Councilmember excused:  Ed Sterner

Staff present: David R. Hutchinson, Mayor; Karen Haines, City Administrator; John Hawley, Finance Director; Sarah Phillips, Community and Government Affairs Manager; Dennis Peterson, Police Chief; Susan Stine, City Clerk

Others present:  Five visitors

CALL TO ORDER

Mayor David Hutchinson called the study session meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.

Adoption of Agenda

There was no objection to the mayor’s suggestion that the discussion of solid waste contract policy issues become the first item on the agenda.

AGENDA ITEM/DISCUSSION

Solid Waste Contract Update

Government and Community Affairs Manager Sarah Phillips reviewed discussion items from the June 24, 2004 council study session related to the possible renegotiation of the solid waste contract.  Phillips noted that she had received questions from Cbmr. Armanini and noted that information in response to those questions has been provided.

Cmbr. Armanini noted that the recycling credit was not taken into account in the rate comparison, and she said that the bottom line is that there is no urgency to renegotiate the contract.  She expressed her interest in asking residents what they like about the city’s garbage collection and what should be changed.

Brown noted that the city’s rates under the current contract are higher when compared with other cities even after adjusting for the recycling credit. Brown also noted that Rabanco had agreed to continue the weekly organics collection for six months to allow time for the city to determine if it wishes to pursue early the contract renegotiation.  Brown said that it would be necessary to find a way to unwind the organics pilot gracefully if the council does not wish to renegotiate the contract at this time.

Armanini expressed her concern that Rabanco is anticipating renegotiation of the contract and said that this is obviously one of the drivers in the renegotiation process.

Brown said that he views the extra six months as one of the good things that was agreed to by Rabanco and not a driver of the proposed renegotiation process.

In response to a question from Cmbr. Olstad, Brown discussed issues related to automated collection and noted that the city’s physical features may be a factor.

Armanini said that a survey should include questions regarding containers, recycling, food waste, and curbside bulky collection. She added that potential rate impacts should be identified, and a section for likes and dislikes should be included.  Armanini said that if the survey indicates that there is low interest in an organics/food waste recycling option, then the city should not pursue that option. Armanini said that the city budgets for the cost of a cable consultant, and she would support spending some money on this process.

Cmbr. Goss said that she agreed with Armanini’s remarks and noted that she would like to know how many times residents use the transfer station.

Cmbr. Herzog said that he thinks that it is very advantageous for the city to consider contract renegotiation and noted that the key concept is value.  He noted that value and level of service must be considered in this process.

Herzog noted that he would like to know more about automated collection and costs related to frequency of collection for yard waste and recycling.  He said that the organics option is not a big deal since participation is optional. 

Herzog said that his understanding is that recycling is not only related to cost but more importantly an environmental choice.  He said he would like to know more about the value of recycling—does limiting the scope of recycling equal a higher rebate?

Olstad said he would like to see questionnaires that have been used by others.  Brown discussed issues related to Bellevue’s survey, and Phillips noted that the county does regular surveys.

Herzog said that it may be helpful to extract data from surveys done by other cities and noted that our residents may respond differently.

Cmbr. Kiest noted his interest in questions related to mandatory participation in garbage service, why residents choose not to participate and how they dispose of their garbage and recycling.  He said that if the city has 97 percent voluntary participation, then moving to mandatory participation would not be a big step.  He noted that mandatory participation might bring down the cost of service for all customers.

Goss expressed her concern regarding mandatory participation and noted the potential impact on residents with limited incomes.

Armanini noted that some residents might not be aware of the level of service and cost that is now available. (Approved by Council 7/22/04)

Phillips said that a Town Crier survey could be developed, and Hutchinson noted that data collected from other sources would be reviewed as well.

Confirmation Review Calendar
Planning and Building Director Nominee Stephen Bennett

City Administrator Haines said that she is pleased to present Stephen Bennett, nominee for the position of planning and building director, for council confirmation.  Haines said that the city undertook an extensive interview process, and she discussed the make-up of the interview panels.  Haines reviewed Bennett’s educational background and professional experience and noted that Bennett has indicated his willingness to accept the position if confirmed.

Bennett said that it is a great honor to be the finalist for the position of planning and building director for the city of Lake Forest Park.  He noted similarities and differences between Lake Forest Park and Normandy Park and said that he is pleased to see the project that the city has undertaken regarding the town center and looks forward to working on some exciting issues here.

In response to a question from Olstad, Bennett discussed his experience with the code enforcement process.  He noted the importance of community involvement and the importance of allocating resources for a proactive approach to enforcement.

In response to questions from Goss, Bennett said that he believes that it is very important that he is accessible to citizens.  He also noted the importance of providing good information, responding quickly with as much information as possible if there are questions, and creating a predictable schedule for issuance of permits.

In response to questions from Armanini, Bennett said that he would expect to identify deficiencies in the city’s code for council consideration. Also, he said that he would review and share his thoughts on the city’s comprehensive plan update with the Planning Commission.

In response to a hypothetical case presented by Kiest, Bennett discussed possible approaches to resolution and noted that he would confer with the city administrator and the city attorney.

WRIA 8 Presentation

Cmbr. Olstad introduced Jane Lamensdorf-Bucher, WRIA 8 Watershed Coordinator for the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed.

Lamensdorf-Bucher said that the focus of the work of the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Forum is salmon conservation and noted that Puget Sound chinook, bull trout and Puget Sound coho are listed as threatened according to the Endangered Species Act.

Lamensdorf-Bucher noted that locally habitat degradation and loss are the main causes for the threat to salmon and said that an interjurisdictional effort to response to the threat is underway.  She discussed the role of local governments and expressed her appreciation of Cmbr. Olstad’s participation on WRIA 8.  Lamensdorf-Bucher noted several grants that the city had received and a recent workshop for lakefront property owners.

Adjournment

There being no objection, the study session meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m.

Susan Stine, City Clerk

David R. Hutchinson, Mayor

|Return to the City Council Minutes page |
|Home|  |City|  |Community|  |Kiosk|  |Search|  |News|  |About This Site|