CITY OF
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Grossman, Councilmembers
Chang, Gustafson, Hansen, Montgomery and Ransom
ABSENT: none
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor
Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll
call by the Deputy City Clerk, all Councilmembers
were present.
(a) Commendation
for Nick Louie
Mayor
Jepsen presented
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Steve
Burkett, City Manager, noted that a revised Ordinance No. 339 is on tonight’s
consent calendar.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: none
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) David
Townsend, Shoreline, expressed concern about the potential loss of a grant for
a traffic solution on
(b) Janet
Way, Shoreline, congratulated Councilmembers and
citizens for their involvement in the recent election. On another topic, she said Shoreline
citizens want the City budget spent on real needs, such as neighborhood traffic
safety. She concurred with Mr.
Townsend’s comment that cut-through traffic is of great concern to the
neighborhoods, and urged the Council to do something to address the problem. She thought it odd that the City mailed out
an expensive brochure on the Aurora Corridor project shortly before the
election. She said she would likely seek
elected office in the future.
(c) Cindy
Ryu, Shoreline, thanked the citizens who turned out
to vote in the election, and congratulated Councilmembers
Gustafson and Ransom. On another topic,
she appreciated the fact that proposed Ordinance No. 339 includes a clause for
full appraisal values. She preferred
that it also contain a provision for public hearings by the City Council
instead of Planning Commissioners, who are not elected by the people. She also recommended that the petition method
for street vacations include appraisals from both the buyer and the seller in
order to prevent inaccurate appraisals.
Responding
to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Burkett confirmed that the grant
for a pedestrian traffic solution on
Responding
to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Burkett confirmed that traffic volume data has
been collected for
Mayor
Jepsen expressed interest in getting copies of the
student letters from Mr. Townsend.
Paul
Haines, Public Works Director, clarified that staff will bring back a proposal
early next year so the City does not lose the funding for a crossing
improvement. He noted that the existing
in-pavement flashers would need to be eliminated if a pedestrian-activated signal
or other solution is installed at or near the intersection at
Councilmember
Ransom asked for staff response to Ms. Ryu’s request
that the City Council conduct public hearings on right-of-way/street vacation
issues in addition to, or instead of, the Planning Commission. He thought the Planning Commission was
established as the only hearing body for such issues.
City
Attorney
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Gustafson
moved approval of the agenda, adding item 9(b) to the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously, and the agenda was approved
as amended.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Montgomery moved approval
of the consent calendar as amended.
Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, and the
following items were approved:
Minutes of
Workshop Meeting of
Minutes of Dinner
Meeting of
Minutes of Regular
Meeting of
Approval of expenses
and payroll as of October 31,
2003 in the amount of
$2,124,713.07
Motion
to authorize the City Manager to execute
a contract with Vinson Brothers Corporation for
the sum of $328,937.00 for annual maintenance
services with the option of renewal in an annual
basis for three years
Ordinance
No. 339 amending regulations controlling
use of the City right-of-way and recodifying
right-of-way
use permits and street vacation regulations from Title 20
to Title 12 of the municipal code
Motion
to authorize the City Manager to execute a
Construction
contract for the Interurban Trail North
Section
(
8. ACTION ITEMS:
PUBLIC HEARING
(a) Public
hearing to solicit citizens comments on the proposed
2004 budget, including the 2004 proposed property tax levy and other budget
resources
Debbie Tarry, Finance
Director, outlined the remaining budget schedule and gave a brief presentation
on 2004 revenue sources. She said the budget,
which is balanced, reflects conservative revenue projections and shows reduced
expenditures in the areas of health insurance benefits, jail costs and
janitorial services. The budget does
contain a recommendation to increase right-of-way maintenance services.
Continuing,
she explained the various revenue sources for the City budget, noting that
Grants and Loans make up the largest portion at 23%. Other revenue sources are as follows: Property Tax 11%; Sales Tax 11%; Utility
& Franchise Fees 8%; Gambling Tax 4%; Other taxes 2%; Fees & Charges
8%; Internal Transfers 12%; Intergovernmental 3%; Miscellaneous 2%. The Fund Balance (Reserves) makes up 16% of
the total budget. Other budget details
are as follows:
·
The proposed budget
includes recommendations for some fee adjustments in land use and non-building
permit fees and recreation fees in response to market and inflationary factors.
Ms. Tarry explained that
internal transfers make up 12% of the total budget and reflect money that is
transferred from one accounting entity to another. Although internal transfers are neither true
revenues nor expenditures, they are a part of generally accepted accounting
principles.
Mayor Jepsen opened
the public hearing.
(a) Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, pointed out a typographical error on page
62 of the Council packet relating to hourly recreation fees. She wondered if the proposed increase in
recreation fees is warranted, given that Shoreline’s pool facility does not
directly compare with other jurisdictions.
She said rental fees may have to be adjusted to reflect the differences
in facilities. She suggested that the
City could increase revenues by increasing usage rather than increasing
fees. She proposed that the City implement
a two-tier fee structure for residents and non-residents, since residents have
already been paying for upgrades to the pool.
(b) Councilmember-elect
Maggie Fimia, Shoreline, noted that increased pool
fees will only create a small amount of revenue, but it can significantly
impact low-income families and seniors.
She said results of the various Parks and citizen surveys suggest that
people are least satisfied with sidewalks, street repair, street lighting, and
police patrols. She asserted that the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) does not reflect what the people want. She pointed out that the CIP reflects that
there are 30 miles of Shoreline arterials that do not have sidewalks. She suggested that Council reprioritize the
capital budget and reconsider major capital projects such as
(c) Janet
Way, Shoreline, agreed with previous speakers that the Council should revise
its budget according to public priorities.
She urged the Council to analyze the potential of using
Upon motion by Councilmember Hansen, seconded by
Deputy Mayor Grossman and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Ransom thought
that recent changes in pool programming provided more recreation opportunities
for the public.
Dick Deal, Interim Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Services Superintendent, pointed out that activity at
the pool is high and that participation in swim classes has more than doubled
in the last two years. He commented on the
high costs associated with pool operations and explained that the fee increase
is comparable to other pools. He said
the question about a two-tier fee structure would be a policy issue for Council
to consider.
Mayor Jepsen
recalled that the agreement with King County prohibited Shoreline from
establishing a two-tier fee structure.
Bob Olander,
Deputy City Manger, concurred. He
recalled that bond covenants, which accompanied the pool transfer, prohibited
differential rates. Mr. Burkett noted
that staff would follow up on that issue.
Mayor Jepsen
said there is a great deal of competition for the pool, and that
underutilization never seems to be a problem.
Councilmember Gustafson felt
the Council should explore the possibility of a two-tier fee structure, not
only for the pool but for the Spartan Gym.
However, he opposed raising fees for children, seniors, and the
disabled. He favored further discussion
of the possibilities.
Councilmember Ransom noted
that the adequacy of sidewalks around elementary schools was a major issue of
concern in the Bond Advisory Committee.
He said he also heard about this public need in his campaign.
Councilmember Chang suggested
that the City undertake a much more aggressive economic stimulus program for
the City. He felt that increasing sales
tax is the only realistic area the Council can work on to raise revenues. He suggested the City form a citizen task
force on economic development in order to attract businesses and sales to
Shoreline.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(a) 2004
Budget Discussion
Ms. Tarry continued the
department presentations beginning with the Planning and Development Services
(PDS) budget. She explained that the
majority of PDS revenues come from three primary funds: Permits (61%); Code abatement (3%); and Code
Enforcement (4.5%). The PDS budget
includes a decrease of nearly 12% ($389,000) due to carryover items and
one-time funding in 2003. The 2004
budget also reflects a new interlocal agreement with
the Fire District and the addition of plumbing review and inspection services
supported by fees.
Councilmember Ransom asked if
the International Building Code is significantly different from the Uniform
Building Code.
Mr. Stewart explained that
the IBC is mandated by state law and provides for improved quality and
integration of a number of codes that were previously separated. He said staff needs to evaluate whether some
exemptions in current codes would be carried forward, such as permitting for
replacement of residential roofing. He
noted that many of the changes are technical and will require additional staff
training.
Councilmember Ransom brought
up the issue of potential changes to smoke detector standards. He also asked what the City’s efforts are
with regard to redevelopment of sites such as Aurora Square.
Mr. Stewart said the Central
Shoreline Demonstration Sites program includes analysis of the two “wedges”
located south and north of 175th between Aurora Avenue and Ronald
Place. Staff will study these sites to
see if there is consensus about how they should be redeveloped.
Councilmember Ransom hoped
the program will include analysis of options for relocating businesses that are
forced to move.
Responding to Councilmember
Hansen, Mr. Stewart said staff expects to return to Council in the spring with
a detailed report outlining the changes in the IBC. He noted that most other jurisdictions are
moving forward with adoption in 2004.
Councilmember Hansen characterized adoption of the IBC as an “unfunded
mandate” by the state.
Councilmember Chang asked
staff about the trend they see for permit activity.
Mr. Stewart said although
staff predicted decreased activity for 2003, there has been a rebound and
revenues will likely surpass projections.
He attributed the increase to lower interest rates on refinanced homes
and residential remodels.
Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart affirmed that the Development Services
Reserve Fund is used to close out permits for pending projects.
There was additional
discussion of the PDS fund balance.
Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart
anticipated that the year-end balance will be higher than projections due to
the increased permit activity.
Mayor Jepsen
wondered if cost recovery could be a feasible measure of performance in the
area of permits.
Ms. Tarry said the department
is at 100% recovery if direct costs are compared to direct revenues. However, the cost recovery rate decreases
when allocations for overhead to the permit fund are factored in. She said it would either take a substantial
increase in fees to achieve 100% recovery or a change in Council policy.
Mr. Stewart pointed out that
some permits (appeals and temporary use permits) are so expensive to
administrate that it is impossible to achieve cost recovery. He described the labor-intensive process
staff used in issuing the temporary use permit for Tent City.
Mr. Stewart furnished Councilmembers with a handout detailing 2003 revenue
projections by month.
Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Ms. Tarry explained that Interfund
Payments for Service is an overhead cost allocation that is charged to
departments outside the General Fund.
Mayor Jepsen wished to get more information on
this budget item.
Ms. Tarry outlined changes in
the Economic Development budget, noting that the overall decrease of 2.65%
($4,161) is due to carry-overs for customer survey work.
Mr. Burkett pointed out that
one of the Council goals is to increase sales taxes through economic
development strategies. He reported that
Aurora Village generates $1.2 million in sales taxes annually compared to
$254,000 at Aurora Square. He said
Sears, which generates the most revenue at Aurora Square, is in the midst of
doing its own strategic planning and not ready to develop its site. He noted that auto dealers generate $820,000
of the $1.7 million in sales taxes collected from Aurora Corridor businesses. He agreed that making the Aurora Corridor
more attractive for businesses is a primary economic development strategy.
Jan Knudson, Economic
Development Coordinator, updated the Council on various department programs and
activities, including the Central Subarea Plan and
the North City project. She reported on
the retail analysis of Aurora Square that was completed earlier this year. Her office will also work with PDS to explore
redevelopment options for properties in the “wedge.”
Councilmember Ransom
expressed concern that the Economic Development Office has not been very
successful in attracting new businesses to Shoreline. He questioned the efficacy of the office’s
economic development efforts over the last six years; four years under the
predecessor and two years under the current coordinator.
Mr. Burkett felt there are
many more factors that affect retail businesses, including the local economy
and market forces. He noted that
developers have recently expressed an interest in Shoreline.
Ms. Knudson said one of the
major obstacles to development is that Shoreline’s highly-developed land base
is not ideal for retail development. She
said although the Aurora Corridor is a good commercial district, the lots are
small and not exactly what developers look for.
Mr. Burkett pointed out that
Shoreline does not have large, five-acre lots as
Councilmember Chang suggested
that a commission or citizen advisory committee could be used to promote the
efforts of the Economic Development Department.
He felt such a committee could explore the reasons why Shoreline
consumers spend money in other jurisdictions.
He felt the City should work with existing businesses to encourage
growth and local sales.
Ms. Knudson noted that the
Chamber of Commerce and the North City Business Association have been helpful
in communicating with the business community.
She described the outreach effort and said that many business forums and
workshops have been conducted to provide training to local businesses.
Mr. Burkett noted that other
jurisdictions have developed business improvement districts to allow local
businesses to organize and support economic development themselves.
Mayor Jepsen
summarized a memo regarding how much revenue is created from Aurora Corridor
businesses. He noted that Aurora Village
and Aurora Square generate 30% of the total taxes collected by the City. He encouraged Councilmembers
to read the memo.
Ms. Tarry provided an
overview of Public Works budget, which is comprised of the following funds:
General Fund; Street Fund; Surface Water Management (SWM) Fund; and Capital
Fund. The 2004 budget is characterized by
an overall decrease of $1,448,818 (18.51%) primarily due to carryovers and
one-time funding in 2003. Transfers from
SWM Operations to SWM Capital are not proposed for 2004 due to the impending
Surface Water Master Plan process. Monies will remain in reserves until the
Master Plan is completed. The 2004
budget includes a recommendation to include two FTE’s to provide CIP support,
which will be funded by a reduction in CIP professional services. She concluded by outlining other changes
relating to Street and SWM Engineering Services, overhead allocations, and
enhanced right-of-way vegetation management.
Mr. Haines outlined the
workload the department anticipates in the coming years. He noted that the number of grants the City
is presently managing (14) will grow to 24 in 2004. He summarized the department objectives,
which include: 1) completion of design and ROW acquisition for Aurora Project
145th to 165th; 2) completion of the Transportation
Master Plan; and 3) other objectives relating to the City goals and critical
success factors.
Councilmember Ransom
expressed concern about having adequate staffing for the City’s major capital
projects. He wondered if an additional
project manager would help prevent delays and keep projects on-budget and on-time.
Mr. Haines responded by
saying that although the City’s list of projects are numerous and complex, he
feels the two additional positions for 2004 will be adequate.
