CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 11, 2016 Conference Room 104 - Shoreline City Hall
5:45 p.m. 17500 Midvale Avenue North
PRESENT: Mayor Roberts, Deputy Mayor Winstead, Councilmembers McGlashan, Scully, Hall, McConnell, and Salomon (arrived at 5:51 p.m.)
ABSENT: None
STAFF: Debbie Tarry, City Manager; John Norris, Assistant City Manager; Jessica Simulcik Smith, City Clerk; and Bonita Roznos, Deputy City Clerk
GUESTS: None
At 5:45p.m., the meeting was called to order by Mayor Roberts.
The following Council Operational Items were discussed by Councilmembers:
Communication Protocol between Councilmembers and the City Manager
There was consensus among Councilmembers to continue with the existing Communication Protocol of having all written communication submitted to the City Manager for appropriate distribution, and to copy the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and the City Manager Office Executive Assistance on emails that Councilmembers send directly to staff. For verbal communication via the telephone, Councilmembers will continue to speak directly to the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, or Department Directors.
Executive Session Notification Protocol
There was consensus among Councilmember to continue with the existing protocol of listing the relevant Revised Code of Washington (RCW) for Executive Sessions on the Agenda and Meeting notifications.
Potential Council Rules of Procedure Amendment Relating to Public Comment
There was consensus among Councilmembers to amend the following Council Rules of Procedure as follows:
· Rule Section 5.3(A)(5) be changed to read “Public Comment, as set forth in Section 6.1(A).” Other Public Comment (which is set forth in Section 6.1(B), when the comment follows the staff presentation for first time action items, or in Section 6.7, which covers public hearings) would be out of order from the business meeting order outlined in Rule 5.3(A)(5).
· Rule Section 6.1 be called out with a header, given its significant nature with regard to Public Comment, and re-ordering it so that it is the second sub-section (Section 6.2) after the Business Meeting section and renaming all mentions of “Business Meeting” in the rules to “Regular Meeting”.
· Rule Section 6.1(A) "During election season..." be moved to 6.3 since both lines are restrictions on topics acceptable for public comment.
· Rule Section 2.3(E) and (F) to discontinue listing the boards and committees that Councilmembers are appointed to by the Mayor, and to remove the 5-day waiting period requirement for Ad hoc City Council Subcommittees mayoral appointments.
Mayor Roberts asked Councilmembers their thoughts about him continuing with the “On the Mayor’s Mind” Blog, and “Coffee with the Mayor” Quarterly Forum. Councilmembers agreed that the Mayor should continue these efforts because they serve to inform and address issues of the Community. They noted that they should be done in accordance with Council Rule Section 9 - Council Representation, and adhere to the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission regulations.
Mayor Roberts asked if Councilmembers would like to rotate the Flag Salute and Proclamation Presentations at the City Council Meetings. There was consensus among Councilmembers to keep the same format, but accommodate special Proclamation requests and photograph opportunities with the Council as appropriate.
Mr. Norris commented that the changes, as discussed by Councilmembers, will be updated, presented in the form of a Resolution, and placed on the Consent Calendar for Council adoption.
Sign Code – Temporary Right of Way Signs
Councilmembers discussed the misuse of temporary Right of Ways Signs and potential code enforcement actions. Mr. Norris commented that review of the Code is needed to ensure that it is congruent with Federal Law. Ms. Tarry shared a current Federal Court Case regarding signage in right of ways and advised that this item be placed on the Planning Commission’s Workplan. There was a consensus among Councilmembers to place the item on the Planning Commission’s and the City’s Workplans.
Year at a Glance
Mr. Norris presented the Year at a Glance Calendar. Ms. Tarry pointed out that the Washington D.C. Lobby trip has been moved from February to May. Deputy Mayor Winstead asked for the Celebrate Shoreline Date and Ms. Tarry responded that it is schedule for August 20, 2016. Councilmembers asked that the Calendar be updated to reflect the dates and Mr. Norris responded that the Calendar would be updated to include the dates and distributed at the Council Strategic Planning Workshop.
