CITY OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY
MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING
Monday, November 20, 2000
6:30 p.m. Mt.
PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Hansen, Councilmembers Grossman, Gustafson, Lee, Montgomery and Ransom
ABSENT: None
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exceptions of Deputy Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Montgomery, who arrived later in the meeting.
3. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS
Wendy Barry, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director,
distributed and discussed photographs of
In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Ms. Barry said staff is not
aware of any in-fill at
Deputy Mayor Hansen arrived at 6:40 p.m.
Responding to comments about the Aegis Assisted Living project, Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, discussed the landscape plan for the site.
Mr. Bauman distributed copies of the lawsuit that several cities have filed against I-722. He said the court has not yet issued a decision on the request for injunctive relief.
Councilmember Gustafson requested staff updates on Pt. Wells, the School Resource Officer (SRO) Program and the School Emergency Resource Guidelines.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Gustafson said he
attended the final official meeting of the Human Resources Roundtable. He advocated that Health and Human
Services Manager
Deputy Mayor Hansen said he
attended the November 15 meeting of the Suburban Cities Association Board of
Directors. He noted that Lake
Forest Park Mayor Dave Hutchinson expressed interest in cities in north
In response to Mayor Jepsen,
Mr. Bauman said the County Council has not yet acted on the County budget. He asserted the understanding of staff
that the proviso regarding the
5. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
6. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) 2001 Budget
Mr. Bauman explained staff intent to respond to questions raised during previous Council reviews of the 2001 proposed City budget.
Finance Director Debbie Tarry noted the organization chart and position listing for the Shoreline Police Department. She went on to review a table, "Law Enforcement Rates per 1,000 Inhabitants." She pointed out that Shoreline has .92 commissioned police officers per 1,000 residents, a lower rate than that of other cities of similar size.
In response to Council requests, Mr. Bauman estimated the cost of a detailed long-range planning program for Shoreline parks at $100,000. He explained that such a program would involve staff, the public, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee and Shoreline neighborhoods. He said Council would need to establish the program as one of its goals.
Noting the capital projects the City will delay due to passage of I-722, Mayor Jepsen asserted that the City cannot undertake a long-range planning program for Shoreline parks at this time. Councilmembers Lee, Grossman and Gustafson agreed.
In response to previous Council comments, Ms. Barry discussed the City's vegetation management program. She said the City follows the Tri-Cities Integrated Pest and Vegetation Management Policy. She explained that the City uses mechanical control (i.e., pulling out or cutting down), biological means (i.e., disease-resistant, hearty plants) and limited chemical applications to manage vegetation. She noted a total of ten chemical applications since June 1999: six for noxious weeds in response to notifications by the Noxious Weed Control Board; two to address insect infestations on particular trees; and one each to control weeds and moss, respectively, in high-traffic areas in which they posed safety problems. She mentioned that the City's landscape contractor is authorized to use minor applications of Roundup herbicide for weed control in very limited situations.
In response to previous comments about steam weeding, Ms. Barry said this is a slow process (e.g., 30-60 seconds per plant). She mentioned that the equipment works "fairly well" on level surfaces but that it would be difficult to use on hilly or uneven terrain.
Ms. Barry explained that staff
intends to use the chemical application trailer included in the 2001 proposed
budget primarily for watering—she noted a project to propagate sea
grasses in
Finally, Ms. Barry advised that
she contacted the
Next, Ms. Tarry explained that the $519,947 increase shown for the Surface Water Management Fund under "Resources" on page 152 of the 2001 proposed budget does not reflect a commensurate increase in surface water revenues. The "Expenditures" on page 152 come from many funds (e.g., the General Fund, the Street Fund, the Surface Water Management Fund), and the "Resources" represent the combined revenues. Ms. Tarry said the "Surface Water Management Fund Summary" on page 67 of the 2001 proposed budget shows an accurate, slight increase in surface water revenues from 2000 to 2001. She confirmed that the $519,947 increase on page 152 reflects an increase in spending in 2001 on surface water operations (as opposed to capital spending).
Mr. Bauman discussed the
schedule for emergency operations planning. He said staff will provide an update to
Council in early 2001 regarding the emergency plan it recently rewrote and
plans for future exercises in conjunction with other organizations (e.g., the
In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Mr. Bauman explained that the City is responsible for overall community emergency planning. He said City staff works closely with the Shoreline Fire Department to insure coordinated planning and activities.
Public Works Director Bill Conner discussed the $1.3 million Shoreline Pool renovation scheduled to be awarded in January 2001. He explained that current activity at the pool relates to a $33,000 contract to water seal the structure.
In response to a previous question regarding the noxious weed and soil conservation assessments on property tax bills, Ms. Tarry said the County Council approved the noxious weed assessment ($.85 per parcel and $.09 per acre) in 1998 in response to a State mandate that the County provide a noxious weed control program. She mentioned that staff is waiting for further information regarding the soil conservation assessment.
Ms. Tarry advised that staff has not yet obtained information regarding the King County unincorporated property tax rate for 2001.
Ms. Tarry went on to review a memorandum regarding an I-722 reserve fund. She reiterated the staff recommendation to establish a reserve fund of approximately $3 million, primarily to respond to the following provisions of I-722: 1) property tax rollback to 1999 assessed valuation (AV) levels; 2) refund of 2000 tax and fee collections; and 3) 60-day gap for utility taxes. She explained the staff recommendation to establish the reserve from general revenues allocated previously for capital purposes. This will necessitate changes to the proposed 2001-2006 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Ms. Tarry reviewed the CIP changes recommended by staff and the criteria staff used to identify them. Mr. Bauman noted that staff identified other CIP projects for Council consideration as alternative or additional changes.
Mayor Jepsen asserted the difficulty of delaying capital projects that Council has long-sought to implement. He expressed concern that Initiative 695 (I-695) and I-722 are now affecting City capital spending as well as operational spending.
Councilmember Lee asked how the City will respond to the financial impacts of I-722 in future years if courts find the initiative to be constitutional. Ms. Tarry said the City will need to consider operational spending reductions. She mentioned that such reductions would be comparable to those that staff suggested last year in response to I-695.
Councilmember Montgomery arrived at 7:30 p.m.
Deputy Mayor Hansen expressed appreciation for the analysis in the memorandum regarding the I-722 reserve fund. However, he asserted that the City is unlikely to have to refund the $2,220,721 in 2000 tax and fee collections. Therefore, he advocated a reduction in the proposed reserve fund—and in the proposed changes to the 2001-2006 CIP—by $2,220,721.
Continuing, Deputy Mayor Hansen requested that the City Attorney determine whether Council could readopt the franchise tax as early as next week and then submit the tax to a public vote at a later date. He commented that voter approval may protect the tax from repeal by future initiatives, while voter rejection would signal Council to begin reviewing operational spending reductions.
Ms. Tarry reviewed the schedule of remaining activities related to the 2001 proposed City budget. She requested Council direction regarding the $30,000 that staff had included in the 2001 proposed budget for a special election. She advised that staff will make an adjustment to the Surface Water Management Fund to include the stream assessment project at a cost of slightly more than $200,000.
(b) Status
Update Report of the
Paul Cornish, Project Manager,
discussed the relationship of the Interurban Trail to the regional trail
system, the proposed recommended alignment of the Interurban Trail and the four
preliminary concepts for coordinating the Aurora Corridor Project and the
Interurban Trail between
Mr. Conner provided a status update on the Aurora Corridor Project. He went on to discuss the draft right-of-way policy and procedures manual. He said the draft manual is "basically boilerplate" (i.e., federal and State guidelines and information necessary for the Aurora Corridor Project). He explained that staff will present the draft manual to the public at the November 30 open house and that staff will return to Council with a final draft manual early in 2001.
Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.
(1) Harley
O'Neil,
(2) Gretchen
Atkinson,
(3)
(4) Rick
Sola,
(5)
(6)
(7) Russ McCurdy, business owner, stated the business community position that an eight-foot sidewalk is sufficient and that it will have less impact on existing businesses.
(8)
Mayor Jepsen noted that staff seeks Council input on the draft right-of-way policy and procedures manual and the alignment of the Interurban Trail and Aurora Corridor.
In response to Councilmember
Lee, Mr. Conner said staff mailed written meeting invitations to all business
and property owners along
In response to Councilmember
Lee, Mr. Conner said staff presented the new, modified alignment at the
meetings with business representatives.
Councilmember Lee expressed interest in seeing the new, modified
alignment and in the distribution of it to
Mr. Conner went on to discuss the potential impacts of the preferred alignment between N 145th and 165th Streets. He said staff has determined that the preferred alignment is likely to affect only one structure in the area and that it will likely affect the parking at approximately 12 businesses.
Mayor Jepsen asked staff to make the engineering drawings of the new, modified alignment available for Councilmembers to review.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Consultant Tim Bevan, CH2MHill, said the new, modified alignment between N 145th and 165th Streets minimizes the impact on parking stalls located on private property. He noted a slight increase in the number of parking stalls located on public right-of-way affected by the preferred alignment. Mr. Conner specified that the preferred alignment will affect parking at 11 businesses between N 145th and 165th Streets. The parking at five of the businesses is on public right-of-way and on private property at the other six businesses.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Bevan said current designs of the Aurora Corridor Project show only the "outer line work, from the face of the curb to the back of the sidewalk." Mayor Jepsen asserted his understanding that the area between the curb and the sidewalk would be a relatively contiguous landscape strip. Mr. Bevan said this is still open for discussion. Mr. Conner commented that the City does not have a design, that the project is still in the pre-design phase.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Conner said the design standard is to include a U-turn every 800-1000 feet (approximately every three blocks).
Mayor Jepsen questioned the
width of the sidewalk and landscape strip at the following
Councilmember Gustafson
supported development of the Interurban Trail. He advocated careful consideration of
Councilmember Gustafson asked if staff changed any of the boilerplate language in preparing the draft right-of-way policy and procedures manual. Mr. Conner noted that staff omitted Section 1.8, "Potential Extra Benefits for Owners/Tenants Along the Aurora Corridor," in order to develop the section further. He mentioned that staff is using the 32 points that the CATF recommended in its development of this section.
Councilmember Gustafson said he generally concurs with the 32 points that the CATF recommended. He asked if the project schedule on pages six and seven of the Council packet is still reasonable. Mr. Conner said nothing has arisen to date to preclude the beginning of construction on the south segment in fall 2001.
Councilmember Montgomery
stressed her appreciation of Mr. Mann and Mr. McCurdy's concerns. She went on to assert that businesses
along
Councilmember Grossman
supported the use of
Continuing, Councilmember Grossman said he fully supports 12-foot sidewalks (including a four-foot landscape strip) in the 20-year plan for the Aurora Corridor. However, he suggested the City might temporarily waive the 12-foot-sidewalk requirement for individual businesses for which the waiver would make a substantial difference.
Councilmember Grossman
concurred with Councilmember Montgomery's appreciation of the concerns of the
owners of existing
Councilmember Ransom expressed
his preference for Preliminary Concept D of the four options that staff
presented for coordinating the Aurora Corridor Project and the Interurban Trail
between
Councilmember Ransom also
expressed his appreciation for the concerns of the owners of existing
Next, Councilmember Ransom addressed Section 4.5, "Acquisition of tenant-owned improvements," of the draft right-of-way policy and procedures manual. He said timelines are the only factor on which the City has "real maneuverability," but Section 4.5 does not address them. He asserted that the City should more clearly define when businesses will be affected by the Aurora Corridor Project.
Deputy Mayor Hansen said Section 4.5 sets out a City policy; whereas, timelines are project specific. He commented that he would not expect to find time information in a policy statement. Councilmember Ransom responded that the City needs to set out specific time information somewhere.
Councilmember Ransom said he
has talked to
Mr. Bevan addressed
right-of-way acquisition in the
Mr. Conner reviewed Preliminary
Concept D for the Aurora Corridor Project and the Interurban Trail between
Mayor Jepsen expressed his support for the CATF recommendations. He supported Councilmember Grossman's suggestion to add language to the right-of-way procedures manual to balance protection of existing businesses with the realization of the objectives of the Aurora Corridor Project. He expressed his preference for a combination of Preliminary Concept B and Preliminary Concept D that would include green space and that would not have the Interurban Trail crossing commercial properties immediately north of N 175th Street.
Deputy Mayor Hansen opposed Preliminary Concept A. He expressed support for the Aurora Corridor Project as currently planned. He concurred with previous comments about mitigations to accommodate existing businesses. He asserted that the City will learn a great deal in completing the N 145th to 165th Streets section of the Aurora Corridor Project.
Councilmember Gustafson
expressed enthusiasm about the potential of the Interurban Trail. He advocated that the City work with the
City of
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 9:12 p.m., Mayor Jepsen announced that Council would recess into executive session for 15 minutes to address one item of litigation. At 9:28 p.m., the executive session concluded, and the workshop reconvened.
6. WORKSHOP ITEMS (CONTINUED)
(c) Review of Gambling Policies and Ordinance No. 247
Mr. Stewart provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Deputy Mayor Hansen said he still supports Option 4 (which Council established in June 1999 as City policy regarding gaming establishments), and he supports Ordinance No. 247. He asserted that the ordinance removes ambiguities from the previous ordinance and that it will be much less likely to be litigated. Councilmember Montgomery agreed. She commented that she still supports Option 4.
Councilmember Lee said she supports Ordinance No. 247 as a clarification of the previous ordinance.
Councilmember Gustafson said he supports Option 4 and Ordinance No. 247.
Councilmember Ransom said discussion of Ordinance No. 247 during the September 18, 2000 Council meeting established that there was no effect on the community from pari-mutuel betting. He mentioned that the City Attorney suggested an option to include pari-mutuel betting under the list of minor gambling activities. He commented that the State limitation of one off-track betting site in each county limits the number of potential sites in Shoreline to one. He advocated classification of pari-mutuel betting as a minor gambling activity that a card room facility could add. He went on to question the parking requirements of Ordinance No. 247. He asserted that the requirements for "1 parking space per 75 square feet in dining or lounge areas" and "one parking space per every three seats (not associated with a gaming/card table) available for gambling or viewing gambling activities" are redundant. Moreover, he indicated that such requirements are unnecessary for establishments in which dining facilities are underutilized.
Referencing pages 96 and 97 in the Council packet, Mr. Stewart explained that staff determined that pari-mutuel betting meets the three criteria of serious gambling (having a regional customer base, having no monetary limit to the amount of individual wagers and having an ongoing ability to wager) and that it is, therefore, a serious form of gambling. Referring to an article titled "Gaming Casino Traffic" (referenced on pages 108 and 127 of the Council packet), he said the greater rates of traffic generated by gambling establishments over those generated by typical restaurant uses justify the parking requirements of Ordinance No. 247.
Councilmember Grossman asserted his interest in determining what the City needs to do to encourage redevelopment in Shoreline. He said developers of mixed-use projects are unanimous in their disinterest in locations near gambling uses. He expressed support for the readoption of Ordinance No. 247 to slow the development of additional gambling uses in Shoreline.
Mayor Jepsen advocated that Council direct staff to bring forward an ordinance to readopt Ordinance No. 247.
Councilmember Ransom reiterated the proposal to amend Section 1 of Ordinance No. 247 to list pari-mutuel betting as one of the minor gambling activities "with the caveat that it only be at card rooms."
(d) Discussion of Garbage Regulations to Support Proposed Solid Waste Collection Services Contract
Kristoff Bauer, Assistant to the City Manager, provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Councilmember Lee advocated that the proposed ordinance provide a warning for first-time violations involving household hazardous wastes. Mr. Bauer agreed to work with the City Attorney to address the inclusion in the ordinance of a mandatory warning.
Councilmember Grossman asserted that written communications should address language differences.
Mr. Bauer clarified that the City, not the waste collection contractor, will enforce the ordinance. He explained that the City will address problems the contractor is unable to resolve.
Deputy Mayor Hansen recommended that the City include a warning for first-time violations in its enforcement policies, not the ordinance. He asserted that a warning provision in the ordinance could encourage residents to ignore the ordinance.
Mayor Jepsen directed staff to bring forward a final ordinance for Council consideration at a future date.
8. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a)
In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Bauman said the City encourages cable television subscribers to contact AT&T with complaints about programming changes. He explained that the City has no control over AT&T programming choices.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:00 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion, which carried 5-2, with Councilmembers Grossman and Montgomery dissenting.
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION (CONTINUED)
At
10:00 p.m., Mayor Jepsen announced that Council would recess into executive
session for 25 minutes to discuss one item of property. Mayor Jepsen left the meeting at this
time. At 10:15 p.m., the executive
session concluded, and the workshop reconvened.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:16 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk