CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Monday, December 11, 2000
7:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Grossman, Gustafson, Montgomery and Ransom
ABSENT: Deputy Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Lee
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 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 Lee.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to excuse Deputy Mayor Hansen and Council-member Lee. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion, which carried 5-0.
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
Interim City Manager Larry Bauman reported on an abatement at 15035 26th Avenue NE. He distributed before-and-after photographs of the scene. He also noted that the City’s new Code Enforcement Officer is Jeff Thomas, a former planner in the Planning and Development Services Department.
Continuing, Mr. Bauman said the City’s annual chipping event is scheduled for January 6, 2001 at both Hamlin Park and the Richmond Beach Lutheran Church.
Next, he explained that the City has applied for a $16,000 grant from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program. This is the first time the City has been eligible to receive these funds, which will be used for the School Resource Officer (SRO) program. He noted that the City of Lake Forest Park was asked to participate in the SRO program but declined. In future years, the School District is expected to share equally in the costs of the SRO program.
Council supported moving forward on the grant application.
Continuing, Mr. Bauman updated Council on the court decision on Initiative 722 (I-722). He said the King County Assessor has been enjoined from implementing it. This means the Council’s adopted property tax levy rate will stand. He said staff feels there is no compelling need for the City to intervene in the lawsuit. The Mayor asked that this matter be scheduled for discussion by the full Council on January 8, 2001.
Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, provided an overview of issues regarding the proposal to use Paramount Park Open Space for a drainage swale. He explained how the existing drainage system works in the area and how the proposal for a swale in Paramount Park arose as a solution to one of the conditions for approval of the Paramount Ridge plat. The condition requires that downstream drainage cannot be aggravated by construction of the new homes.
Mayor Jepsen recalled that this issue had been brought to the Council’s attention at a recent meeting. He felt no Council discussion could take place until an application is filed. Mr. Stewart responded that an application was filed on Friday. However, the Development Code requires the owner of the property to sign the application. Since in this case the property owner is the City, the application was not accepted. It has been concluded that the appropriate process for reviewing this proposal is to send it to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee. Mr. Stewart concluded that the proposed swale may be one way to meet the condition on the plat, but there may be other ways as well.
Councilmember Ransom asked if the diversion of water would affect the wetlands downstream recently enhanced by Paramount Park neighborhood residents. Mr. Stewart affirmed there is a connection to the downstream flows. He hypothesized that the more natural swale system might help filter and slow the flows.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Stan Terry, 15811 28th Avenue NE, thanked the Council for supporting the Mini-Grant program and advocated approval of the project on tonight’s consent calendar. He said the Mini-Grant projects have been well-received in the neighborhoods and have helped to instill pride in the community and give a sense of belonging to the City.
(b) Matt Howland, 19237 Aurora Avenue N, spoke as a business owner and property owner in Shoreline, as well as a partner in the Paramount Ridge subdivision. He asked about tax incentives for improvements on under-improved property, a proposal advocated by the former Economic Development Coordinator. He hoped this would continue to be considered. Regarding the Paramount Park subdivision, he said the developers will be following the steps outlined by Mr. Stewart to pursue the swale idea. He suggested that all drainage issues related to improvements to Paramount Park be considered together with his proposal. He noted the drainage improvements required for his project will also benefit the public. Therefore, development of the swale might be a public/private partnership of some type.