Responding to Councilmember
Chang, Mr. Haines explained that the Washington State Department of
Transportation is responsible for maintaining the vegetation at its median
planting project. He said the 2004
budget provides for maintaining arterials three times a year. The CIP includes operations funds to maintain
new planting areas resulting from the Aurora Corridor and Interurban Trail
projects.
Ms. Tarry clarified that
estimated maintenance funding was included in the long-term financial
projections. She noted that the 2004
budget includes monies for Interurban Trail maintenance.
Mr. Haines commented on the
amount of work involved in putting together a budget that considers maintenance
costs for the Aurora and Interurban Trail projects. He said much of the work is under warranty by
the contractor initially.
Mayor Jepsen
had a number of questions relating to the Recycling Program. Ms. Tarry clarified that there are extra help
and overtime monies associated with the salaried part-time position.
Mayor Jepsen
asked for clarification on the Traffic Services program.
Mr. Haines described the
Traffic services program, which is comprised of a traffic engineer, a
technician, and an intern in the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program. He said this program was created by
transferring funds from street operations to a separate department overseen by
the traffic engineer. He felt this
program creates higher accountability and enhanced service tracking since the
traffic engineer prioritizes differently than a street superintendent.
Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Haines clarified that the $30,000 recommended
for ROW vegetation management is an increase to that activity, although there
is zero budget impact due to cost savings in janitorial services. The recommended allocation reflects a 50%
increase in ROW services.
Ms. Tarry continued her
budget presentation, noting that projected 2004 ending reserves total $24.5
million. The three areas of reserve
include: 1) Unreserved/undesignated (General Fund and General Fund Reserves)
(31%); 2) Designated (equipment replacement and maintenance, public art)(6%); and 3) Reserved (Capital Funds, Permit Fund, SWM)
(63%).
Turning to the health
benefits policy, Ms. Tarry explained the proposal for keeping the rate of
increase of health insurance premiums to a minimum. Although health insurance premiums are
projected to increase 26%, the proposed plan assumes that both employer and
employee will share the burden of skyrocketing costs. The proposed plan maintains the City’s burden
at 8%, and results in significant savings over what health benefits could have
cost.
She said the proposed 2004
budget includes a recommended market adjustment of 1.2% in salaries. However, staff is now recommending an
adjustment of 1.53%, which is based on the current median of comparable
jurisdictions.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:00 p.m. Councilmember Hansen moved to
extend the meeting until 10:15 p.m.
Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ms. Tarry discussed the
ramifications of the State Supreme Court ruling on Initiative 776. She explained that the ruling results in a
net loss of $485,000 in dedicated transportation revenue, although the 2004
budget contains a one-time allocation of $200,000 to bring pavement management
funding up to the $700,000 level. She
said Council must make policy choices if it wants to continue maintaining the
pavement management program at the recommended level ($700,000/year). She clarified that the proposed 2004 budget
assumes the City would not receive transportation revenues in 2004. She outlined three outstanding policy issues
for the Council to consider: 1) Sister Cities funding; 2) “Showmobile”
funding; and 3) a proposed increase of $100,000 for Human Services.
Councilmember Ransom asked
about the possibility of replacing lost transportation revenues with other
sources of funding. Mr. Burkett did not
rule out the possibility of a countywide proposal, although the City will
continue to plan conservatively.
Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Ms. Tarry clarified that the payment in lieu of
sidewalk program is maintained in the Roads Capital Fund balance.
Councilmember Ransom asked
that staff look into the issue of using biodegradable herbicides. He noticed that the classifications of
Planning Manager and Building Official do not appear on the salary schedule. Ms. Tarry said a new salary schedule is
attached to the market adjustment memo that Council received.
Mayor Jepsen
expressed support for providing the Sister City program with matching funds up
to $10,000. He also expressed support
for funding the outdoor theater (Showmobile). He was inclined to maintain Human Services
funding at the present level. He reiterated his concern that the Technology
Plan is being significantly reduced without a commensurate reduction in staff.
Mr. Burkett noted that
tonight’s packet contains additional information related to the technology
plan.
Mayor Jepsen
said he would like to consider a comparative analysis of a combined
overlay/slurry seal program totaling $500,000.
He felt the City cannot continue funding the Street Program at the
$700,000 level when dedicated transportation funding is no longer
available.
Councilmember Hansen
expressed support for the adjustment in recreation fees, noting that
Shoreline’s rates are generally lower than surrounding jurisdictions’ rates. He also agreed with the Mayor’s proposal of
matching funds for the Sister Cities program.
Mr. Burkett outlined the
remaining schedule for budget review and adoption. He concluded by saying that staff will bring
back a revised budget on November 24th for Council adoption.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:13 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________