CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Monday, November 27, 2000
7:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
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 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exceptions of Councilmembers Lee and Montgomery, who arrived later in the meeting.
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
Health and Human Services Manager Rob Beem presented a memorandum on the transition of the Human Services Roundtable. The organization will disband December 31. Mr. Beem mentioned meetings to be held from January through March to address common interests of former participants in the Human Services Roundtable and proposals for proceeding. He noted the interim objective to maintain advocacy for regional human services issues before the Washington State legislature. He requested Council concurrence to allocate $800 to participate with other cities to retain a legislative advocate.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Beem said King County will not retain any funds to serve as the fiscal agent of the cities retaining the legislative advocate. He confirmed that representatives of the participating cities will need to meet and approve any change to the "Recommended Priorities for Legislative Advocacy, 2001 Legislative Session."
Councilmember Gustafson supported participation with other cities to retain a legislative advocate.
Councilmember Montgomery arrived at 7:38 p.m.
Interim City Manager Larry Bauman reported the certified election results for Shoreline precincts on Initiative 722 (I-722): 52 percent voted against the initiative, and 48 percent voted in favor of it. He mentioned the annual visit of the Christmas Ship at Richmond Beach Saltwater Park on December 11 at 8:20 p.m. He reminded Council of the cancellation of the December 4 workshop. He said the executive session on tonight’s agenda will not be needed.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Janet Way, 940 NE 147th Street, represented the Paramount Park Neighborhood Group. She presented a letter objecting "to the process currently being implemented by the Development Services Group in regard to the Paramount Park swale project which has been proposed."
(b) Chris Eggen, 15104 11th Avenue NE, read from a letter regarding a proposed creek in the north end of Paramount Park.
(c) Cecilie Hudson, 15233 11th Avenue NE, opposed the swale plan in the Paramount Ridge Development proposed by CCA, Inc.
Planning and Development Services Director Tim Stewart confirmed that final approval of the Paramount Ridge development is contingent upon resolution of the downstream drainage issue. He said staff instructed the applicant to file for a new Type B permit to construct improvements to address downstream drainage. He explained that an applicant for a Type B permit must hold a neighborhood meeting before submitting the application. He said the developer has yet to apply for the permit for the drainage improvements.
Mayor Jepsen asked if the developer indicated at the neighborhood meeting that the Type B permit for the downstream improvements is related to the Paramount Ridge development. Mr. Stewart said the Type B permit for downstream improvements would be one way to satisfy the third condition of the Paramount Ridge plat. He noted that staff favored the additional public process necessitated by a new Type B permit over an expansion of the original preliminary plat to include this scope of work.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart agreed that Council must confirm that the applicant has met the conditions and approve the plat.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to approve the agenda, deleting the executive session. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 6–0, and the agenda, as amended, was approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Montgomery moved approval of the consent calendar. Council-member Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 6-0, and the following items were approved:
Minutes of Workshop of November 6, 2000
Minutes of Special Meeting of November 13, 2000
Approval of expenses and payroll as of November 9, 2000 in the amount of $1,585,821.47
Motion to authorize the Interim City Manager to execute lease extensions for the Eastside and Westside Police Storefronts
Motion to authorize the Interim City Manager to amend the lease agreement with Highland Plaza LLC at a monthly rate of $100 to acquire additional lease storage area located in the Highland Plaza Annex
Motion to authorize the Interim City Manager to execute a professional services contract not to exceed $282,345 with Tetra Tech/KCM, Inc. for the inventory and characterization of stream and wetland resources
Motion to authorize the Interim City Manager to execute a contract with INCA Engineers, Inc. for the North City Sub-Area Planned Action SEPA
Motion to authorize the Interim City Manager to execute consultant agreements with the consulting firms of OTAK, INCA Engineers, Inc., KPG, and Perteet Engineering, Inc. for professional engineering services with work to be later assigned on each operations or capital project
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled
9. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARINGS
(a) Public hearing to consider citizens' comments regarding adoption of the 2001 User Fee Schedules for the City's Fee Based Services and the revised utility tax ordinance
Finance Director Debra Tarry presented the staff report.
