

The City is asking voters for an increase of $.28 per $1,000 to fund basic public safety, parks and recreation and community services. If the measure does not pass, the City will be required to make significant ad-ditional cuts to balance the budget.

City Cost ReductionsThe City of Shoreline has taken aggressive steps to reduce

costs and ensure efficiency, including staff reductions and more than one million dollars in budget cuts since 2005. No cost of living raises (COLA) were paid to City employees in 2010 and none are proposed for 2011.

The City also needed to find more cost-effective ways of doing business. Implemented strategies include:

• Modified employee health benefit policy in 2003 –saving nearly $1 million.

• Multi-city agreement for jail alternatives resulting in lower annual costs – saving nearly $300,000 in 2008 alone.

• Brought street sweeping services in-house to increase frequency - saving $58,000 annually.

• Police canine unit now used on an as-needed basis - saving $100,000 annually.

• Switched from an analog to an internet based tele-phone system for City Hall - saving $100,000 annually.

• Cut 20% of City training budget - saving $60,500 annu-ally.

Another way to look at how efficient we are is to compare the number of employees we have per 1,000 population to other cities. As you can see on the graph to the right Shore-line has far fewer staff than comparable cities. Our 2.5 staff per 1,000 population compared with the average 3.4 staff results in 48 fewer employees and an annual savings of over $3.7 million.

Comparing our CostsThe City continually reviews how we compare with other

neighboring cities, especially with spending. As the chart on the right shows, Shoreline is well below the annual average of parks maintenance costs at $24 per resident.

Another area where we compare costs is public safety. The chart on the right illustrates that our police costs are low compared to other cities in the region. While public safety costs continue to rise, contracting for this service continues to provide a good value for Shoreline residents. Compared to the average, our police costs result in savings of over $4 million.

Why Now?The City has not asked for a voter approved increase in its regular

property tax levy since incorporation in 1995.

Over the past several years Shoreline has taken aggressive steps to postpone this inevitable outcome through increased efficiencies, bud-get cuts, hiring freezes, savings and new revenues.

Current resources are not adequate to sustain current services. Using a six-year projection, starting in 2011 through 2016, the City’s cumulative budget shortfall is estimated to be nearly $15 million.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Redmond

Lynnwood

Olympia

Kirkland

Kent

Renton

Auburn

Shoreline

Edmonds

University Place

Burien

Federal Way

Average

5.96

4.92

4.564.56

4.22

3.89

3.58

3.41

3.11

2.47

2.00

1.92

1.77

2.52

Employees per 1,000 population

*Excludes fire, police, utilities and special programs personnel

Proposition 1Basic Public Safety, Parks and Recreation, and Community Services

Maintenance and Operation Levy

Preserve and maintain basic public safety, parks and recreation, and community services

Preserving Shoreline’s Quality of LifeFifteen years ago, residents incorporated Shoreline as a City so they could receive better, even exceptional, services for their tax dollar. The City of Shoreline has worked hard to implement the vision created by residents and 15 years after incorporation Shoreline families, neighborhoods and businesses have much of which to be proud.

The City’s budget aims to provide the quality services that Shoreline families, neighborhoods and businesses want and deserve. Unfortunately, the City’s ability to fund these services is facing serious challenges.

Shoreline Proposition 1If approved by voters on the November 2 ballot, Proposition 1 would set the City’s regular property tax rate below the legal limit of $1.60 at $1.48 per $1,000 assessed valuation in 2011. This proposition would maintain current police and emergency protection including neighborhood patrols and crime prevention; preserve safe parks, trails, playgrounds, playfields and the Shoreline pool; and maintain community services including senior center and youth programs.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Bellevue (2010)

Shoreline (2010)

Redmond (2009)

Average

Kirkland (2008)

Olympia (2009)

Lynnwood (2009)

Burien (2010)

97%

87%

86%

85%

80%

79%

78%

95%

Percent of Residents Rating City asExcellent or Good Place to Live

PRSRT STDUS Postage

PAIDSeattle, WA

Permit No. 248

17500 Midvale Avenue NShoreline, WA 98133-4921

Postmaster:Time-Sensitive MaterialPlease deliver October 18 - 21

If approved by voters, what would be the cost of Proposition 1 for the average Shoreline homeowner?

The average Shoreline homeowner, with an assessed home value of approximately $325,000 would pay $7.60 more per month in 2011 to maintain current levels of police and emergency protection, parks and recreation and community services. If approved, any increase in the annual levy would not exceed inflation (Seattle region Consumer Price Index (CPI-U)) for 2012-16. Economists project inflation to aver-age 2.4% over this time. The typical homeowner would pay an addi-tional average of $9.25 per month over the next six years.

How would Proposition 1 affect City property tax rates?Over the last decade, the City of Shoreline’s tax rate declined by

25%. Since assessed values increased faster than the 1% limit mandat-ed by I-747, property tax rates were reduced to comply with state law.

Proposition 1 would set the City’s regular property tax rate below the legal limit of $1.60 at $1.48 per $1,000 assessed valuation in 2011.

What about seniors on a fixed income? Senior citizens or disabled persons may qualify for tax exemptions

or tax deferrals. Contact the King County Assessor’s Office at (206) 296-3920 for information.

More information:Visit the City’s website at shorelinewa.gov or contact Management Analyst Eric Bratton at (206) 801-2217 or

[email protected].

Shoreline Schools 40%

State Schools 17%

Shoreline Fire 14%

City of Shoreline 10%

King County 10%

Library District 4%Port District 2%

EMS 2% King County Floodand Ferry 1%

Resident Property Tax AllocationsIn 2010 a typical homeowner will pay about 10% of their total property tax bill to the City of Shoreline, which is approximately $392 for City services.

ProPosition 1 FAQs

Election Day - Tuesday, Nov. 2

ECRWSSPOSTAL CUSTOMER

City ofEdmonds

City ofMountlake

TerraceCity of Woodway

City of Lake Forest Park

City of Seattle

§̈¦5

74Yes: 191No: 117

53Yes: 261No: 208

25Yes: 136No: 111

64Yes: 189No: 125

33Yes: 118No: 85

-5Yes: 156No: 161

49Yes: 250No: 201 10

Yes: 129No: 119

7Yes: 147No: 140

-16Yes: 184No: 200

5Yes: 121No: 116

78Yes: 155No: 77

0Yes: 124No: 124

-5Yes: 124No: 129

24Yes: 181No: 157

19Yes: 93No: 74

-11Yes: 167No: 178

62Yes: 127No: 65

56Yes: 174No: 118

34Yes: 144No: 110

18Yes: 88No: 70

4Yes: 128No: 124

-8Yes: 70No: 78

10Yes: 175No: 165

6Yes: 95No: 89

48Yes: 154No: 106

58Yes: 174No: 116

37Yes: 112No: 75

53Yes: 165No: 112

19Yes: 120No: 101

26Yes: 220No: 194

56Yes: 152No: 96

33Yes: 98No: 65

59Yes: 183No: 124

58Yes: 148No: 90

13Yes: 76No: 63

50Yes: 174No: 124

92Yes: 216No: 124

33Yes: 136No: 103

34Yes: 163No: 129

4Yes: 188No: 184

23Yes: 100No: 77

-4Yes: 117No: 121

87Yes: 188No: 101

182Yes: 282No: 100

13Yes: 102No: 89

16Yes: 137No: 121

59Yes: 119No: 60

45Yes: 109No: 64

101Yes: 171No: 70

16Yes: 97No: 81

24Yes: 134No: 110

48Yes: 171No: 123

31Yes: 96No: 65

-19Yes: 97No: 116

71Yes: 169No: 98

29Yes: 185No: 156

18Yes: 129No: 111

36Yes: 149No: 113

25Yes: 164No: 139

27Yes: 119No: 92

75Yes: 210No: 135

43Yes: 98No: 55

34Yes: 155No: 121

35Yes: 122No: 87

-14Yes: 89No: 103

15Yes: 189No: 174

38Yes: 112No: 74

48Yes: 144No: 96

31Yes: 122No: 91

69Yes: 169No: 100

49Yes: 104No: 55

-12Yes: 183No: 195

55Yes: 148No: 93

40Yes: 141No: 101

22Yes: 96No: 74

99Yes: 208No: 109

28Yes: 98No: 70

30Yes: 127No: 97

51Yes: 156No: 105

39Yes: 146No: 107

-21Yes: 91No: 112

-33Yes: 102No: 135

9Yes: 110No: 101

4Yes: 102No: 98

5Yes: 103No: 98

28Yes: 105No: 77

15TH

AVE

NE

NW RCH MND

BCH RD

LIND

EN AV

E N

NE 15 5T H ST

DAY T

O N AV

E N

FREM

ONT

AVE

N

15TH

AVE

NW

N 1 65T H ST

N 19 5T H ST

MER

IDIA

N AV

E N

8TH

AVE

NW

NE 16 8T H ST

ASH

WOR

TH AV

E N

20TH

AVE

NW

N 1 85 TH ST

N 20 0T H ST

NW 1 95 TH ST15

TH AV

E NW

6TH

AVE

NW

R IC HMND

B D R

NW

5TH

AVE

NE

GREE

NWO

OD AV

E N

N E 196 TH S T

NE 17 8T H ST

20TH

AVE

NW

NW 18 0T H ST

3RD

AVE

NW

N 17 5T H ST

N E PER KI NS W Y

FREM

ONT

AVE

N

1ST

AVE

NE

NE 20 5T H ST

8TH

AVE

NW

FREM

ONT

AVE

N

5TH

AVE

NE

3RD

AVE

NW

N E 175TH ST

MER

IDIA

N AV

E N

ASHW

ORTH

AVE

N

GREE

NWO

OD AV

E N

NW 20 0T H ST

24TH

AVE NE

N 1 65 TH ST

N 1 52 ND ST

MER

IDIA

N AV

E N

15TH

AVE

NE

N 15 5T H ST

3RD

AVE

NW

NE 168TH ST

10TH

AVE

NE

MER

IDIA

N AV

E N

1ST

AVE

NE

N 2 00 T H ST

FREM

ONT

AVE

N

25 TH A VE

N E

N 1 95 TH ST

25TH

AVE

NE

N 20 0T H ST

N 175 T H ST

N 16 0T H ST

NE 1 95 TH ST

NE 1 65 TH ST

NE 1 55 TH ST

N 1 65 T H ST

NE 18 0T H ST

NE 1 45T H ST

FREM

ONT

AVE

N

N 15 5T H ST

NE 1 50 TH ST

10TH

AVE

NE

N 18 5T H ST

N 195 T H ST

NE 1 85 TH ST

NE 15 5T H ST

NW 1 75 TH ST

N 1 55 TH ST

NE 18 5T H ST

14TH

AVE

NW

N 15 5T H ST

DAYT

ON AV

E N

NE 1 45T H ST

NW RC HMND BCH RD

ASH

WO

RTH

AVE

N

25TH

AVE

NE

NW 19 6T H ST

ST LU

KE P L

NN W 1 75 TH STWEST

MINST

ER W

Y N

NW 14 5T H ST

NE 17 1ST S T

NE 18 5T H ST

N 17 5T H ST

CARLYLE HAL RD N

N 1 72 ND ST

10TH

AVE

NE

CARLY LE

HAL R D N

N 1 60 TH ST

N 1 85 TH ST

NE 1 75 TH ST

MER

IDIA

N AV

E N

NW 2 05 TH ST

N RI CH M ND BC H R D

25TH

AVE

NE

NW 1 80 TH ST

25TH

AVE

NE

5TH

AVE

NE

N 1 67 T H ST

N 185 T H ST

NW 17 5T H ST

AURO

RA

AVE

N

8TH

AVE

NW

ASHW

ORT

H AV

E N

ASHW

ORTH

AVE

N

NW INNI S

ARDEN D

DAYT

ON AV

E N

1 5T H

AVE

NW

N 1 45 TH ST

AUR

ORA

AVE

N

N INN IS ARD EN W Y

NW 1 88 TH ST

AURO

RA AV

E N

NW 1 67T H ST

N W IN N IS A R DE N W

3RD

AVE

NW

1 9TH

A VE

N E

R IDG EFIELD

RD NW

NW 1 95 TH ST

WES TMIN

STE R

WY N

NE 2 05 T H ST

N RICHMND BCH RD

BAL LINGER

WA Y NE

SPRI

NGD AL

E C T N W

10TH

AV E N W

1 inch = 900 feet

µ

Levy Lid Lift

No warranties of any sort,including accuracy,fitness, or merchantability,accompany this product.

Map FeaturesVoting Precinct

More No Votes or SameMore Yes Votes

0 990 1,980 2,970 3,960495Feet

\\paramount\data\GIS\Maps\Finance\Voting2010.mxd Last updated 12/1/2010 1:10:12 PM

City of Shoreline PropositionNo. 1 Basic Public Safety, Parks& Recreation, and CommunityServices Maintenance and

Attachment G

Attachment H 2015 City Levy Comparison

2/3/2016

City Name Total Levy% Difference with Shoreline

City Levy(Operation & Capital Bonds) School Levy County

State Schools Port Fire Levy

Hosp Levy

Libr Levy EMS Levy

Flood Levy Other

Average Property Tax per Household

Hunts Point 7.70527 -40.09% 0.31751 3.12778 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.30217 0.1386 19,710$ Yarrow 8.37033 -34.92% 0.58018 3.12778 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.402 0.30217 0.1386 12,907$ Medina 8.71902 -32.21% 0.8285 3.12778 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 13,532$ Mercer Island 8.74114 -32.04% 1.25551 2.72289 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 7,867$ Clyde Hill 8.81223 -31.49% 0.51932 3.12778 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.402 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 13,245$ Beaux Arts 9.06317 -29.54% 1.17265 3.12778 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 9,553$ Redmond 9.99156 -22.32% 1.48849 3.29918 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.402 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 0.078 5,206$ Issaquah 10.33126 -19.68% 1.27824 4.13599 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.07482 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 0.159 5,662$ Bellevue 10.37958 -19.30% 0.98085 4.13599 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.5 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 6,238$ Mountlake Terrace 10.94972 -14.87% 1.67296 4.93406 0.99845 2.27878 0.097 0.468 0.5 2,461$ Edmonds 10.99354 -14.53% 1.47162 4.93406 0.99845 2.27878 0.09901 0.097 0.468 0.5 0.146 4,339$ Kirkland 11.07399 -13.90% 1.45894 4.43669 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.402 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 0.026 4,817$ Lynnwood 11.22716 -12.71% 1.98474 4.93406 0.99845 2.27878 0.097 0.468 0.46565 2,793$ Sammamish 11.23958 -12.62% 2.0513 3.80634 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.0897 0.479 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 0.102 7,103$ Bothell 11.24001 -12.61% 1.4116 4.43669 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.21336 0.402 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 0.026 4,350$ North Bend 11.55642 -10.15% 1.62389 3.80634 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.479 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 1.77 4,623$ Woodinville 11.64248 -9.48% 1.05029 4.43669 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.97714 0.402 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 0.026 5,332$ Carnation 11.7892 -8.34% 1.26838 4.20463 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 1.07482 0.479 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 3,254$ Newcastle 11.84458 -7.91% 1.98883 4.59301 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.5 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 6,325$ Lake Forest Park 12.00348 -6.68% 1.29832 4.43669 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 1.09011 0.402 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 0.026 4,957$ Kenmore 12.06981 -6.16% 1.36465 4.43669 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 1.09011 0.402 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 0.026 4,804$ Seattle 12.27115 -4.60% 2.62352 5.38765 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.30217 0.1386 5,240$ Enumclaw 12.64389 -1.70% 1.57128 5.21297 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 1.0969 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 2,921$ Duvall 12.72424 -1.07% 1.38575 4.20463 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 1.96873 0.402 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 4,759$ Tukwila 12.84725 -0.12% 2.84188 4.59301 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.5 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 0.299 2,672$ Shoreline 12.86231 0.00% 1.66564 4.7563 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 1.67763 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 4,039$ Snqualmie 12.90674 0.35% 2.80269 3.80634 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.17152 0.479 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 1.77 5,718$ Covington 13.19156 2.56% 1.31259 6.16768 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.94855 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 3,179$ Black Diamond 13.35144 3.80% 2.42102 6.16768 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 3,632$ Burien 13.63353 6.00% 1.5905 5.38765 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 1.89264 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 3,054$ Pacific 13.68619 6.41% 1.60223 6.14079 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 1.18043 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 2,505$ Renton 13.74304 6.85% 2.83283 5.41367 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.2338 0.5 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 3,999$ SeaTac 13.92187 8.24% 3.15753 5.5016 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.5 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 2,812$ Normandy Park 13.94485 8.42% 1.43916 5.38765 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 1.89264 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 0.925 6,233$ Algona 14.18342 10.27% 1.82474 6.41551 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 1.18043 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 2,425$ Federal Way 14.19601 10.37% 1.24751 6.41551 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 1.77025 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 3,350$ Kent 14.20301 10.42% 1.57621 6.41551 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 0.94855 0.5 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 3,508$ Milton 14.43582 12.23% 1.6 6.41551 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 1.9625 - 0.1386 1 3,320$ Maple Valley 14.61542 13.63% 1.24851 6.16768 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 1.93649 0.5 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 4,312$ Auburn 14.93953 16.15% 2.08085 6.41551 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 1.18043 0.5 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 3,615$ Des Moines 14.98234 16.48% 1.65253 6.41551 1.34522 2.28514 0.18885 1.93916 0.503 0.30217 0.1386 0.425 3,446$

February 2016

Attachment I

Administrative Services Department

Core Services Quality of Life Services

FINANCE Cash Receipting

Payroll Accounts Payable Pay Taxes and Submit Shared

Revenues Grants Development Grant Administration Accounts Receivable Cash Management/Investment Financial Reporting/Annual Audit Financial Planning and Monitoring IT Telecom Management Web Development

Hardware Management Audio/Video Data Management, IT support (from GIS)

Government Access Channel

Software Mgmt. and Maintenance (IFAS)

Network Administration IT Customer Service and Response Technical Solution Analysis,

Planning PURCHASING Purchasing

Citywide Supplies

FLEET & FACILITIES

Facilities Maint. Svcs. and Cap. Proj. Mgmt.

Fleet Maintenance Services

1

February 2016

City Manager’s Office


CITY MANAGERS'S OFFICE Council Relations/Mgt

Regional Relationships and Leadership

External Agency Coordination Organizational Leadership Citizen/Customer Relations COMMUNICATIONS

Communications

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Intergovernmental Relations

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Real Estate Services Economic Development

CITY CLERK City Council - Clerk's Office Licensing

Hearing Examiner Reception Records Management

CRIMINAL JUSTICE Jail Facilities Management

Public Defense Management Municipal Court Management Jail Transport

Community Services


NEIGHBORHOODS

Support Council of Neighborhoods

Support Neighborhood Assns.

Volunteer Coordination

HUMAN SERVICES

Human Services

Ensure access to services

CRT Phone and Front Desk Intake

Customer Response Code Enforcement ROW Cleanup

EMERGENCY MGMT. Readiness for Emergency Response

Community Stakeholder Readiness

2

February 2016

Planning and Community Development


P&CD Permit Process Implement Sustainability Strategy

Code Development Plan Development Code Enforcement

Public Works Department

Core Service Quality of Life Services

GIS Geographic Information System ROW Sidewalk and curb ramp inventory

Issue ROW Permits, Inspections

TRAFFIC SERVICES Traffic Engineering

Management of Traffic Facilities

STREET OPS Street Maintenance Customer Service Response

Traffic Safety ROW - Vegetation Management Weather Event Response ENGINEERING Engineering Services

Permit Services

TRANSPORTATION

Manage and Implement Transportation Master Plan

Transportation Facility Planning

Transit Planning

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Resource Conservation Services

Environmental Services Special Projects

3

February 2016

Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services


PARK OPS Park Restroom, Shelters and Facilities Maintenance of Dog Parks

Athletic Field Maintenance Seasonal Events Maintenance of Parks, Parking Lots, Hard Surfaces and Trails

CIP Projects Support - Parks Ops PRCS ADMIN. Park Urban Forestry Recreation Guide

Parks Capital Project Coordination Communication - Marketing

Library Board Admin.

Public Art Coordination

Long Range Park Planning

Park Stewardship Coordination

SPECIAL EVENTS

Special Events

Healthy City Events

City Grants to Other Agencies

AQUATICS

Water Safety

Adult Program

Community Public Recreation Swims

Shoreline School Dist.

Rentals

Facility Operations

TEENS

Teens

Youth

Special Events - Teens

Richmond Highlands Rec. Center

GENERAL PROGRAM

Preschool Programming

Youth Programming

Adult Programming

SRC - facility operation

Facilities/Rentals

CLASS System admin.

4

February 2016

Other Departments

CITY ATTORNEY Core Services Quality of Life Services

Legal Advisory Services Civil Litigation Prosecution

HUMAN RESOURCES Core Services Quality of Life Services

On-boarding/Exiting Recruitment-Selection Benefits and Compensation Employee Relations Compliance Organizational Development

CITY COUNCIL Core Services Quality of Life Services

City Council

POLICE ADMINISTRATION Core Services Quality of Life Services

Criminal Investigations Unit Community Service Officer Patrol School Resource Officer Support Services

Front Desk Services and Assistance Traffic Enforcement Street Crimes Investigation (Special

Emphasis Team)

5

Memorandum

DATE: February 19, 2016 TO: City Council FROM: Debbie Tarry, City Manager RE: City Council Policy Issues CC: John Norris, Assistant City Manager At the Council dinner meeting on January 25, 2016, the City Council provided direction to staff regarding five policy areas that they were interested in discussing at their Strategic Planning Workshop. The topics and summary descriptions of these policy areas are provided below. Development Regulations in Station Areas Council identified two potential development regulations that they would like to discuss for the upcoming 145th Street Station Subarea Planning process. They relate to establishing front yard setbacks on 145th Street and establishing a minimum lot size in the MUR-70’ zone. Establishing Front Yard Setbacks on 145th Street as part of the 145th Street Station Subarea Plan Staff is working to determine a possible width for a setback to ensure new development along 145th Street is located outside of the future 145th Street corridor improvements. While this cannot be confirmed until Council selects a preferred option for the corridor, having a setback of 20 feet or less along 145th Street would not alter the developable area of properties from that which is currently allowed. The current setback for the MUR-45’ and MUR-70’ zones is 15 feet for properties along 185th Street (see Attachment A). If a minimum front yard setback was enacted for 145th Street, it would also be stated in the “Min. Front Yard Setback” row on Table 20.50.020(2) of the Code (Attachment A). Staff could explore the effect the setback may have on redevelopment in relation to potential zones that could be used along the 145th corridor (ex. R-6, MUR-35’, MUR-45’, and MUR-70’). This information would be used to develop a recommendation for the

Planning Commission and Council. In other words, would the City still recommend the zoning proposed in the Compact Communities and Connecting Corridors options for the 145th Street Station Subarea Plan along the 145th corridor with the confirmation of the setback? Staff is also looking longer range than the “Most Mobility for the Least Amount of ROW (Queue Jumps @ intersections)” Corridor Study option. In the future, the width of 145th Street could be increased if, for example, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lanes were desired. This information could be used to establish an even greater setback along 145th Street to ensure future development does not occur in areas identified for future roadway improvements. Issues to be discussed:

• The estimate of property needed to accommodate BRT lanes, for example, could be on the order of 20 feet in addition to the 20-25 feet needed to accommodate the “Most Mobility for the Least Amount of ROW (Queue Jumps @ intersections)” option. This would likely have a huge impact on redevelopment of those properties. The requirement for a setback really needs to be tied to public health, safety and welfare. It may be hard to justify a setback greater than 20 feet – the maximum setback required in the City. There could be legal implications of a 40-45 foot setback that would need to be resolved in order to implement a setback of this size.

• Will a future plan for 145th Street that includes BRT lanes be adopted into the TMP? If no, it will be hard to base a setback on a vision that is not yet adopted.

Establishing a Minimum Lot Size in the MUR-70’ Zone To further ensure the Council’s vision for development in the MUR-70’ zone, it may be beneficial to establish a minimum lot size. This could be achieved by adding a row to Table 20.50.020(2) – Densities and Dimensions in Mixed-Use Residential Zones – labeled “minimum lot area” in the Development Regulations for the station areas (see Attachment A). Below is a table that provides the lot size and number of units that local multi-family projects have constructed or propose to construct: Name of Apartment/Address Number of units Lot size (sq. ft.) Arabella I - 17763 15th Avenue NE 88 19,457 Polaris – 17536 12th Avenue NE 165 87,821 Malmo - 1210 N 152nd Street 129 50,530 Potala - 15560 Westminster Way N 309 89,029 Centerpointe - 17962 Midvale Avenue N 165 50,862 Staff has provided two potential minimum lot size calculations in the MUR-70’ zone. They are:

2

• 20,000 square feet based on the lot size used for Arabella 1; and • Since the minimum lot size for the R-6 zone (the zone previously attributed to

most of the now MUR-70’ parcels) was 7,200 square feet, the new minimum lot size for MUR-70’ could be based on aggregation of three 7,200 square foot lots, which would be 21,600 square feet.

Issues to be addressed:

• What should the minimum lot size be? • A large percentage of the existing lots would become nonconforming as to lot

size; is this a concern? • A minimum lot size may discourage the development of townhomes or

commercial uses. If the purpose of a minimum lot area in the MUR-70’ zone is to establish a sufficient lot size to accommodate apartments, this may not be seen as an issue. Also the minimum lot size provision could be written to apply to apartment uses only.

• A minimum lot area may slow redevelopment as property would need to be assembled in most cases to achieve the minimum lot size.

Sidewalks and Low Impact Development Most streets in Shoreline were constructed between 1945 and 1975, during a period of intensive residential development in unincorporated areas in King and Snohomish counties. Most local streets and many arterial streets were constructed without sidewalks, and the sidewalks that were constructed during that era do not comply with the City’s current sidewalk standards or with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Residents have consistently identified sidewalks as being important to safety, convenience and recreation, and have emphasized Shoreline’s potential to be a walkable community. Many parks, commercial districts, community centers and activities are within walking distance of neighborhoods. But the need for sidewalk repairs and for construction of new sidewalk exceeds the City’s current financial resources to provide them. This memo is intended to update the Council on the City’s progress in constructing sidewalks, our recent sidewalk construction cost experience and factors that influence sidewalk design and cost. It is also intended to provide information that is complementary to Attachment C to the 10 Year Financial Sustainability Plan Strategies Update Memo regarding Transportation Benefit Vehicle License Fees. Background In the September 2013 City of Shoreline Currents, staff discussed the history and challenges inherent in maintaining and repairing existing sidewalks, and in constructing new sidewalks to implement the City’s Pedestrian System Plan (included in the City’s Transportation Master Plan, or TMP). A review of the Currents article will provide information on the history of Shoreline’s pedestrian system and some factors affecting construction cost and financing.

3

http://cosweb.ci.shoreline.wa.us/uploads/attachments/cir/September_2013_Currents.pdf



As of Shoreline’s incorporation in 1995, about 54 miles of Shoreline’s 153-mile Pedestrian System Plan had been completed. By 2013, at the time of the Currents article, the City had completed about 20 additional miles of sidewalks. By the end of 2015, the City completed 4.3 more miles of sidewalks; 3.1 miles through Capital Improvement Projects and 1.2 miles through developer-constructed improvements. At this time, approximately 74.7 miles of the Pedestrian System Plan remain to be constructed.

Shoreline’s Sidewalk System – 2015

Recent Cost Experience Since 2013, the City has completed approximately 11,000 linear feet (LF) of new sidewalk as part of the Aurora project and three other sidewalk projects totaling about 4,000 LF in length. These three smaller projects constructed sidewalks that generally are 5 feet wide, with 5-foot amenity strips, except for the NE 195th Street Separated Trail project, which constructed an 8-foot wide porous concrete path. The budget for the three sidewalk projects is shown in the table below, with the total length of sidewalk constructed by each project, the amount of grant funding received, and the proportion of grant funding to the budget. Each project included removal and/or relocation of obstructions and utilities in the Right-Of-Way (ROW), tree removal and replanting, and additional landscaping. In all cases, the project budgets shown below include design, permitting, staff administration and construction costs.

To Be Completed 74.7 MIles

Completed Prior to

Incorporation 54 Miles

Completed By Private

Development 6.7 Miles

Completed With CIP Funding

17.6 Miles

Full ProjectProject/Year Budget LF Mile Cost/LF Grant Fund $ Grant Fund %

Completed New Construction Projects

Briarcrest Safe Routes to School/2014 514,668$ 1568.0 0.30 328$ $385,000 74.81%Einstein Safe Routes To School/2015 574,454$ 990.0 0.19 580$ 430,142$ 74.88%195th Separated Trail/2014-15 705,489$ 1441.0 0.27 490$ 420,050$ 59.54%

Average Cost/LF 466$

Length

4

In 2016, the City is beginning the Echo Lake Safe Routes to School project, which will provide ADA-compliant, 5-foot sidewalks, with 5-foot amenity zones, and curb and gutter, on the south side of N 195th Street between Burke Avenue N and Meridian Avenue N, a distance of approximately 615 linear feet. Because the project will also require acquisition of additional right of way near the street corners, the cost per linear foot (LF) will be about $860, for a total project cost of $530,000. This recent cost experience suggests a range of total project costs between about $330/LF and $500/LF, equating to a range of costs per “city block” between $115,500 to $175,000 (for new construction on one side of the street only), based on an average block length of about 350 feet. However, as can be seen from these few examples, project design and construction costs vary widely among what otherwise appear to be similar projects, depending on the specific project conditions. Influences on Project Cost As described in the 2013 Currents article, a number of variables influence project costs, for design and for construction. Several of these variables are directly related to the cost of the sidewalk itself:

• ADA Compliance – Both new construction and repair/replacement projects must meet ADA standards. Most often this requires replacing curb ramps at street intersections; curb ramp costs range from $5,500 each to $7,500 each. Replacing damaged or deteriorated sidewalks between the new curb ramps, to remove barriers to mobility-challenged residents can add up to $100,000 per block to street overlay projects. At signalized intersections, pedestrian signal equipment may also have to be replaced or modified, which can add approximately $10,000 to the project cost.

• Sidewalk Width – The standard City sidewalk width adjacent to single-family residences is 5 feet with a 5-foot amenity zone. For sidewalks adjacent to land uses other than single-family residential, the minimum standard is 8-foot sidewalks with 5-foot amenity zones.

• Material Selection – The standard for sidewalk is cement concrete. Sidewalk paving of asphalt concrete behind a standard curb and gutter is also feasible in some areas. It is less expensive than cement concrete but may not be well received by residents. Porous materials, such as permeable asphalt concrete and porous cement concrete allow storm water to percolate directly into the soil beneath the sidewalk (porous concrete was used on the NE 195th Separated Trail). These materials provide a benefit to the environment and help us to comply with recent surface water regulations but can cost up to twice as much as standard cement concrete.

Other variables are simply existing site conditions that also have a strong influence on overall project cost:

5

• Right of Way Acquisition – Recent projects have not required acquiring additional street right of way to accommodate new sidewalks. When necessitated by the project conditions however, it can add substantial direct and administrative costs to the project, particularly if the project is grant funded. The range of cost impacts is difficult to estimate accurately due to the specific nature of each acquisition.

• Tree Removal/Replacement - Costs for removing and replacing existing street trees can increase sidewalk construction costs from $12,000 to $20,000 per 375-foot block.

• Obstructions and Utilities in the ROW – Many objects that obstruct sidewalks must be removed, relocated or replaced to accommodate new sidewalk construction or replacement of existing sidewalks. For example, trees, retaining walls, utilities, traffic signs, mailboxes and fences.

• Other Site-Specific Conditions – Demolition of existing street pavements, deteriorated sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway approaches, work site traffic control requirements, necessary removal of existing deteriorated sidewalk, curb and gutter, paving, etc.

• Topography – Many street blocks in Shoreline are flat or have shallow slopes, but many also have steep longitudinal slopes and/or steep cross slopes; some, such as N. 175th Street have steep longitudinal slopes and steep cross slopes. Steep cross slopes frequently require excavation or filling to create space for sidewalks and may require construction of retaining walls to support the excavated or filled areas. Wall construction is a strong influence on increased design and construction costs.

• Consultants vs Staff for Project Delivery – In general, consultant fees for design and/or construction management are approximately three times as much as the cost of in-house City staff. The decision to use consultants can be based on issues such as grant funding requirements or complexity of design but often the decision is based on the availability of City staff to perform the tasks of design or inspection.

Surface Water/Low Impact Design Alternatives The City Council has expressed interest in alternative combinations of sidewalk, amenity zones and Low-Impact Development (LID) drainage designs. Such designs have been and can be constructed in Shoreline and would be both environmentally and aesthetically beneficial. An example location of this type of construction in Shoreline can be seen on Ashworth Avenue N, between N 185th Street and N 192nd Street. The Ashworth project was constructed five years ago, in 2011, and is 1,664 LF in length. The total project cost was $498,706 or about $105,000 per 350-foot block. Designing and constructing future sidewalks and street edges to LID standards will have a likely upward influence on overall project cost. It is difficult to state a reasonable range of cost increase for these facilities because the City has implemented only two designs of this kind.

6

LID alternatives include: • Rain Gardens • Engineered bio-retention cells • Bio-swales in amenity zones • Permeable/porous paving materials

For example, installation of a bio-swale, rain garden or engineered bio-retention cell instead of a typical amenity zone, protected by a traffic curb with gaps to allow street runoff to enter the swale or cell, may require more than five feet of width for meaningful function, depending on the conditions of the project site. This may, in turn, require acquisition of additional ROW to accommodate the increased width, amendment of the soils in the amenity zone or, in the case of steep slopes, small structures to retain water along the length of the swale. The methods and cost of maintenance also need to be considered in deciding if or when to use LID alternatives. Porous pavements require different and more frequent maintenance than standard cement concrete sidewalks, which typically require little to no maintenance. To properly maintain porous surfaces, specialized equipment is needed to ensure the pavement remains functionally porous (does not become clogged with dirt and moss). In the same way, to retain their function, rain gardens, bio-retention swales and similar landscaped LID alternatives require more intensive maintenance, performed by trained workers at a significantly higher cost. Feasibility and cost of LID alternatives is generally governed by:

• Topography (Flat, steep longitudinally or across the site) • Soil permeability • Location – on an arterial or local street • Coordination with on-street parking needs • Maintenance or lifecycle cost issues • Right of Way Width

Community/Senior Center – Operations and Location The Shoreline/Lake Forest Park Senior Center (Center) just celebrated its 40th anniversary in 2015. Last year the Center served 3,400 people. Fifty percent (50%) of their program participants are Shoreline residents. Lake Forest Park residents represent 8%, Seattle 23% and others 19%. The Center is a program of Sound Generations which serves as the umbrella organization for senior centers in Seattle, Sno–Valley (Carnation) and Shoreline. The Center provides a range of services and program including social, recreational, educational, wellness, fitness, counseling, transportation and nutritional services. The Center also serves as a hub for the delivery of programs such as Meals on Wheels, a daily congregate meal at lunch, coordination of the Hyde Shuttle and the Power of One volunteers in schools program. Their catalog lists 70 – 80 regularly scheduled events, activities and classes.

7

The Center has an operating budget of $546,000. It gets funding from numerous sources including fees, sales, events, dues, governmental grants and contracts and United Way/philanthropic support. In the City’s 2016 budget, Shoreline allocated $95,708, plus one-time funding of $26,000 for basic Center operations. The City of Lake Forest Park provides $11,500 in operational funding. The City of Seattle does not support the Center but rather other senior centers within Seattle. In addition, the City funds specific programs offered through Sound Generations, such as Meals on Wheels ($4,958) and Volunteer Transportation ($3,728), which operate at the Center. The total City funding for the Center and its programs in 2016 is budgeted at $131,465. Shoreline funds the Senior Center as an element of our competitive human services allocations. The $95,708 Shoreline provides for basic operations represents 27% of this particular City funding stream. In August, Bob Lohmeyer, Director of the Center, provided a presentation to the Council that stated Shoreline’s contributions to basic operations covered 37% of the costs to provide services to Shoreline residents. The balance is covered through fees for service, private contributions, special events and sales. Attachment B to this memo is a chart provided by Mr. Lohmeyer which summarizes the Center’s revenue streams over time. Other Models for Senior Services Delivery There are a variety of models for how other cities provide senior services. Like the cities of Seattle, Kenmore, Bothell, Woodinville and Lake Forest Park, Shoreline provides funding to an independently owned and operated, stand alone, senior center. Other cities operate their center and/or programs as part of their ongoing parks and recreation functions. In either model, there are special services, like Meals on Wheels or lunch programs, that Generations United provides at most all centers regardless of the operating structure. Northshore Senior Center is now an independent organization that is supported in large part with revenues from stand-alone taxing district that encompasses the Northshore School District. The table below provides a breakdown of how senior services are provided in various jurisdictions:

8

Jurisdiction Ownership Facility Relationship to Sound Generations (SG)

Shoreline Non Profit Stand Alone Program of SG Lake Forest Park Non Profit Stand Alone Program of SG Bellevue City Integrated Service Location Kirkland City Integrated Service Location Redmond City Stand Alone Service Location Woodinville District Stand Alone Service Location Kenmore District Stand Alone Service Location Bothell District Stand Alone Service Location Burien City Integrated Service Location Sea Tac City Integrated Service Location Seattle Non Profit Stand Alone Program of SG Kent City Stand Alone Service Location Renton City Stand Alone Service Location

Senior Services and PRCS In addition to the services provided by the Center in Shoreline the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department (PRCS) also provides programming for seniors in our community. In 2013, the PRCS added Active Adult trips, as well as Shoreline WALKS, programming into their mix of offerings to the community. Both have been tremendously successful. This was in addition to the existing offerings of senior-focused programming such as daytime water aerobics and senior volleyball, as well as senior rates for drop-in programming at both the Shoreline Pool and Spartan Recreation Center. In 2015, PRCS sold 1,128 passes to seniors and recorded 3,241 visits from seniors. It should also be noted that senior services are a topic that will be explored as part of the upcoming Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan underway by the City. The Council recently approved a consultant contract that, as part of the PROS Plan development, will conduct a Recreation Demand Study and a Recreation Market Analysis. The result of those studies will allow the City to make informed decisions about how best to serve our seniors. The Recreation Demand Study will provide a specific need assessment for recreation programs and services in Shoreline, including senior services. It will incorporate user feedback garnered through the City’s separate statistically valid survey, the online questionnaire and other outreach methods. It will incorporate market information from the Market Analysis (see below), and analyze best practices and areas of latent demand. This task includes a comparison of comparable cities’ recreational programs by the City. The result will be a stand-alone report designed to guide Shoreline’s recreation services. The Market Study will evaluate demographic data, recreation spending and recreation participation trends that affect the current and future recreation market in Shoreline – including for senior services. The analysis will help identify the demand for different types of programming and the spending level in Shoreline relative to the greater Seattle

9

area and the State of Washington. Along with information for broader recreation programming and services, findings from this document will provide insight and a detailed understanding of the future direction for recreation programs. Homelessness On December 14, 2015, Council held a discussion on and adopted a resolution regarding homelessness issues in Shoreline. Council also heard from Mark Puttnam, Director of All Home, King County’s strategic effort to address immediate human needs and the root causes of homelessness, to explain what King County and the All Home stakeholders are doing to address this issue. The staff report for this discussion provided data on how homelessness is effecting Shoreline and North King County, and what local service providers are doing to help address these issues. It also provided information on the affordable housing landscape and what the City is doing to incentivize and mandate affordable housing development in Shoreline. For Council’s reference, the staff report for this discussion can be found at the following link: http://cosweb.ci.shoreline.wa.us/uploads/attachments/cck/council/staffreports/2015/staffreport121415-8d.pdf. 2016 One Night Count In addition to the data provided in the December 14 staff report, on January 29, the 2016 one night count for the homeless was conducted in King County, providing more data about this prescient issue. This count found a 19% increase in homelessness over the 2015 count across King County. And as Council recalls, 2015 saw a 21% increase in homelessness over 2014. For Shoreline, while there is not jurisdiction specific data, the “North End” of King County saw a 181% increase in the unsheltered homeless count from last year (48 unsheltered individuals were identified in 2015, compared with 135 in 2016). The results of the 2016 unsheltered homeless count for all of King County can be found in Attachment D. Obviously, this 40% increase in unsheltered individuals Countywide over the last two years is a very significant increase and clearly underscores the County’s and the City of Seattle’s declarations of homeless last fall. Resolution No. 379 The resolution adopted by Council on December 14, Resolution No. 379 (Attachment C), not only expressed the Council’s support for King County’s declaration of emergency regarding homelessness in King County, but it also resolved that the City will continue to undertake the following actions:

• Promote policies and actions to address homelessness in Shoreline and King County, including continued participation in and support of the County’s All Home Strategic Plan and its goals of making homelessness rare, and if it occurs, brief and one-time only;

• Implement policies that encourage and incentivize the development of affordable housing in the City of Shoreline;

10

http://cosweb.ci.shoreline.wa.us/uploads/attachments/cck/council/staffreports/2015/staffreport121415-8d.pdf

http://cosweb.ci.shoreline.wa.us/uploads/attachments/cck/council/staffreports/2015/staffreport121415-8d.pdf

• Review City policies and Codes that may create barriers for those experiencing homelessness and the development of housing for all members of the Shoreline community;

• Support the City’s human service partner agencies; and • Call on the Washington State Legislature and the United States Government to

prioritize the funding of programs to help those experiencing homelessness and that will provide long-term solutions to address homelessness in King County as identified in the County’s November 2nd emergency declaration.

Future Actions to Explore Staff is now interested in discussing with Council what specific actions that Council is interested in exploring to continue to move these efforts forward to help ameliorate homelessness in Shoreline. As is noted on the staff recommended 2016-2018 City Council Goals and Action Steps, staff has included a recommended Action Step (Goal# 4, Action Step# 2) to:

Explore ways to reduce homelessness in Shoreline, including a review of City policies and codes that may create barriers for those experiencing homelessness

This proposed Action Step obviously aligns with the action noted in Resolution No. 379. This code review could include both a review of existing codes to see if any current regulations could be amended to make it easier to address homelessness issues (whether that be for homeless encampments, ‘decriminalizing’ homelessness, or some other regulatory change), and second, a review of other cities’ or model code language to see if the Council should add to the Code. An example of this type of review could be to explore the prohibition of discrimination base on a renter’s source of income (Section 8 or housing support dollars), which some other cities have implemented. In addition to a Code review, staff would also like to hear from Council about other types of engagement, if any, they may like the City to explore. Attachment E to this memo provides a listing from the AWC Legislative Committee on potential actions a City could take or support to help address homelessness issues. Additionally, the City could also take “programmatic” actions to help address this issue. The follow discussion questions might help guide this discussion. Discussion Questions:

• What other actions is the City Council interested in taking to address homelessness, if any, beyond reviewing the City’s Code and continuing to engage in the actions outlined in Resolution No. 379?

• Is the Council interested in advocating for more funding for services that address the root cause of homelessness (affordable housing funding, mental health and chemical dependency funding, etc.) from the Washington State Legislature and the United States Government in a different way than the City currently lobbies these governments? Would additional resources be required to enhance lobbying efforts?

11

• What specific proposals would the City be interested in supporting at the State level? Should these be included in the City’s 2017 Legislative Priorities?

• Is the Council interested in managing a City program related to near-term homelessness issues, such as managing a City owned parking lot for homeless individuals living in cars/RVs, managing City owned property for a temporary homeless encampment, managing City owned property for a semi-permanent/permanent homeless encampment, providing direct City staff assistance to homeless individuals to help them navigate the social/human service systems to receive support, etc. All of these “programmatic” actions will require additional staff resources or current staff resources will need to be reprogrammed. The latter option of course means that some current work efforts would not be able to be accomplished.

External Workforce Regulations: Paid Parental Leave, Paid Sick Leave and Minimum Wage Regulations Some Councilmembers have expressed interest in exploring paid sick leave regulations, minimum wage regulations and paid paternal leave regulations. Regionally, nationally, and internationally, there are a number of different models for each, some of which are more widely used than others. Generally, paid sick time and paid parental leave regulations are only applicable to full time employees that work around 30 or more hours per week, though ‘full time’ can be defined differently across jurisdictions. Minimum wage regulations, on the other hand, are generally applied more universally without much consideration of the number of hours an employee works. Also, Council might consider if and how different regulations might affect City employees and the City’s budget. As an example, paid sick leave regulations are often implemented in relation to regulating private businesses and presumably such a regulation would have no impact on the City, as paid sick leave is currently offered to full-time employees. Alternatively paid parental leave is not offered to City employees, and Council may want to consider if/how such policies might be implemented for City employees and their potential impacts. Locally, Seattle has implemented paid sick and safe time, minimum wage, wage theft, and fair chance employment regulations. Seattle’s experience with implementing and enforcing these regulations indicate that Shoreline may need additional full-time staff to conduct outreach and enforce regulations should they be adopted. Seattle and other local and national polices are discussed below as examples and are not meant as proposals for Council consideration or to be used explicitly as models for similar legislation. Each external workforce regulation discussed below carries its own costs and other impacts. Financial and other in-depth analyses for any specific regulation has not been conducted. And, depending on criteria and classifications (i.e. thresholds for number of employees, number of hours worked by employees, definition of full time employees, etc.) included in any external workforce regulation, and the extent to which Shoreline’s approximate 2,600 businesses may be impacted is unknown.

12

Paid Parental Leave Unlike the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and state Family Leave Act programs, which only require an employer to hold an employee's job, paid parental leave provides paid time off work to care for a child or make arrangements for the child's welfare. Generally speaking, benefits apply to full time employees who have given birth, taken in a foster child or adopted a child. Typically, funds for this paid time are subsidized by other employees (sometimes only the highest paid workers at a business) and/or by employers. In April 2015, the Seattle City Council unanimously approved legislation that allows Seattle city employees who are new parents up to four weeks of paid time off at their normal wage or salary. The benefit is available to both men and women who have worked for the city for at least six months. The policy took effect in May 2015. Similarly, the King County Council established in April 2015 a one-year pilot program giving paid parental leave to certain County employees with new children. Eligible employees will receive up to 12 weeks of 100% paid parental leave after a birth, adoption, or new placement of a foster child. Employees must first exhaust all accrued paid leave, except one week of sick leave and one week of vacation leave. The policy took effect on January 1, 2016. The pilot program will cost the county an additional $2.9 million in salaries and benefits in 2016. That estimate assumes one-to-one backfill for employees on leave. California’s paid family leave (CA-PFL) statute was passed in 2002 and took effect July 1, 2004. It is financed through a payroll tax levied on employees and was added to the pre-existing Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) program that typically provides mothers with six weeks of paid leave during or just after pregnancy. Under CA-PFL, new mothers and fathers can take up to six weeks of paid leave to bond with their child (for mothers, this is in addition to the six weeks they can take under TDI); CA-PFL leave can also be used by employees with a sick, child, spouse (or domestic partner), or parent. Paid Sick Leave Sick leave is generally time off from work that workers can use to stay home to address their health and safety needs without losing pay. Paid sick leave is a statutory requirement in many nations around the world. Currently, only three US states and four US cities have laws mandating paid sick leave. Some paid sick leave models in the US include tiers by which employers must give employees paid sick leave depending on the number of hours worked per month and the total number of employees. For example, Seattle’s paid sick and safe time leave, which took effect September 2012, includes three tiers: employees at Tier I and II businesses (businesses that have more than 4 and fewer than 50 full-time equivalents, and businesses that have at least 50 and fewer than 250 full-time equivalents, respectively) accumulate one hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours worked; employees at Tier III businesses (businesses that have 250 or more full-time equivalents) accumulate one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked.

13

Shoreline staff met with Seattle staff that developed this legislation to discuss the initial legislation and recent amendments to it adopted in December 2015. Several important points were discussed, among them were amendments aiming at bolstering enforcement capabilities of the City and penalties for businesses found in violation of the regulations. Also, Seattle staff were regularly dedicating a significant amount of time to outreach activities after continually finding that businesses in Seattle were unaware of the regulations three years after their enactment. In fact, the Seattle City Council recently allocated $1 million to fund two years’ worth of outreach regarding paid sick and safe time leave regulations. Minimum Wage Regulations The current state minimum wage is $9.47, and each year it is adjusted for inflation. A growing number of cities are examining the costs and benefits of implementing citywide laws that increase the minimum wage beyond the state requirement. Generally speaking, cities phase-in such laws over a period of years to mitigate impacts on businesses. Local minimum wage regulations allow higher-cost cities to set minimum wage rates that better correspond to higher local living costs; and allow localities in states where the legislature may be slow to address issues. As an example, Seattle’s Minimum Wage Ordinance, adopted by the Seattle City Council in June 2014, took effect on April 1, 2015. The legislation provided for an increase in the minimum wage in Seattle to $15 an hour, phased in over time:

• Small employers (businesses with fewer than 500 employees) will reach a $15 an hour minimum wage in seven years. Also established is a temporary guaranteed minimum compensation responsibility of $15 an hour to be met within the first five years, which can be achieved by combining employer-paid health care contributions, consumer-paid tips, and employer-paid wages.

• Large employers (businesses with 500 or more employees, either in Seattle or nationally) will reach $15 per hour in three years. The wages of employees who receive health care benefits will reach $15 per hour in four years.

Similarly, in November 2015, Tacoma voters approved (with 75% voter approval) a $12 per hour city minimum wage phased in over two years. The new minimum wage applies to almost all employees who work at least 80 hours per year within Tacoma city limits. It begins with an increase to $10.35 per hour on February 1, 2016. A separate ballot measure to increase the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour did not pass. Also recently, on February 1, the Washington State Senate Commerce & Labor Committee heard two proposals that would preempt cities from enacting minimum wage laws. The first proposal, SB 6087, increases the state minimum wage of $9.47. Under this bill, employers who provide medical benefits would continue to be covered under the current state minimum wage. However, the minimum wage for employers who do not offer medical benefits would increase over five years until it reaches $13 per hour on January 1, 2020. Employers would be able to take credits against the new minimum wage for tipped employees and sick leave. The proposal would not impact current minimum

14

http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6087&year=2015

wage ordinances enacted by cities, but cities would be preempted from enacting new minimum wage laws. This bill received a hearing in the Senate Commerce & Labor Committee on February 1st; however this bill did not make it out of committee by cutoff and is considered essentially dead. The second proposal, SB 6578, prohibits cities, towns, and port districts from enacting any laws or regulations related to private employer wages, hours of work, employee retention, or leave. It also voids any current local laws or regulations on these issues. This bill passed out of the Senate Commerce & Labor Committee on February 4th with a split 4-3 vote along party lines. This bill now sits in the Rules Committee and requires a majority caucus vote to move it to the floor. Staff believes the Majority Coalition Caucus is planning on pulling most bills to the floor for a vote, and this will likely follow suit. However, this is certainly not a guarantee that it would pass the Senate, and if so, it’s unlikely that the House would address the bill. Staff will continue to monitor these pieces of state legislation as they are considered in the coming weeks and months. Attachments Attachment A: Shoreline Municipal Code Table 20.50.020(2) – Densities and

Dimensions in Mixed-Use Residential Zones Attachment B: Shoreline Lake Forest Park Senior Center Primary Sources of Funding

Chart Attachment C: Shoreline City Council Resolution No. 379 Supporting King County’s

Declaration of Emergency Due to Homelessness Attachment D: Summary of 2016 Unsheltered Homeless Count in Selected Areas of

King County Attachment E: 2016 AWC Legislative Committee Issues for Consideration Regarding

Homelessness

15

http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6578&year=2015

Attachment A

Table 20.50.020(2) – Densities and Dimensions in Mixed-Use Residential Zones.

Note: Exceptions to the numerical standards in this table are noted in parentheses and described below.

STANDARDS MUR-35' MUR-45' MUR-70' (10)

Base Density: Dwelling Units/Acre

N/A N/A N/A

Min. Density 18 du/ac 48 du/ac

Min. Lot Width (2) N/A N/A N/A

EXAMPLE Min. Lot Area (2)

N/A N/A N/A

Min. Front Yard Setback (2) (3)

0 ft if located on an arterial street 10 ft on nonarterial street

15 ft if located on 185th Street 0 ft if located on an arterial street 10 ft on nonarterial street

15 ft if located on 185th Street 0 ft if located on an arterial street 10 ft on nonarterial street

Min. Rear Yard Setback (2) (4) (5)

5 ft 5 ft 5 ft

Min. Side Yard Setback (2) (4) (5)

5 ft 5 ft 5 ft

Base Height (9) 35 ft 45 ft 70 ft (11) (12)

Max. Building Coverage (2) (6)

N/A N/A N/A

Max. Hardscape (2) (6) 85% 90% 90%

Exceptions to Table 20.50.020(1) and Table 20.50.020(2):

(1) Repealed by Ord. 462.

(2) These standards may be modified to allow zero lot line developments. Setback variations apply to internal lot lines only. Overall site must comply with setbacks, building coverage and hardscape limitations; limitations for individual lots may be modified. (3) For single-family detached development exceptions to front yard setback requirements, please see SMC 20.50.070. (4) For single-family detached development exceptions to rear and side yard setbacks, please see SMC 20.50.080. (5) For developments consisting of three or more dwellings located on a single parcel, the building setback shall be 15 feet along any property line abutting R-4 or R-6 zones. Please see SMC 20.50.130. (6) The maximum building coverage shall be 35 percent and the maximum hardscape area shall be 50 percent for single-family detached development located in the R-12 zone. (7) The base density for single-family detached dwellings on a single lot that is less than 14,400 square feet shall be calculated using a whole number, without rounding up. (8) For development on R-48 lots abutting R-12, R-18, R-24, R-48, NB, CB, MB, CZ and TC-1, 2 and 3 zoned lots the maximum height allowed is 50 feet and may be increased to a maximum of 60 feet with the approval of a conditional use permit. (9) Base height for high schools in all zoning districts except R-4 is 50 feet. Base height may be exceeded by gymnasiums to 55 feet and by theater fly spaces to 72 feet. (10) Dimensional standards in the MUR-70' zone may be modified with an approved development agreement. (11) The maximum allowable height in the MUR-70' zone is 140 feet with an approved development agreement. (12) All building facades in the MUR-70' zone fronting on any street shall be stepped back a minimum of 10 feet for that portion of the building above 45 feet in height. Alternatively, a building in the MUR-70' zone may be set back 10 feet at ground level instead of providing a 10-foot step-back at 45 feet in height. MUR-70' fronting on 185th Street shall be set back an additional 10 feet to use this alternative because the current 15-foot setback is planned for street dedication and widening of 185th Street. (13) The minimum lot area may be reduced proportional to the amount of land needed for dedication of facilities to the City as defined in Chapter 20.70 SMC.

http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Shoreline/%23!/Shoreline20/Shoreline2050.html%2320.50.070



http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Shoreline/%23!/Shoreline20/Shoreline2070.html%2320.70

Attachment B – Shoreline Lake Forest Park Senior Center Primary Sources of Funding

Attaachment C

Benches 46 2 2 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 57

Parking Garages

26 2 0 25 0 0 1 0 0 0 54

Cars/Trucks 914 42 53 85 161 199 75 0 48 31 1,608

Structures 533 4 4 27 55 2 18 0 3 7 653

Under Roadways

257 2 2 8 4 1 14 0 2 0 290

Doorways 271 1 2 3 10 3 7 0 0 0 297

City Parks 24 0 3 0 0 0 9 0 30 0 66

Bushes/Undergrowth

37 60 3 9 2 30 12 0 0 0 153

Bus Stops 29 21 5 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 64

Alleys 32 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41

Walking Around

494 14 10 15 13 13 16 0 4 0 579

Other 279 8 51 72 65 6 7 132 23 0 643

TOTAL 2,942 165 135 245 315 263 160 132 110 38 4,505

Summary of the 2016 Unsheltered Homeless Count in Selected Areas of King County

SEATTLE KENT NORTH END

EAST SIDE

SW KING CO.

FEDERAL WAY

RENTON NIGHT OWL BUSES

AUBURN VASHON ISLAND

TOTAL

Men 827 21 55 55 65 25 46 109 13 9 1,225

Women 153 7 12 34 21 7 14 19 3 1 271

Gender Unknown

1,951 136 64 150 226 231 100 0 94 28 2,980

Minor (under 18)

11 1 4 6 3 0 0 4 0 0 29

TOTAL 2,942 165 135 245 315 263 160 132 110 38 4,505

19% increase 2016 4,505 people outside2015 3,772 people outside

For more information contact the Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness www.homelessinfo.org

Alison Eisinger (206) [email protected]

Sara Velkamp (616) [email protected]

Attachment D

Attachment E

Documents

SHORELINE CITY COUNCILcosweb.ci.shoreline.wa.us/uploads/attachments/cck/council/packets/… · Shoreline City Council Annual Strategic Planning Workshop . February 19-20, 2016 | Shoreline