Councilmember Hall announced that his day job is changing and said he will no longer have responsibilities regarding land use and permitting, and therefore, should no longer have a conflict of interest with City of Shoreline business relating to Point Wells.
Mayor Roberts reminded Councilmembers of the Joint City Council Special Meeting with Bothell, Kenmore, and Lake Forest Park on Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 6:30p.m. at Kenmore City Hall, to discuss Sound Transit 3.
At 6:45 p.m. the meeting was adjourned.
/S/ Bonita Roznos, Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING
Monday, January 11, 2016 Council Chambers - Shoreline City Hall
7:00 p.m. 17500 Midvale Avenue North
PRESENT: Mayor Roberts, Deputy Mayor Winstead,
Councilmembers McGlashan, Scully, Hall, McConnell, and Salomon
ABSENT: None
1. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m., the meeting was called to order by Mayor Roberts who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Roberts led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
(a) Proclamation of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
Mayor Roberts read a proclamation declaring January 18, 2016 as Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in the City of Shoreline. Pearl Lam and Justin Doyle, Shoreline Youth Ambassadors from the Shoreline Youth and Team Development Program, accepted the proclamation. Ms. Lam and Mr. Doyle provided remarks about Dr. King’s life and inspirational message of peace. They spoke on the significance of advancing social justice, non-discrimination, love, and peace.
Jemimah Okantey, Co-Advisor, Shoreline Youth Ambassadors, shared that the Youth Ambassador Program develops leaders and provides them an opportunity to be active in the Community. She then listed student volunteer activities.
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
Debbie Tarry, City Manager, provided reports and updates on various City meetings, projects and events.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
There were no Council Reports.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Brad Lancaster, Shoreline resident, commented that homelessness is a complex problem and asked if it is too complex for Shoreline to do something about. He presented challenges the homeless face, and said Shoreline needs modest goals with realistic outcomes. He recommended making a place for people to live in tents for periods longer than three months, allowing the building of small houses, and utilizing City surplus property and small portions of City parks for the homeless. He said neighbors with empty bedrooms can be encouraged to welcome people into homes. He asked the City to serve as a partner to work with citizens and organizations that want to help.
Megan Kogut, Shoreline resident, commented that the Transportation Impact Fee (TIP) assessed to her business would have been $34,000 or $17,000 based on the building space they selected. She explained that the TIP will affect small businesses ability to locate in Shoreline which will affect the City’s vision of what it wants to become. She shared that other cities have made exemptions and asked the Council to consider a small business exemption.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was approved by unanimous consent.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor Winstead and seconded by Councilmember Hall and unanimously carried, 7-0, the following Consent Calendar items were approved:
(a) Minutes of Business Meeting of November 23, 2015
(b) Approval of expenses and payroll as of December 24, 2015 in the amount of
$5,085,030.17
|
*Payroll and Benefits: |
||||||
|
Payroll Period |
Payment Date |
EFT Numbers (EF) |
Payroll Checks (PR) |
Benefit Checks (AP) |
Amount Paid |
|
|
11/8/15-11/21/15 |
11/27/2015 |
63953-64158 |
14158-14178 |
61912-61919 |
$609,969.92 |
|
|
11/22/15-12/5/15 |
12/11/2015 |
64159-64357 |
14179-14197 |
62032-62037 |
$461,831.48 |
|
|
Prior period check cancelled/replaced |
14198/13884 |
$0.00 |
||||
|
Prior period check cancelled/replaced |
14199/14076 |
$0.00 |
||||
|
Prior period check cancelled/replaced |
14200/13776 |
$0.00 |
||||
|
12/6/15-12/19/15 |
12/24/2015 |
64358-64557 |
14201-14217 |
62041-62048 |
$608,685.42 |
|
|
$1,680,486.82 |
||||||
|
*Wire Transfers: |
||||||
|
Expense Register Dated |
Wire Transfer Number |
|
Amount Paid |
|||
|
11/30/2015 |
1102 |
$7,497.61 |
||||
|
$7,497.61 |
||||||
|
*Accounts Payable Claims: |
||||||
|
Expense Register Dated |
Check Number (Begin) |
Check Number (End) |
Amount Paid |
|||
|
11/30/2015 |
61830 |
61830 |
$3,983.76 |
|||
|
12/1/2015 |
61631 |
61631 |
($743.75) |
|||
|
12/1/2015 |
61831 |
61831 |
$743.75 |
|||
|
12/3/2015 |
61832 |
61845 |
$31,208.65 |
|||
|
12/3/2015 |
61846 |
61864 |
$934,077.94 |
|||
|
12/3/2015 |
61865 |
61884 |
$235,802.86 |
|||
|
12/3/2015 |
61885 |
61904 |
$92,455.88 |
|||
|
12/3/2015 |
61905 |
61911 |
$1,575.10 |
|||
|
12/17/2015 |
61920 |
61939 |
$562,005.24 |
|||
|
12/17/2015 |
61940 |
61960 |
$152,458.31 |
|||
|
12/17/2015 |
61961 |
61971 |
$232.10 |
|||
|
12/17/2015 |
61972 |
61984 |
$20,959.58 |
|||
|
12/18/2015 |
61985 |
62002 |
$109,469.97 |
|||
|
12/18/2015 |
62003 |
62022 |
$34,692.88 |
|||
|
12/18/2015 |
62023 |
62031 |
$1,198.22 |
|||
|
12/22/2015 |
62038 |
62039 |
$46,336.22 |
|||
|
12/22/2015 |
62040 |
62040 |
$5,332.41 |
|||
|
12/23/2015 |
62049 |
62055 |
$1,019.30 |
|||
|
12/23/2015 |
62056 |
62065 |
$57,835.16 |
|||
|
12/23/2015 |
62066 |
62075 |
$976,137.63 |
|||
|
12/23/2015 |
62076 |
62084 |
$1,142.85 |
|||
|
12/24/2015 |
62085 |
62098 |
$129,121.68 |
|||
|
$3,397,045.74 |
||||||
(c) Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Consolidated Press for the Printing and Mailing of the Currents Newsletter
(d) Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with Perteet, Inc. for On-Call Construction Management and Inspection Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $150,000 for 2016
(e) Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with Berry Dunn McNeil & Parker, LLC in the Amount of $69,400 for Financial and Human Resources Software Requirements Development and Vendor Selection Support
8. STUDY ITEMS
(a) Discussion of Ronald Wastewater District Assumption Transition Plan
Mr. Norris reviewed the Committee of Elected Officials (CEO) process to-date on what is being done to prepare for the Assumption of the District in 2016 - 2017. He recalled the list of issue papers the Council previously reviewed and said they have developed into the Draft Transition Plan. He shared that next steps are for the Council to adopt the Plan, scheduled for the March 14, 2016 Council Meeting, and to finalize a Transition Workplan.
Councilmember McConnell thanked Ronald Wastewater and City staff for their hard work and said she believes the heaving lifting has been done. She expressed appreciation for the District’s Boardmembers attendance at the CEO Meetings.
Mayor Roberts agreed that the CEO is near completion. He said Council will still need to tackle developing a code to manage some of the policies of the District. He announced that the next meeting is schedule for the first week of February.
Deputy Mayor Winstead asked about financial reserves, noting that three months of reserves are to be set aside when assumption takes place, and asked what the District’s current financial status is. She said she noticed an increase in her bill and asked why. She asked about the Utility Advisory Board, what it might look like, and when those decisions will be made. She pointed out that other City Commissions and Boards are unpaid, and said she thinks the Utility Advisory Board should be consistent with the others. Mr. Norris responded that he does not know what their cash reserve levels are today but can follow up with the District Manager. He said the District is on target and managing assets to make sure they are at the agreed upon cash reserve level. He shared that at one point they had $13 Million in reserves, but said they have paid off debt. He shared that they are now debt free and reserves maybe now be in the $3 Million range. He shared that the CEO had a discussion about what an Advisory Board would look like and decided that the Council should make that decision. He said code review will come before Council this year and that the discussion of an Advisory Board will happen at that time. He said his recommendation would also be for the Advisory Board positions to be unpaid.
Councilmember Hall questioned whether there is a need for an ongoing Utility Advisory Board, and said his preference is to start with a Board that has a sunset date so that after transition occurs, the Board can be evaluated. He also stated preference that the Board be volunteer.
Councilmember McGlashan asked about integrating District employees earlier into the City’s culture, and said he feels the employee aspect will be the main challenge of the transition. Mr. Norris replied that he did not have an update about integrating District employees earlier and that a formal program for employee engagement has not been developed. He said the comment has been duly noted. He shared that he works closely with the District General Manager, explained that the Transition Plan was first priority, and employee engagement will happen next. He said there will also be opportunities for District employees to engage in trainings and other City activities. Ms. Tarry added that District employees have been giving their input on other projects like the North Maintenance Facility, Cityworks, and Financial software, and said those opportunities have served for great partnerships.
Councilmember McConnell commented that it is a delicate balance between the organization that is in complete control now and the City. She said the City needs to make the transition successful for employees and for customers. She shared that the conversation regarding employee transition will be more robust as the assumption gets closer. She added the District staff need to feel welcome and not disrupted.
(b) Discussion Transportation Impact Fee Amendment for Certain Businesses
Dan Eernissee, Economic Development Manager, provided background on the adoption of the Transportation Impact Fee Program (TIF) which became effective in January 2015. He explained that to help business in the Community he is proposing an amendment to the Ordinances for certain businesses. He presented the following three policy questions for Council to address:
1) Should any business get TIF relief?
2) How should eligibility be defined?
3) Should TIF be deferred or exempted?
He explained that the City has identified six projects where new trips from development are projected to increase existing congestion that will cost around $38 million dollars over the next 20 years, and said 43% of the money to pay for the improvements will come from TIF. He then described how TIFs are calculated and provided a scenario of a developer in a strip mall paying the TIF for retail use. He noted that when a new business operator comes in they might be charged a TIF if their business generates more trips than the "retail" use.
Mr. Eernissee reviewed that the concerns of the business community are that TIF is a disincentive to open a new business and that the TIF does not capture business growth. Mr. Eernissee questioned if the City is creating something that only national chains (well financed) can afford, and questioned if existing businesses should have to pay for growth. He said that there is a way for a developer to negotiate a way to cover the cost of TIF but not so much for a business owner. Mr. Eernissee then reviewed the City’s current efforts for new businesses that address the concerns.
Mr. Eernissee asked if the TIF should be amendment for businesses. There was consensus among Councilmembers that the TIF should be amendment for businesses.
Councilmember Skully commented that he has talked with a lot of small business owners and they have communicated to him that they could not operate in Shoreline with the large TIF fees. He expressed concern that the TIF will have an impact on Shoreline’s overall business health. He explained that there is a cap on the number of large businesses that can come to Shoreline, leaving vacant store fronts that will end up hurting economic development.
Councilmember McGlashan recommended coming up with a TIF that is equal across the board. He questioned if there is something wrong with the current TIF program if credits and exemptions have to be provided to certain businesses, and said it seems unfair.
Councilmember Salomon commented that this decision will shape the Community. He said the question needs to be asked if we want a community with chains stores and strip malls or a community with local entrepreneurs opening local community businesses. He commented that new residential development brings in growth, and local businesses will capture the demand from local residents, which will not add to the growth. He explained that it is a matter of fairness. He commented that new businesses that go out of business still have to pay the TIF and said that is not fair. He said we have been trying to get businesses in Shoreline for some time and he feels passionately about making Shoreline attractive for businesses. He said he supports moving forward with the amendment.
Councilmember McConnell commented that the deferral of TIF is not the answer for small businesses. She explained that it will be a deterrent if that fee is hanging over their head and would be a deciding factor on whether they open up a business. She recommended talking about exemptions in certain neighborhoods.
Councilmember Hall commented that the City needs to make sure the transportation projects are funded that are expected by the Community. He said it makes sense to differentiate TIFs between residential and businesses. He expressed concern about criteria that would define what business qualifies for an exemption, and said he does not want to put staff in the position of making judgment calls. He shared that he would rather look at reducing the Impact Fee on all businesses and having a discussion on how to fund the remaining balance for transportation projects. He said the Region should fund projects that are heavily used as cut through trips. He suggested having a discussion about using Transportation Benefit District (TBD) funds to offset the need for the TIF.
Mayor Roberts said the City needs to ensure that the TIF is justifiable to any business. He asked about adjustments for shared trips, and if they are made by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) or by staff. Tricia Junke, City Engineer, replied it is a little of both and said they are using ITE methodology. Mayor Roberts asked if adjustments are made for walkability. Ms. Junke responded that there is research in Transit Oriented Development areas but said Shoreline does not have that kind of density to use this methodology. Mayor Roberts commented on the 20 different uses on the rate table and asked if consideration has been given to consolidate the table. Ms. Junke replied that the ITE manual has a lot of rates and shared that staff has already done some of that consolidation. Mayor Roberts asked if business rates can be reduced and have residential rates stay the same. Ms. Junke replied that is an option for the Council.
Deputy Mayor Winstead said that having a business friendly environment has been a goal of the Council for some time. She said permitting, licenses, and wages all have an impact on whether a person will choose to open a business in Shoreline and whether a business will succeed and thrive. She agreed with Mayor Roberts to reduce the TIF for businesses and not for residential. She shared that she does not envision growth occurring from small businesses. She recommended reducing the TIF for all businesses, and also looking at the TBD to help fund transportation projects.
Councilmember McGlashan asked clarifying questions on how the fees are charged for new construction and new business spaces. Mr. Eernissee provided an example of the difference of a drive up Starbucks and a small coffee shop, and explained that the ITE rate is capturing the traffic from a Starbucks.
Mr. Eernissee said the second question is how to define eligible businesses. He explained that there are 7 Basis of Eligibility which are size of occupied space; number of employees; revenues; amount spent on improvements; occupy existing space; single location; and vision 2029 Qualities. He asked if eligibility should be defined objectively or subjectively.
Councilmember Hall said he prefers not to distinguish between types of businesses. He recommended reducing the business capture from 93% to 50%, keeping it at 93% for residential development, and having the discussion on how to fund the difference.
Councilmember McConnell said a single location makes sense for an exemption and that a Starbucks would not qualify. She stated that she does not think it would be too difficult for staff to determine if a business would qualify for the 2029 Qualities and said she does not want to give big box stores a discount.
Councilmember Salomon asked for confirmation that the exemptions being discussed are not a large part of TIF revenue. Mr. Eernissee responded that is true, but only for those businesses that are not newly constructed. Councilmember Salomon proposed looking at a hybrid approach with a weighting system for a single location, 2029 Qualities, and revenues. He suggested refining the 2029 qualities. He asked why TIF has to be assessed in the beginning and if it could be assessed one, two, or three years later which will enable the City to provide a fair assessment of those businesses. He stated that multiple criteria can be used to stagger fees to address square footage differences, and that reducing fees to 50% for small businesses is still a disincentive.
Councilmember McGlashan said he agrees with Councilmember Hall on finding something that does not disincentivize both small and large businesses from coming into Shoreline. He said he is not comfortable making an evaluation based on being a small or unique business and wants to find something that is equal for all businesses.
Councilmember Scully stated big business will come and he does not want to lose the TIF revenue source. He said if there is a down turn in big businesses, that it can be reevaluated. He shared that the TBD fee and Business & Occupation tax also have their own issues. He said he likes Councilmember Salomon’s idea of a weighted system but said they are hard to administer. His preference is for a modified version of a pick list that if a business had less than: a certain number of square footage, number of employees, or revenue in a year, it would then qualify as a small business and be eligible for the exemption.
Deputy Mayor Winstead expressed that it is important that the TIF is applied uniformly and she does not want to discourage new construction. She commented that she likes Councilmember Scully’s idea, and that she is looking to provide an exemption to small businesses.
Mayor Roberts said he believes the best and most justifiable way to create an exemption is by general reductions in terms of the rate charged on businesses, and by consolidating categories to provide equity in determining who pays what fee.
Councilmember Hall provided Spiro’s as an example of a business that has three locations, and said they would not qualify for single location exemption. He also pointed out that Trader Joe’s is coming to the Community and commented that if they were building a new location, their impact fee would have been large. He said it would be hard for him to defend a system that would provide an exemption to a small business and not Trader Joe’s. He expressed concern that any definition given to a business could possibly miss something that the Community cares about.
Mr. Eernissee confirmed that the deferral of the TIF is not an option that Councilmembers support. He advised that if a TIF exemption is provided, it needs to have a broad public purpose. It could be discounted at 100% or another amount, but the City would have to replace the exempted amount. He then described ways the City can collect revenue to pay for services. He shared what businesses are charged to run their operation, which is limited to property tax. He then explained how taxes are assessed and said they are only charged for the value of land. Businesses are creating a lot of the traffic impact, but there is no mechanism for generating revenue. He asked the Council to consider a B&O tax and to look at business license fees and possibly base the fee on the number of employees or the number of parking stalls. He then reviewed implementation options.
Mr. Eernissee clarified that Councilmembers support exemptions for the TIP, and said there needs to be a discussion on how the lost TIF revenue will be made up.
Mayor Roberts agreed with Councilmembers that amendments should be made to the TIF and asked what direction is needed from Council. Mr. Eernissee responded that he would like to hear their preference for defining an eligible business. Ms. Tarry responded that she heard three Councilmembers favor some type of partial exemption for all businesses and that four Councilmembers want to see qualification criteria and more of a focus on small businesses. She commented that a partial exemption for all businesses would be easier to administer. She asked if the goal is trying to address unique small businesses or to address businesses overall.
Councilmember Scully said he is troubled by partial exemptions and would prefer a complete exemption for small business. Deputy Mayor Winstead asked staff to come back with a plan on how to make up the lost revenue. She commented that she is leaning towards an exemption for all businesses with a 24 month timeline.
Councilmember Hall said if exemptions are provided, he would be looking for offsetting revenue and that he prefers to keep the TIF in place for big box stores. He provided the Sears building as an example of being occupied by a new larger retailer and pointed out that only a B&O tax would capture any new growth.
Councilmember Salomon stated his preference is to only provide exemptions to small businesses. He said he does not believe an across the board exemption is necessary and explained that he does not want to give up revenue because partial exemptions might be hard to administer.
Mayor Roberts asked when this item will come back to Council for further discussion. Ms. Tarry responded that staff will follow up with an explanation of how businesses who have already paid the TIF will be affected, and will bring the item back in late February for another discussion. Mayor Roberts requested that revenue replacement options be included in the discussion.
Mayor Roberts announced that Trader Joe’s is opening in Shoreline on February 26, 2016. He announced the following Councilmember Appointments and Reappointments to Regional Committees: Councilmembers McConnell and McGlashan appointed voting members and Councilmember Hall is the Alternate for the SeaShore Transportation Forum; Mayor Roberts appointed voting member and Councilmember Salomon Alternate for Sound Cities Association Public Issues Committee; Councilmember Salomon appointed voting member and Councilmember Scully is the Alternate for WRIA 8; Councilmember Scully appointed voting member and Councilmember Hall is the Alternate for the Puget Sound Regional Council Transit Oriented Development Advisory Committee; Deputy Mayor Winstead is reappointed to the King County Emergency Medical Service Task Force; and Councilmember McGlashan is reappointed to the Sound Transit North Corridor Leadership Group.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At 9:00 p.m., Mayor Roberts declared the meeting adjourned.
/S/ Jessica Simulcik Smith, City Clerk