Mayor Jepsen opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to address the Council on this issue, Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Grossman seconded the motion, which carried 6–0, and the public hearing was closed.
Deputy Mayor Hansen noted recent comments that Council does not provide opportunities for public input. He stressed that public hearings provide such opportunities.
Ordinance No. 256 adopting fees for services for land use and building permit development applications, for parks and recreation, and for public records charges
Councilmember Ransom moved adoption of Ordinance No. 256. Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom pointed out that the proposed ordinance is meant to maintain current fees, not to increase them.
In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Ms. Tarry said the proposed fees for land use and building permit development applications will maintain a cost recovery rate of approximately 80 percent in the area of development services. She confirmed that the proposed fees are comparable to those that other cities charge. She said the City reviews its fees biennially.
Councilmember Gustafson asked if staff needs to adjust the information under "Pool Rentals," "School Districts" in Exhibit B (page 83 of the Council packet) to reflect the recently-implemented interlocal agreement between the City and the Shoreline School District. Ms. Tarry said the City will "track in-kind services" under the interlocal agreement. She pointed out that the "School District" information in Exhibit B does not specify the Shoreline School District.
Ms. Tarry confirmed Deputy Mayor Hansen's assumption that Ordinance No. 256 is meant to reestablish City fee schedules in case the courts uphold I-722 as constitutional.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 256 adopting fees for services for land use and building permit development applications, for parks and recreation, and for public records charges. The motion carried 6-0.
Ordinance No. 257 establishing utility taxes and establishing utility tax relief for eligible citizens
Deputy Mayor Hansen moved that Council adopt Ordinance No. 257. Council-member Montgomery seconded the motion.
Mayor Jepsen commented on the similarity of Ordinance No. 257 to Ordinance No. 256—he said Ordinance No. 257 is a reaffirmation of the Council position on utility taxes in case the courts uphold I-722 as constitutional.
In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Mr. Bauman and City Attorney Ian Sievers confirmed that Section 11 of Ordinance No. 257 provides citizens the opportunity to overturn the ordinance by referendum.
Councilmember Gustafson mentioned that the City of Seattle notified him by mail of new water, sewer and drainage rates for 2001 and 2002. He asked whether and how such rate changes affect the City. Noting that the City cannot tax another municipality that provides services within Shoreline, Mr. Sievers said the City of Seattle rate increases will not affect City utility tax revenues. Mayor Jepsen commented that Shoreline customers have little voice regarding City of Seattle decisions on water, sewer and drainage rates and services.
In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Bauman explained that Shoreline residents receive wastewater services from either the City of Seattle or the Shoreline Wastewater Management District and that the City provides drainage services. He suggested that staff clarify the impacts of the City of Seattle rate increases on Shoreline residents in an upcoming issue of the City newsletter.
In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Ms. Tarry confirmed that Ordinance No. 257 does not increase utility taxes higher those established in 1999.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Tarry explained that the one-percent utility tax on cable television service in Ordinance No. 257 is in addition to the five-percent franchise fee the City applies to cable television services. She confirmed that Ordinance No. 257 simply reestablishes the one-percent utility tax on cable television that Council established last year.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 257 establishing utility taxes and establishing utility tax relief for eligible citizens. The motion carried 6-0.
(b) Public hearing to consider citizens' comments on the proposed 2001 budget
Mr. Bauman noted the previous staff recommendation that Council set aside $3 million from capital funds in 2001 to cover the cost of tax and fee refunds that passage of I-722 could necessitate. He said staff now suggests the reduction of this reserve to approximately $800,000. He explained that it is highly unlikely the City will need to refund the $2.2 million in taxes and fees it collected in 2000.
Ms. Tarry provided an overview of the 2001 proposed City budget. She also reviewed the provisions and potential impacts of I-722. She explained that an $800,000 reserve would accommodate the following potential impacts: the rollback of property taxes to 1999 assessed valuations (a financial impact of approximately $333,000) and the gap in the collection of utility tax revenues (a financial impact of approximately $404,000). Staff recommends that Council establish the $800,000 reserve from funds designated in the 2001-06 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the Shoreline Community College sports fields. Ms. Tarry noted that the CIP still includes funds to complete the pre-design work on the sports fields. She said construction of the fields had not been scheduled to begin until 2003.
Mayor Jepsen opened the public hearing.
(1) Janet Way, 940 NE 147th Street, represented the Paramount Park Neighborhood Group. She expressed the thanks of the group for the proposed open space expenditures in Paramount Park Neighborhood. She asserted that the retention of water in Paramount Park enhances the health of the downstream ecosystem and helps to prevent flooding. She also highlighted the value of investments at Ronald Bog.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to close the public hearing. Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed.
Mayor Jepsen expressed support for the reduction to $800,000 of the reserve to accommodate potential impacts to I-722. He advocated that Council designate the $30,000 budgeted under Citywide Services for a special election toward Council goal number eight, "Enhance Two-Way Communication through the Use of Technology (Government Access Channel and Web Site)."
Councilmember Montgomery concurred with Mayor Jepsen's comments.
Councilmember Ransom noted his support for additional funding for social and cultural services. He said such additional funding is not reasonable in light of I-722. He advocated that Council reconsider additional funding later in 2001 if the courts determine I-722 unconstitutional and City revenues permit.
Deputy Mayor Hansen sought concurrence of other Councilmembers in favor of the reduction from $3 million to $800,000 of the reserve to accommodate potential impacts of I-722.
Councilmember Grossman supported the reduction of the reserve to $800,000. Councilmember Gustafson concurred. Councilmember Ransom said he is "very comfortable" with the $800,000 reserve and with the budget as presented.
Finally, Mayor Jepsen clarified that although the proposed 2001 City budget amounts to approximately $80 million, it includes less than $27 million in General Fund expenditures (i.e., discretionary spending).
(c) Public hearing to consider citizens' comments on the Proposed 2001-2006 Capital Improvement Program
Bill Conner, Public Works Director, provided the staff report. Noting that Council reviewed the 2001 CIP projects at its November 13 workshop, he focused on the CIP projects scheduled for 2002-2006.
Mayor Jepsen opened the public hearing.
(1) Janet Way, 940 NE 147th Street, represented the Paramount Park Neighborhood Group. She noted City participation in the Thornton Creek Watershed Action Plan and on the Thornton Creek Watershed Management Committee. She said the City will eventually consider approving the action plan and contributing to it through CIP projects. She mentioned that Seattle Public Utilities will use revenues from the utility taxes it levies on capital projects for the action plan.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to close the public hearing. Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Ransom advocated the creation of a clear, one-page overview (e.g., identifying the different funding sources) for the public.
Councilmember Gustafson expressed his enthusiasm for the proposed CIP. He supported all of the capital projects listed. He noted missing text under "Project Scope" on page 53 of the CIP 2001-06 document.
In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Conner confirmed that the North 175th Street project on page 53 of the CIP 2001-06 involves the construction of sidewalks from Meridian Avenue N to Aurora Avenue N on both sides of N 175th Street. Noting that many children walk along N 175th Street, Councilmember Gustafson advocated future reconsideration of the schedule for the project. He also supported reprioritization of the North 160th Street @ Greenwood Avenue North project (page 55 of the CIP 2001-06).
Councilmember Grossman expressed appreciation for the staff work on the 2001-06 CIP.
Mayor Jepsen underscored the value to the community of even relatively small projects, such as the sidewalk improvements underway on Meridian Avenue N.
10. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Ordinance No. 252 levying the general taxes for the City of Shoreline in King County for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2001, on all property both real and personal, in said City which is subject to taxation for the purpose of paying sufficient revenue to conduct City business for the ensuing year as required by law
Ms. Tarry reviewed the staff report. She went on to discuss the updated assessed valuation (AV) data that staff received from King County earlier in the day. Using the updated data, if Council chose a 102 percent levy for 2001:
Ms. Tarry distributed copies of proposed Ordinance No. 252 revised to include the updated AV data.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Ms. Tarry confirmed that Section 1 of proposed Ordinance No. 252 is based on the 1996 levy, the City of Shoreline "statutory maximum levy."
Ms. Tarry said the tax rate per $1,000 AV may continue to fluctuate until the County establishes final AV figures. She explained that Council must identify a tax rate per $1,000. She said the County will adjust the rate, if necessary, based on its final AV figures.
Mayor Jepsen asked what the tax rate would be if Council chose to increase the levy to reflect the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton Consumer Price Index (CPI) of 3.9 percent. Ms. Tarry said the tax rate would be $1.5225 per $1,000 AV, and the actual levy would be $6,384,125, an increase of 7.59 percent over the 2000 levy amount. Mayor Jepsen supported this rate as a means of keeping pace with local inflation.
Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to adopt Ordinance No. 252 as revised to include the updated AV data. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion.
Deputy Mayor Hansen noted his understanding that a 102 percent levy limit, based on the 1996 levy, would result in an amount exceeding the 1999 levy by approximately $86,000. He noted that the proposed ordinance specifies $5,933,565 as "the amount levied in 1999 for collection in 2000." He asserted a contradiction between the staff analysis and the proposed ordinance. Ms. Tarry explained that in addition to the $5,933,565 levied in 1999 for collection in 2000 the City proposes to levy an additional $335,000 to attain the full 102 percent of the statutory maximum levy plus new construction and annexation.
In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Mr. Sievers said the ordinance must state the dollar amount of the increase over that levied in 1999 (for collection in 2000), even though the increase is based on the 1996 levy.
Using the tax rate of $1.4807 per $1,000 AV from the version of proposed Ordinance No. 252 included in the Council packet (page 152), Deputy Mayor Hansen calculated that the City of Shoreline share of 2001 Shoreline property taxes will decrease to approximately 9.5 percent.
Deputy Mayor Hansen supported Ordinance No. 252 as revised to include the updated AV data. He acknowledged that the City can justify the "substantial need" necessary to adopt a levy of 106 percent. However, he said the City could fund outstanding capital projects by bond issue, if necessary, in the future.
Councilmember Ransom agreed that the City can justify a "substantial need." He noted the listing of over $62 million in unfunded capital projects (page 125 of the Council packet). He estimated the cumulative impact over the next 20 years of foregoing the maximum (106 percent) levy in 2001 at $6 million. He advocated that Council at least adopt a 103.9 percent tax levy to reflect the CPI, if not the maximum levy of 106 percent. He disagreed with the proposal to adopt a property tax levy of only 102 percent. He noted that Shoreline voters rejected I-722.
Councilmember Grossman supported the proposal to adopt a property tax levy of 103.9 percent to reflect the CPI. He asserted that the City manages its money frugally, that the economy has been good and that Shoreline has many unmet, unfunded capital needs.
Noting high property taxes in Shoreline, Councilmember Montgomery opposed any property tax levy in excess of 102 percent.
Councilmember Gustafson agreed with Councilmember Ransom. He asserted the substantial need. He noted that the property tax rate will decrease from $1.60 per $1,000 AV to approximately $1.53 per $1,000 AV. He asserted that rejection of I-722 by Shoreline voters shows the desire for "quality" City services and parks. He supported a property tax levy of 103.9 percent at the minimum, and he noted his inclination to consider a levy of 106 percent.
Councilmember Ransom moved to amend Ordinance No. 252 to make a finding of substantial need, to use a levy limit of 103.9 percent and to set the 2001 levy rate at $1.5225 per $1,000 AV. Councilmember Grossman seconded the motion.
Mr. Sievers distributed copies of proposed Ordinance No. 252 revised to include a recital of the finding of substantial need, a levy limit of 103.9 percent and a 2001 levy rate of $1.5225 per $1,000 AV.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Bauman explained the necessity of a finding of substantial need for any property tax increase in excess of the implicit price deflator (IPD) of 2.61 percent.
Councilmember Gustafson supported the amended ordinance as a reasonable compromise.
A vote was taken on the motion to amend Ordinance No. 252 to make a finding of substantial need, to use a levy limit of 103.9 percent and to set the 2001 levy rate at $1.5225 per $1,000 AV. The motion failed 4-2 (for lack of a supermajority), with Deputy Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Montgomery dissenting.
Deputy Mayor Hansen asked if Ordinance No. 252 as revised to include the updated AV data (with a levy limit of 102 percent) requires a finding of substantial need, given that it provides $86,000 in excess of the I-722 limit. Mr. Sievers responded that a finding of substantial need is not necessary.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to table further action on Ordinance No. 252 until the last item on the agenda. Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion, which carried 6-0.
(b) Ordinance No. 255 amending Shoreline Municipal Code 12.25.090, and establishing a fee of 6% of gross revenues for franchises and right-of-way use agreements
Ms. Tarry reviewed the staff report.
Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to adopt Ordinance No. 255 amending SMC 12.25.090 and establishing a fee of six percent of gross revenues for franchises and right-of-way use agreements. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Tarry confirmed that Ordinance No. 255 maintains the existing six-percent franchise fee and represents no change to the public.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 255 amending SMC 12.25.090 and establishing a fee of six percent of gross revenues for franchises and right-of-way use agreements. The motion carried 6-0.
There was Council consensus to suspend the rules to take public comment before further action on agenda item 10 (a).
MEETING EXTENSION
At 9:55 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 10:15 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 5–1, with Councilmember Montgomery dissenting.
11. Continued Public Comment
(a) Janet Way, 940 NE 147th Street, read a letter from Donna M. Eggen, 15104 11th Avenue NE. Ms. Eggen advocated that the City take responsibility for correcting surface water management problems in Shoreline and that the City consider the Paramount Ridge development and the proposed swale in combination, as connected projects. Ms. Way advocated that Council schedule the issue as an agenda item for consideration at a future meeting.
(b) Sharon Cass, 2320 N 149th Street, distributed and discussed photographs she took earlier in the day at Twin Ponds Park. She also provided photocopies of notes on past dumping at the park and of information from the King County Noxious Weed Control Program and the Washington Administrative Code about nightshade.
(c) Dale Wright, 18546 Burke Avenue N, represented the Echo Lake Neighborhood Association. He said the November 21 association meeting concerned the Aurora Corridor Project. He read from a statement in which association members unanimously agreed to accept and support the Aurora Corridor concept and encouraged Council "to stay the course in its implementation."
Mayor Jepsen expressed appreciation for Mr. Wright's comments.
Wendy Barry, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, said staff contacted and received information from the Noxious Weed Board Specialist who inspects the City parks system. She agreed to provide the information to Ms. Cass. Mr. Bauman said the City will address surface water management problems at Twin Ponds Park as part of master planning scheduled for 2002.
At 10:10 p.m., Mayor Jepsen turned the gavel over to Deputy Mayor Hansen and left the Council table.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:15 p.m., Councilmember Ransom moved to extend the meeting for 15 minutes. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 5–0.
Councilmember Ransom expressed concern that standing water at Twin Ponds Park will damage the wood fence on an adjoining property before master planning begins in 2002. Mr. Bauman said staff will assess whether the topography of Twin Ponds Park is driving surface water onto adjoining properties.
At 10:16 p.m., Mayor Jepsen returned to the Council table and resumed the gavel.
Councilmember Grossman expressed support for the process that the Echo Lake Neighborhood Association followed to educate its members about the Aurora Corridor Project. Councilmember Montgomery concurred. She noted that the Echo Lake Neighborhood Association provided valuable input on the rechannelization of N 185th Street as well.
Mr. Wright mentioned that those members of the Echo Lake Neighborhood Association in attendance at the November 21 meeting unanimously approved of the rechannelization of N 185th Street.
Mayor Jepsen addressed the comments regarding the Paramount Ridge development and the Paramount Park swale project. He expressed interest in whether the separate storm water permit process will "tie back" to the instructions of the Hearing Examiner and the conditions set out as part of the preliminary plat approval. However, he did not favor an agenda item to consider the issue.
Mr. Sievers reiterated that Council will review whether the applicant has complied with the conditions in the preliminary plat and will decide whether to approve the final plat. He advised that Council could consider the swale project, given that it involves a City facility (i.e., Paramount School Park).
Deputy Mayor Hansen said he did not object to Council consideration of the issue at a future meeting.
Councilmember Lee arrived at 10:21 p.m.
Councilmember Grossman suggested that Council discuss the larger issue of City handling of building permitting and environmental concerns at a future workshop.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Bauman said he will discuss the issue with staff and report back to Council at the December 11 meeting.
10. ACTION ITEMS (CONTINUED)
(a) Ordinance No. 252 levying the general taxes for the City of Shoreline in King County for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2001, on all property both real and personal, in said City which is subject to taxation for the purpose of paying sufficient revenue to conduct City business for the ensuing year as required by law
Mayor Jepsen announced that action on the original motion to adopt Ordinance No. 252 as revised to include the updated AV data was back on the table.
Deputy Mayor Hansen reiterated his opposition to the motion to amend Ordinance No. 252 to make a finding of substantial need, to use a levy limit of 103.9 percent and to set the 2001 levy rate at $1.5225 per $1,000 AV. However, he supported reconsideration of the motion "with every Councilmember having a voice."
Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to reconsider the amendment to Ordinance No. 252 to make a finding of substantial need, to use a levy limit of 103.9 percent and to set the 2001 levy rate at $1.5225 per $1,000 AV. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion to reconsider, which carried unanimously.
Deputy Mayor Hansen explained to Councilmember Lee the positions that he and the other Councilmembers expressed earlier regarding the 2001 levy rate. Mayor Jepsen noted that the County Assessor will restate the levy to be in compliance with I-722 if necessary.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:30 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 10:45 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Councilmember Grossman noted that the total property tax rate is lower than it would be if Shoreline were still part of unincorporated King County. He said the $1.5225 per $1,000 AV levy rate will enable the City to address more unfunded capital projects.
In response to Councilmember Lee, Ms. Tarry explained that neither property tax levy rate under consideration ($1.4949 per $1,000 AV or $1.5225 per $1,000 AV) would require reductions in the proposed 2001 budget. She said the difference in the revenue resulting from the two rates is $115,000.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Ms. Tarry said the $1.4949 per $1,000 property tax levy rate will result in an owner of a $180,000 home paying $12 more in City property tax in 2001 than in 2000; whereas, the $1.5225 per $1,000 property tax levy rate will result in the same owner paying $16 more in 2001.
Councilmember Ransom mentioned that the City faces expenditure increases for salaries and supplies in keeping with the CPI. He asserted that citizens support the completion of the proposed capital projects. He noted the cumulative impact over the next 20 years of establishing the higher property tax levy rate in 2001. He asserted that the community commitment of the finding of substantial need and the 103.9 percent property tax levy will reflect well on City applications for grant funding for capital projects. Councilmember Gustafson agreed. He referenced the election results for Shoreline precincts on I-722.
Councilmember Montgomery said the difference in the revenue resulting from the two rates will not be enough to meet any substantial need, but the lower rate will send a message that the City "is trying to live within the limits of I-722." She commented that the decision for her is a matter of principle. Deputy Mayor Hansen concurred. He noted that 48 percent of Shoreline voters supported the property tax reduction of I-722.
Mayor Jepsen commented that either of the City property tax levy rates under consideration represents a decrease from the current rate of $1.60 per $1,000 AV.
A vote was taken on the motion to amend Ordinance No. 252 to make a finding of substantial need, to use a levy limit of 103.9 percent and to set the 2001 levy rate at $1.5225 per $1,000 AV. The motion carried 5-2, with Deputy Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Montgomery dissenting.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 252, as amended to make a finding of substantial need, to use a levy limit of 103.9 percent and to set the 2001 levy rate at $1.5225 per $1,000 AV. The motion carried 7-0.
12. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:40 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.
____________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk