CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Monday, January 10, 2022 Held Remotely via Zoom
7:00 pm.
PRESENT: Mayor Scully, Deputy Mayor Robertson, Councilmembers McConnell, Mork, Roberts, Pobee, and Ramsdell
ABSENT: None
1. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m., the meeting was called to order by the City Clerk, Jessica Simulcik Smith.
2. ROLL CALL
Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
(a) Proclamation of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
Mayor Scully announced the proclamation of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in Shoreline.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was approved by unanimous consent.
4. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
Debbie Tarry, City Manager, provided an update on COVID-19 and reported on various City meetings, projects, and events.
Following Ms. Tarry’s report, Tina Nelson, a member of the American Public Works Association (APWA) Board of Directors and the representative for region nine, presented the City with APWA Reaccreditation. She shared details about AWPA’s history and mission and said this reaccreditation means the City of Shoreline has made the commitment to increasing efficiency, succession planning, and continuous improvement in the delivery of public works services. She thanked Council, the Mayor, and the City Manager for supporting the Public Works Department who sets a great example of service for the community, and she recognized the accreditation core members Ariana Grlj, Senior Management Analyst, Lance Newkirk, Utilities and Operations Manager, Tricia Juhnke, City Engineer, and Randy Witt, Public Works Director.
Mr. Witt said the accreditation process is a citywide effort and expressed his gratitude for City staff in being a part of this achievement.
Mayor Scully congratulated and thanked the Public Works staff for their hard work and recognized the process for accreditation is not easy notably given the Department’s challenges keeping the city running over the last few weeks with winter weather.
5. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Mork said she attended the first meeting of the Regional Water Council where the Chair and Vice Chair were elected and members moved forward on tackling wastewater and stormwater issues.
Mayor Scully said he attended the North-End Mayors Meeting where mayors spoke about their city’s developments. He then asked Councilmembers if they were willing to participate in the interview process for Planning Commission vacancies and explained the commitment would be to review applications and conduct interviews over the month of February.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Jackie Kurle, Shoreline resident, expressed hope for the Enhanced Shelter’s success and encouraged reporting from the City on Shelter operations.
Tom McCormick, Shoreline resident, spoke about Saltwater park stating that the land space is ten acres larger than what was expected at 42 acres creating a situation where the public may reach a privately owned parcel of beach just before 27th Avenue Northwest, also known as Apple Tree Lane. Mr. McCormick asked Councilmembers to acquire the parcel valued at $107,000, as a way to take a step towards fulfilling Environmental Policy 34 which calls to provide the public access to Shoreline’s natural features. He advocated that Council open as many beach access points as possible through this action.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor Robertson and seconded by Councilmember Ramsdell and unanimously carried, 7-0, the following Consent Calendar items were approved:
(a) Minutes of Special Meeting of December 7, 2021
(b) Approval of Expenses and Payroll as of December 23, 2021 in the Amount of $8,954,517.84
(c) Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Interagency Agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation Accepting a Washington State Regional Mobility Grant in the Amount of $5,000,000 for the N/NE 145th (SR 523) – Interstate 5 Interchange Project
(d) Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract with the Center for Human Services in the Amount of $108,000 for Mental Health Therapist Services for the Youth Outreach Leadership and Opportunities Program
(e) Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Purchase Order with Canon Financial Services Inc. in the Amount of $75,709.92 for a 60-Month Lease for Two Copiers
(f) Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Interlocal SeaShore Transportation Forum Agreement
9. STUDY ITEMS
(a) Discussion of Shoreline School District Ballot Proposition No. 1 – Replacement of Expiring Levy for Educational Programs and Operations and Proposition No. 2 – Replacement of Expiring Capital Levy for Technology Improvement and Support
City Manager, Debbie Tarry introduced Superintendent, Dr. Susana Reyes and Deputy Superintendent, Marla Miller, both from the Shoreline School District, to present the two levy renewals that will be on the February Special Election Ballot. Management Analyst, Christina Arcidy kicked off the presentation by explaining that Propositions 1 is for the replacement of an expiring levy for educational programs and operations and Proposition 2 is for the replacement of an expiring capital levy for technology improvements and support. She then passed the presentation on to Dr. Reyes to provide full, factual information on the propositions.
Dr. Reyes described that a school levy’s purpose is to support learning and requires a 50% plus one voter approval to pass; and a school bond’s purpose is for building and construction and requires a 60% plus one voter approval to pass. Dr. Reyes said levies provide funds for programs, services, and resources for schools outside of funding from the State, which equate to about 20% of Shoreline School District’s annual operating budget and the current levies are set to expire in December of 2022 unless they are renewed on February 8. She then provided detailed information on the educational programs and operations Proposition 1 would fund, as well as the technology improvements and support that Proposition 2 would fund. Dr. Reyes wrapped up her presentation by sharing a table depicting the levy rates, the estimated revenue they would generate, and examples on how a taxpayer can calculate their projected annual tax for both levies.
Mayor Scully thanked Dr. Reyes for her report and asked Ms. Arcidy what role Council could best serve in the ballot process for these levies. Ms. Arcidy explained that State law allows Council to take a position on such propositions and should Council wish to take a position, staff would need to prepare and present a resolution for public comment. Mayor Scully then asked if there were any questions from Council.
Councilmember Ramsdell asked for justification for the incremental increase in levy amounts to be collected between 2022 and 2023 by 1.92%, and 3.78% between 2023 and 2024 and finally 4.5% between 2024 and 2025 for Proposition 1. Ms. Miller responded that an inflation factor projected by SPI was included in the calculations as well as estimates for increased enrollment. Councilmember Ramsdell followed up with a question about Proposition 2 asking why there wasn't an incremental increase in the amount collected year to year. Ms. Miller explained that Proposition 2 replaces equipment and they’ve experienced the cost of equipment drops by the time the new versions are released so the amount presented represents what they believe is needed to replace equipment.
Councilmember Pobee asked if there was an equipment replacement reserve to avoid an entire overhaul of the District’s technology. Ms. Miller responded that if there is no technology levy, then the general fund would have to provide for the needed equipment. She expressed that the technology levy allowed them to buy and deploy devices into student homes and adapt their network infrastructure to move to remote learning during the pandemic.
Councilmember McConnell said she feels it is important for our public-school kids to stay up with technology so that they can be competitive. She recounted her son’s experience with take-home laptops from the school and said she supports the levies and bonds in the School District every four years because many people come to the City for the quality of education.
Councilmember Mork asked if levies address issues with internet connectivity and Ms. Miller answered affirmatively. Councilmember Mork said her kids are products of the schools and the reason she moved to Shoreline and that she strongly supports keeping them in the top of the nation.
Mayor Scully stated that Shoreline has several independent public agencies, and it is a team effort to make the City a great place to live. He noted the City is in a similar position needing to ask voters for additional levy funds in order to provide the level of service residents desire. He agreed that residents appreciate the schools in Shoreline and that he would like to see Council take action to support the schools.
Councilmember Robertson also expressed interested in showing Council support and she thanked both the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent for the learning experience they create for all students, especially during the pandemic.
With two Councilmembers expressing support for Council taking action on supporting the ballot propositions, Mayor Scully asked staff to prepare a presentation for consideration on January 24.
(b) Discussion of Ordinance No. 953 – Rezoning 808, 812, 820, and 826 N 145th Street from Residential 12-units Per Acre (R-12) to Neighborhood Business (NB) (PLN21-0117)
Senior Planner, Steve Szafran presented a potential rezone of four parcels currently zoned R12 to a Neighborhood Business. He said the site is located on North 145th Street and has commercial uses to the South and East along Aurora Ave and existing townhomes directly to the North with access to the Interurban Trail to the West. Mr. Szafran reviewed the ways in which the application meets the rezone decision criteria in SMC 20.30.320 (B) and concluded by stating that the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of PLN21-0117 by changing the zoning from R-12 to Neighborhood Business.
Mayor Scully explained that this rezone is a quasi-judicial action that must adhere to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. He asked Council to read the Fairness Checklist questions and disclose any ex-parte communications of which there were none.
Councilmember Ramsdell said the subject parcels felt inconsistent with the surrounding area and that he is in support of the rezone especially if it would provide much needed affordable housing and commercial activity.
Councilmember McConnell asked what kind of parking ratio the rezone would require. Mr. Szafran replied that for studio or one bedroom apartment units there must be .75 stalls per unit and for two- or three-bedroom units it's 1.5 stalls per unit. He explained that because the site is close to public transportation on Aurora Avenue, a developer could have the option of applying for parking reductions. Councilmember McConnell stated that the area could benefit from multifamily housing then asked if there may be an option for drivers to turn left instead of a right turn only. Mr. Szafran agreed that the Public Works Department would make that determination based on traffic data and would likely prefer a right turn only considering the upcoming 145th corridor project. Councilmember Ramsdell asked if it would be possible to redirect traffic on Whitman heading North and then divert onto Aurora and expressed concern over safety issues and parking adequacy. Mr. Szafran agreed on the potential safety issues with traffic getting onto Aurora, but those options are analyzed closely when there's an actual building proposal.
Councilmember Robertson agreed that a design to guide drivers out of Whitman would be great and voiced support for the rezone because it will help to increase density and add life to that end of the Interurban Trail with more commercial activity.
Councilmember Pobee asked if this type of change has taken place in the neighborhood previously. Mr. Szafran answered that much of the neighborhood has been zoned commercial designation but for some reason the subject parcel was skipped over. Councilmember Pobee then asked what matrix drives the support to say that the proposed rezoning would not adversely affect the public general welfare. Mr. Szafran responded saying that staff look at zoning interactions with existing structures and analyze uses that would be consistent.
Mayor Scully said he supports the rezone and explained that this sort of anomalous zoning is often left over from King County, and he hoped that a project proposal for the site can make things better. He asked if there were any objections for this item returning on the Consent Calendar to which Councilmember Ramsdell initially opposed hoping to see more information about the potential of strictly commercial or residential zoning and how development may look. Mayor Scully clarified that the item is a closed record and new information is not able to be added. City Attorney, Margaret King confirmed these details and explained Council should be looking at approving the zoning only. With the clarification, there was consensus among Council to have the item return on Consent.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At 8:15 p.m., Mayor Scully declared the meeting adjourned.
/s/ Jessica Simulcik Smith, City Clerk