Mayor Jepsen noted that one of next year’s Council goals is to spur economic development and that Council will consider various ideas to achieve this goal.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Montgomery moved to approve the agenda. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 5 – 0, and the agenda was approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Montgomery moved that Council adopt the consent calendar. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the following items were approved:
Minutes of Workshop Meeting of November 20, 2000
Minutes of Dinner Meeting of November 27, 2000
Approval of expenses and payroll as of November 22, 2000 in the amount of $560,480.70
Motion to authorize the Interim City Manager to execute legal contracts for 2001: Kenyon Dornay Marshall for prosecution services, civil litigation and administrative support not to exceed $8,900/month plus expenses for prosecution, $40,000 for civil; King County Interlocal agreement for jail calendar prosecution services; Buck and Gordon, LLC for land use/environmental litigation and support not to exceed $75,000; and Foster, Pepper and Shefelman for municipal law litigation and support, not to exceed $50,000
Motion to approve the expenditure of $3,600 in Mini-Grant funds for the Briarcrest Neighborhood Association to purchase trees for the Briarcrest Neighborhood
8. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Ordinance No. 254 adopting the annual budget of the City of Shoreline for the year 2001
Debra Tarry, Finance Director, reviewed the budget process that has taken place over the past few months and the various ordinances already adopted by Council. She explained the adjustments made to the budget originally proposed at the end of October: 1) the $30,000 special election funding was re-directed toward Council Goal #8; and 2) $811,574 has been set aside in reserve to address I-722 shortfalls. This reserve was created by the difference between the property tax levy in the proposed budget and the one adopted by Council ($196,000) and an adjustment to the capital budget to reduce funding for the Shoreline Community College sports field project ($614,790). She affirmed that funding still remains to do the design work on this project and to continue discussions with the college. There was also an adjustment to the Surface Water Management Fund to do a stream assessment required by the Endangered Species Act. Funds to pay for the assessment came from carryover and a King Conservation District grant, as well as funding from the Shoreline Wastewater District. She concluded that the revised 2001 capital and operating budget totals $80,519,682.00.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to approve Ordinance No. 254. Councilmember Grossman seconded the motion.
Councilmember Grossman referred to earlier budget conversations regarding unanticipated gambling revenue and Councilmember Ransom’s suggestion to take $150,000 of this to provide one-time money for different service agencies in Shoreline. At the time this was discussed, a simple, equitable proposal on how to do this was not determined. The only item that was funded was an additional $15,000 for the Shoreline Historical Museum.
Councilmember Grossman put forward the idea of amending the budget to address the disparity he perceived that one agency received additional funding while others did not. He felt this disrespects the process the Council went through to determine those agencies of value to the community. He supported the museum funding, but wanted to pull this $15,000 out and put it into a pool with an additional $60,000 that would come out of the General Fund reserve and be allocated to non-profits either located in Shoreline or providing over fifty percent of their services in Shoreline. The allocation could be done based on a pro-rata share already determined through the human services funding process.
Councilmember Ransom supported this concept.
Councilmember Montgomery noted that Deputy Mayor Hansen would be concerned about taking the $15,000 from the historical museum, but Councilmember Ransom responded that the $15,000 for the historical museum would still be there.
Councilmember Grossman said the goal is to be fair to other agencies. He felt it would set an inconsistent precedent to fund the historical museum outside the process developed to fund agencies doing excellent services in Shoreline.
Councilmember Gustafson did not oppose allocation of additional money to needy human services agencies, but he said the budget has been discussed in depth over the past few months and the one-time funding for the historical museum was agreed upon by the Council. He was not willing to allocate additional dollars with all the unknowns related to I-722. He concluded that perhaps the matter could be raised later on.
Mayor Jepsen reminded Council that the goal of going through the budget discussions is to have Councilmembers bring forward ideas for staff to research in order to avoid last-minute responses. He wondered whether this proposal would reduce the General Fund Reserve below that established by Council policy.
Ms. Tarry said that even with a deduction of $60,000, the reserve fund would meet Council’s ten-percent policy. She said the unanticipated gambling revenues were allocated to capital improvement projects, as dictated by Council policy.
Councilmember Ransom stated that it has been a good year in many ways and that the City should share the benefit to the public not only through capital projects but through social service, Arts Council, and other human service and cultural programs that benefit citizens. He felt the public would appreciate this. He noted this had been discussed on several occasions. He said Councilmembers Montgomery and Gustafson heard Councilmember Lee’s approval of this recently at a dinner meeting.
Mayor Jepsen acknowledged that this is a worthwhile goal, but he asserted that tonight is not the right time to bring it up.
Based on these comments, Councilmember Grossman agreed that this should have been brought up earlier in the process, and he declined to make a motion on his proposal. He asked that this be discussed again.
Mayor Jepsen noted that at the Council’s budget retreat there was consensus that something should be done in this area, but there was no consensus about what to do. He said the discussion will continue.
A vote was taken on the motion to approve Ordinance No. 254, which carried 5 – 0, and the 2001 budget appropriating funds for the operating and capital budgets for the City was adopted.
(b) Ordinance No. 253 approving and adopting the 2001 – 2006 Capital Improvement Program
Chuck Purnell, City Engineer, provided a brief overview of the 2001 – 2006 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). He reiterated the changes made during the budget process that reallocated funds in order to do the stream assessment and reduced funding for the Shoreline Community College sports field project.
Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.
(1) Kenneth E. Cottingham, 350 NW 175th Street, felt that some projects in the CIP are questionable in terms of their cost-benefit ratios. He referred to the project at Richmond Beach Road and 3rd Avenue NW. He said in his experience in dealing with intersection improvements, he had never seen anything like the $1.5 million allocated to make that intersection safe. He suggested phasing the left-turns eastbound and westbound. He felt safety could be improved without massive right-of-way acquisitions. He also mentioned 175th Street at Midvale, where he felt the developer of the property on the south side of the intersection should contribute to the improvement. He mentioned projects on pages 54, 55 and 56 of the CIP, saying these projects have not had intermediary studies.
Mayor Jepsen responded that most CIP projects go through a design analysis. The CIP is readjusted every year based on information about solutions and more refined cost figures.
Mr. Purnell agreed that once the project analysis begins, more effective ways of addressing a problem might be found. In such cases, Council is presented with alternatives to consider.
Mr. Bauman directed staff to take specific note of Mr. Cottingham’s comments to ensure the options he suggested are considered.
Councilmember Gustafson moved approval of Ordinance No. 253. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion.
Councilmember Gustafson emphasized that there is an opportunity each year to discuss prioritizations and alternatives within the CIP.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 5 – 0, and Ordinance No. 253 adopting the Capital Improvement Program for 2001 – 2006 was passed.
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 8:30 p.m., Mayor Jepsen announced that Council would recess into executive session for 20 minutes to consider an item of potential litigation. At 8:50 p.m., the executive session concluded, and the regular meeting reconvened.
8. OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTION AND MOTIONS
(c) Motion to authorize the Interim City Manager to execute a contract with Waste Management for City Solid Waste Collection Services
Kristoff Bauer, Assistant to the City Manager, reviewed the long process which culminates this evening in approval of a contract with Waste Management. He said the goals of the process were to equalize services across the City and to give citizens the services they desire. He reviewed the benefits of the proposed contract, and he said the new service will be implemented on March 1, 2001. He described the educational efforts and the changes that west side residents of Shoreline will experience. He concluded that service in the annexation areas will be delayed because of legal issues involved in the previous contract.
Councilmember Ransom moved to authorize the Waste Management contract. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion.
Mayor Jepsen commented that the prices look "great" compared to current rates, but the contract also involves a reduction in service. However, this does accomplish consistent City service.
Councilmember Gustafson was enthusiastic about certain elements of the contract, such as collection of bulky items and white goods and the vacation suspension. He suggested developing a video to be shown on the government access channel about the service changes. He also suggested looking at a senior-citizen package that would provide additional services for free, such as having the garbage picked up closer to the residence.
Councilmember Gustafson concluded with technical questions about tipping fees and illegal weights.
Councilmember Ransom commented that the contract only provides for less service if all the services were used before. If the customer does not use all the services, there might be a savings under the new contract.
Mr. Bauer clarified that yard waste collection is the service that may be perceived as being reduced. However, yard waste collection has been implemented well on the east side of the City, and the hope is that the same thing will occur on the west side.
A vote was taken on the motion to authorize the Interim City Manager to execute a contract with Waste Management for City Solid Waste Collection Services, which carried unanimously.
(d) Ordinance No. 251 establishing regulations relating to the disposition, collection and transportation of garbage
Mr. Bauer explained that these regulations are needed to deal with the solid waste contract just approved. They have already been reviewed by Council. At that time, Councilmember Lee expressed concern about enforcement and penalties. Mr. Bauer explained that the fees were based predominantly on State law and the City of Seattle’s ordinance. The ordinance before Council tonight has been changed since Council last saw it to make it a public health ordinance. This changes the penalties to those in the Code Enforcement section of the Shoreline Municipal Code. Code enforcement is based on a three-strikes approach that escalates through a process of education, warning and discussion, with penalties as a last resort.
Councilmember Montgomery moved to approve Ordinance No. 251. Councilmem-ber Ransom seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom asked about the penalties listed in the staff report on page 105. He questioned what "illegal dumping of a hazardous substance" would involve. He felt it should be clarified whether dumping something like anti-freeze would qualify for the $5,000 fine and a year in prison. Admitting that this is a misstatement in the staff report, Mr. Bauer responded that the public health code has no gross misdemeanor offense with these penalties. The maximum penalty under this code will be a $250 fine and 90 days in jail.
Mayor Jepsen wished to ensure that the penalties for dumping hazardous materials in Shoreline are severe enough that no one is tempted to do this and pay a relatively low fine. Mr. Bauer said this law brings an additional level of protection above what is currently in place. He agreed this would not address a major offense. He said this issue could be brought back after additional research if Council wishes.
Mayor Jepsen said he would not like to get caught in a situation where the City does not have an appropriate penalty. He asked staff to review this to ensure the code includes a penalty proportional to the severity of the offense.
Councilmember Ransom asked how a typical action, such as the dumping of anti-freeze, would be covered. It was clarified that purposefully dumping would be covered under the ordinance but malicious intent would be required for assessment of a penalty.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, added that the prosecutor has the option of applying the misdemeanor penalty rather than filing any of the classes of infraction. This could be used with repeaters or serious offenses. Application of the ordinance would not prohibit prosecution under other laws if the action warranted.
Councilmember Gustafson mentioned the $50 fine for putting up signs on utility poles. He said people in Shoreline put up various types of signs (garage sale, lost pet, etc.) Mr. Bauer said this provision is patterned on Seattle’s ordinance. It was adopted because Seattle City Light workers were being injured by tacks and nails in the poles.
Councilmember Ransom agreed that people use utility poles to inform neighbors, for example, posting for a missing cat. He said people usually remove the signs in a timely fashion. He felt the fine was excessive.
Mr. Bauer reiterated that the ordinance is part of the health code. The approach provides an opportunity to educate people before assessing a fine. Furthermore, this ordinance is consistent with other regulations that deal with signs in the right-of-way.
Mayor Jepsen concluded that the regulations will be enforced with common sense.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 5 – 0, and Ordinance No. 251 establishing regulations relating to the disposition, collection and transportation of garbage was passed.
(e) Ordinance No. 258 further defining and regulating gambling uses and amending chapters 20.20 and 20.40 of the Development Code
Rachael Markle, Senior Planner, reviewed the background on the City’s effort to define and clarify gambling uses under the Development Code. She said Ordinance No. 247 addresses this, but it sunsets at the end of December. The ordinance before Council tonight readopts the provisions of Ordinance No. 247 on a permanent basis.
Councilmember Montgomery moved to adopt Ordinance No. 258. Councilmember Grossman seconded the motion.
Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Markle said that the definition of "card room" has been deleted because a broader definition of "gambling use" has been provided. Mr. Bauman added that this ordinance defines what is regulated broadly and then lists only those things excepted from regulation. Card rooms fall under the definition of what is regulated.
For the record, Councilmember Ransom stated that gambling has been discussed at a number of meetings over the past two years. At those meetings, testimony and ten studies on gambling and one on pari-mutuel betting were presented that were not included as part of the Council packet information. Councilmember Ransom said that several weeks ago a 3 – 3 vote occurred on whether there should be an exemption for pari-mutuel gambling establishments. He said although these meet the criteria for serious gambling, such as the betting of more than one dollar, the original concerns were parking and other secondary effects of a more criminal nature. He asserted those secondary effects were not found to be present for pari-mutuel establishments. Furthermore, only one such establishment is allowed per county.
Councilmember Ransom pointed out that the parking requirements in the ordinance penalize a pari-mutuel establishment because it is required to have both one space per 75 square feet of net useable area as well as one parking space for every three seats available for gambling or viewing gambling activities. This involves double counting of the same restaurant space.
Concluding, he said that there is not majority Council support for treating pari-mutuel establishments differently. Therefore, he would not propose any amendments to the ordinance.
Mayor Jepsen said staff has brought forward Ordinance No. 258 based on the direction given at the last workshop.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 5 – 0, and Ordinance No. 258 further defining and regulating gambling uses and amending chapters 20.20 and 20.40 of the Development Code was passed.
10. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT: None
11. ADJOURNMENT
At 9:40 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.
_____________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk