CITY OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Grossman, Councilmembers
Chang, Gustafson, Hansen, Montgomery, and Ransom
ABSENT: Mayor Jepsen
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Deputy
Mayor Grossman led the flag salute. Upon
roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were
present with the exception of Mayor Jepsen.
Upon motion by Councilmember Montgomery, seconded by Councilmember Hansen and unanimously carried, Mayor Jepsen was excused.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE
AGENDAS
Steve
Burkett, City Manager, pointed out that the amended agenda for tonight’s
meeting adds item 6(a) “Process to schedule and fill Councilmember Linda
Montgomery’s Vacancy.” He noted the
number of e-mails received on this item.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember
Montgomery explained her decision to resign from the City Council and thanked
Shoreline citizens for their support over the years.
5.
PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Larry
Owens, Shoreline, expressed disappointment that
Councilmember Montgomery’s decision to resign was not made in a more timely
fashion. If announced earlier, voters
could have filled the Council position during the election process. He opposed the proposed process to fill the
vacancy and urged the Council to conduct an open, transparent and fair
process.
(b) Dale
Wright, Shoreline, expressed support for the proposed process to fill the
vacancy, asserting that it is an appointment, not an election. He felt the successor’s views should closely
match the views and positions of the person resigning. He opposed the proposal that sitting Councilmembers whose terms expire on or before December 31
should recuse themselves
from the process, since they have a responsibility to participate. He urged Council to follow the recommended
process and make the appointment before the end of the year.
(c) Pat
Murray, Shoreline, felt the replacement for the Council position should be
chosen from candidates that recently ran for office because they have
demonstrated an interest in and knowledge of City affairs. He asked that first consideration be given to
the non-elected candidate who received the most votes, as this most closely
resembles the people’s will.
(d) Virginia
Paulsen, Shoreline, said she was angered about Councilmember Montgomery’s
post-election decision to resign. She
asserted that Councilmember Montgomery was aware long before her decision that
she would not be able to rightfully participate in crucial decisions affecting
the City of
(e) Rick
Stephens, Shoreline, contended that 30 minutes is not a sufficient amount of
time for citizens to comment on this important issue. He felt that the public is being left out of
the process, and that the resignation should have been made earlier so citizens
would have the ability to vote for a publicly-elected official. He felt the Council is rushing to find a
replacement, noting that the Council has up to 90 days to fill the vacancy. He also felt the proposed deadline for filing
an application was too soon.
(f) Bill
Meyer, Shoreline, expressed a preference for the proposal put forth by Councilmembers Ransom and Chang, which provides for an
extended process for filling the Council vacancy. He felt the current proposal is deficient
and does not address the question of whether non-elected sitting Councilmembers will be involved in the decision-making
process. He said Council should
consider the fact that the dynamics of Shoreline have changed, and there is a
tendency for incumbents to be more vulnerable.
He urged the Council take its time in conducting the process and
interviewing applicants.
(g) Mary
Jo Heller, Shoreline, thanked Councilmember Montgomery for her years of service
on the Council. She disagreed with many
of the previous comments and stressed the importance of having a full City
Council at the beginning of the year.
She felt it important that Councilmember Montgomery’s position be filled
with a person of similar views, and that current Councilmembers
should not be excluded from the process.
(h) Lois
Cairns, Shoreline, agreed with the previous speakers’ comments that the
proposed process is deficient. She said
the process, not Councilmember Montgomery, is being attacked. She urged any interested party to apply for
the position.
(i) Bridgid
Newman-Henson, Shoreline, agreed with the previous speaker and urged the
Council to conduct an open and fair process.
(j) Clark
Elster, Shoreline, urged Council to slow the process
down and adopt the proposal by Councilmembers Chang
and Ransom.
Councilmember
Hansen pointed out that the number of speakers allowed to address the same side
of one topic has exceeded Council rules.
Councilmember Ransom moved
to extend the public comment period.
Councilmember Chang seconded the motion, which failed 2-4, with Councilmembers Ransom and Chang voting in the
affirmative.
(k) David
Townsend, Shoreline, said his studies indicate that City negligence was
responsible for the death of his daughter on
(l) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline,
announced that the Shoreline District Court would be renamed the Judge Robert
A. Wacker Memorial Building in honor of her deceased
husband. She said a ceremony will be
held on December 5th at 2:30 p.m.
She commented on the fair manner in which her husband presided as a
judge. She said it would be fair for
Councilmember Montgomery to recuse herself, as she
should not be able to vote on her replacement.
She suggested a minimum of 30 days to fill the vacancy.
(m) Diana
Stephens, Shoreline, pointed out a typographical error with agenda item
6(b). She felt that some Councilmembers rudely cut off speakers without giving them
due consideration, noting that the public needs to be treated with
respect. She asserted that Council is
abrogating its responsibility if it does not listen to public comment.
Upon motion by Councilmember
Ransom, seconded by Councilmember Hansen and unanimously carried, the amended
agenda was approved.
6.
ACTION ITEMS
(a) Process
to Schedule and Fill Councilmember Linda Montgomery’s Vacancy
Steve
Burkett, City Manager, briefly described the timeline and process proposed by
staff to schedule and fill Councilmember Montgomery’s vacancy. He noted that state law provides that if the
Council is unable to make a decision within 90 days, the responsibility will go
to the King County Council. If the County
cannot decide within 180 days, then the governor will decide. Mr. Burkett then outlined the proposed
timeline, which anticipates that Council makes a decision before the end of the
year.
Mr.
Burkett clarified that Councilmember Montgomery would not be eligible to vote
and participate in the interview process because the position must be vacant.
Councilmember
Ransom wondered if the law stipulates that the position must be vacated before
the Council can conduct interviews.
Councilmember
Montgomery said the process is obviously open and public because nobody is
excluded from applying for the position.
She commented that all discussion about the replacement will take place
in an open public meeting. She felt a
strong moral responsibility to make it possible for the Council to select
someone who is likely to share her views.
Councilmember
Ransom felt the Council should not rush to a decision, noting that it usually
takes three to four weeks to recruit for professional positions. He proposed a series of questions to replace
the proposed application questions, noting these were used during the election
process and were asked of all the candidates either by the Seattle Times, the Shoreline Enterprise, or at candidate forums. He felt the earliest applications should be
due is Monday, December 15.
There
was discussion of the application questions and deadline for application
submittal. Councilmember Montgomery
advised against asking questions that require detailed knowledge of specific
City issues because it may unnecessarily limit the field of qualified
candidates.
Councilmember
Hansen suggested that proposed question #17 be eliminated because candidates
will have a chance to provide a summary at the interview.
Councilmember
Gustafson was uncomfortable with the proposed timeline and suggested an
extended process to be concluded before December 31.
Councilmember
Chang questioned whether the resignation was legally valid since it was sent as
an e-mail. He thought policy required a
signed letter of resignation.
Mr.
Sievers clarified that the Council does not have the power to reject the
resignation since Councilmembers have an absolute
right to resign.
Councilmember
Chang emphasized the importance of looking at the process as a whole and doing
it right. He questioned the need for
selecting a new member in such a short time frame, noting that the proposed
process conflicts with existing schedules as well as the holiday season. He noted that the City of Federal Way allows
three weeks for people to apply for vacant Council positions. He felt applications should be received until
December 15, and that the interview process should extend into January
2004. He felt the newly-elected
Councilmember should also be involved in the selection process.
Councilmember
Hansen stressed the importance of completing the process before December 31,
noting that a stalemate situation would cause the decision to be made by King
County or the governor. He felt that
such an eventuality would immobilize the Council for a long period of
time.
Councilmember
Gustafson was willing to extend the application deadline to December 12. Councilmember Hansen favored the proposed
deadline of December 1, but was willing to compromise on December 8. He said based on the correspondence he has
received thus far, most people know about the vacancy already.
Councilmember
Ransom expressed confidence that the Council would be able to agree on a
candidate within a reasonable amount of time.
He felt the application deadline should be extended to December 15 to
give working people sufficient time to apply.
Councilmember
Chang emphasized the need to consider the process itself as opposed to
individual candidates. He felt the
general public should be given a fair opportunity to respond to the vacancy,
and that the December 1 deadline is too soon.
Deputy
Mayor Grossman described the proposed public process and his views on the
desired characteristics of an appropriate replacement. He felt the replacement should be someone who
shares similar views.
There
was further discussion about appropriate interview questions and the timeline
for conducting interviews. Councilmember
Hansen noted that Council can always adjust the process, and that he is
available anytime Council wishes to meet.
Councilmembers liked the draft questions submitted by Councilmember Ransom, but felt
some of them should be reserved for the interview.
Councilmember
Montgomery felt that asking too many initial questions might create a
burdensome process for both applicants and Councilmembers.
Following
additional discussion, there was consensus to close the filing period at 5:00
p.m. on Monday, December 8 and schedule a meeting on Monday, December 15 to
review the applications, decide who to interview, when to conduct the
interviews, and to develop interview questions.
Responding
to Councilmember Ransom, Deputy Mayor Grossman said that Councilmember-elect Fimia will have an opportunity to comment on the vacancy
process at the conclusion of the meeting during public comment.
(b) Ordinance No. 340 amending requirements for undergrounding electrical and telecommunication utilities
and providing service connections to converted facilities as a public works
expense under certain conditions; and amending Chapter 13.20 and Section
20.70.450 - .470 of the Shoreline Municipal Code
and
Motion to designate the North City Project and the Aurora
Project 145th to 165th as eligible for projects for
reimbursement of adjacent property owners up to $10,000 for the cost of service
connections to converted utilities in the projects
Mr.
Burkett introduced this item and explained that staff is recommending that
Council increase the amount the City will credit businesses for underground
utility connections to $10,000. He noted
that this credit would cover all costs incurred by businesses in Phase 1 of the
Aurora project. He said the estimated
cost of all connections in the first phase total $85,000, down from initial
projections totaling over $200,000.
Mr.
Sievers explained that the ordinance does not change the current approach for
conversion of aerial lines of electrical and telecom utilities to underground
conduit and vaults in the right-of-way.
The amendments do separate regulation of right-of-way from regulation of
private development. This continues the
effort begun last week with the removal of right-of-way permits and street
vacations from the Development Code. The
proposed ordinance is streamlined and updated to reflect current Development Code
standards.
Ordinance
No. 340 deletes two sections of the Development Code and amends a third. The City is also allowed to designate some
street projects primarily of citywide benefit as eligible for project funds to
reimburse owners for the costs of service connections to converted utilities.
The ordinance dictates that the City perform the work, that property owners
allow access on the property to perform the work, and that owners agree to pay
for excesses over the credit amount approved by the Council. Property owners can also show proof of a
private contract to do the work. By
motion, the Council is asked to designate Aurora Avenue from 145th
to 165th and the North City Project for a conversion credit for
service connections up to $10,000 per property owner.
Councilmember
Chang felt the amendment should not include a limitation on the reimbursement
amount if the City’s intent is to cover the full costs of undergrounding. Councilmember Gustafson felt the costs should
be fully covered since the City is mandating the change on Aurora
businesses.
Mr.
Burkett stated that he did not think the City should leave the reimbursement
open-ended, but a proviso could be added to separately consider individual
properties that might exceed the $10,000 limit.
Councilmember
Ransom noted that cost estimates indicated that several Aurora Corridor
businesses would exceed the $10,000 credit.
He felt they should also be considered.
Deputy
Mayor Grossman asked how staff arrived at the estimated costs.
Mr.
Burkett explained that staff conducted an analysis of 57 properties on Aurora
between 145th and 165th, and that none of them are
expected to exceed the credit limit.
Deputy
Mayor Grossman commented on the difficulty of predicting appropriate cost
figures. He then asked if Councilmember
Chang should remove himself from the discussion since he is an Aurora property
owner who will be affected by this decision.
Mr. Sievers clarified that this is a legislative matter that does not
involve a conflict of interest.
Mr.
Burkett pointed out that the recommended policy will apply to both the Aurora
and North City projects. He noted that
the $10,000 amount will limit the City’s liability, since there are both
expensive and inexpensive ways to make utility connections.
Councilmember
Gustafson agreed on a maximum limit, but expressed support for a proviso that
addresses unique situations.
There
was discussion about whether the ordinance would need revision to accommodate a
proviso. Mr. Sievers clarified that the
ordinance simply establishes the procedure to allow this Council action to
designate the credit.
Councilmember Hansen moved
to pass Ordinance No. 340. Councilmember
Gustafson seconded the motion.
Councilmember
Ransom expressed concern that although the ordinance provides for businesses in
Phase 1, it acts as a precedent that may affect businesses in the second and
third mile. He asked if Rick Stephens,
owner of the Highland Ice Arena, could comment on his situation.
With
Council consensus, Mr. Stephens explained the situation in his building, where
he has multiple utility connections on the front, back, and side of his
property. He said an estimate indicates
a cost of approximately $41,000 to underground his utilities. He estimated that eight other businesses
along Aurora Avenue are in his same situation.
Kirk
McKinley, Aurora Corridor/Interurban Trail Project Manager, explained how staff
arrived at the connection estimates. He
said the highest estimate in this first group was $8,800 and eight properties
exceeded $5,000, which was the previous limit set by Council in 2001.
Councilmember
Ransom commented on the difficulty of considering “rough estimates.” He asked when the Council would be provided
with more reliable cost figures, noting that the figures continue to
change.
Mr.
McKinley stated that the initial limit of $5,000 was not based on estimates but
on a policy statement. He noted that
estimates get better and better as the project details are developed. He pointed out that the current estimates are
$140,000 less than originally budgeted.
He said the true costs will be known when the construction bids come
in.
Councilmember
Hansen concurred that the $5,000 figure was not based on cost estimates. He stated that accurate estimates depend on
when the project is actually built. He
considered it fiscally irresponsible to leave the limit open-ended. He noted that if costs need to be increased
in the future based on new information, then the
ordinance can be amended at that time. He felt the ordinance should only consider
Phase 1 and not attempt to address future unknowns.
Councilmember Ransom moved
an amendment to allow a proviso that Council may consider, on a case-by-case
basis, paying a larger amount when the costs exceed the $10,000 limit. Councilmember Chang seconded the motion.
Mr.
Sievers clarified that this amount could be part of a motion to designate the
two projects for conversion credits.
A vote was taken on the
amendment, which failed 1-5, with Councilmember Ransom voting in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Hansen and
Gustafson accepted as a friendly amendment to the motion to approve Ordinance
No. 340 to add a motion to designate Aurora Avenue from 145th to 165th
and the North City Project for a conversion credit for service connections up
to $10,000 per property owner. A vote
was taken on the motion to approve Ordinance No. 340 and make the designations,
which passed unanimously.
(c) Motion
to approve Updates to Aurora Corridor Real Property Acquisitions and Relocation
Policy, Procedures, and Guidelines
Mr.
Burkett explained that this item is an important and necessary step in
proceeding with the Aurora Corridor project.
Revisions to the existing policy will provide the basis for discussing
the City’s right-of-way needs with property owners in the Aurora Corridor. He noted that the City plans to move ahead
this week in sending letters to property and business owners.
Kirk
McKinley, Project Manager, introduced Tim Bevan of
CH2Mhill and Linda Lane of Lane Appraisals and distributed updated attachments
describing the proposed changes. After
providing background on the Aurora Corridor Real Property Acquisitions and
Relocation Policy, he described the three major changes:
He
stated that the total amount of land the City intends to acquire in the first
phase equates to approximately 0.7 acres, comprised of intermittent strips of
land one to two feet wide. He noted that
no businesses would be required to relocate as a result of this action.
Responding
to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. McKinley explained why some right-of-way is needed
on side-street properties. He said some
land is needed to create adequate sidewalks and curb radiuses, and to ensure
proper lane alignment.
Mr.
McKinley concluded by outlining the acquisition process and schedule, noting
that property owners are being contacted and meetings would be scheduled
shortly. Staff anticipates conducting an
open house in February 2004 to discuss 60% design plans and to get owner input
on frontage improvements.
Councilmember Hansen moved
to amend the Aurora Corridor Real Property Acquisitions and Relocation Policy,
Procedures and Guidelines Manual as set forth in Attachment B. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
7. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) Bond
Advisory Committee Report
After thanking the members
of the Bond Advisory Committee for their efforts, Bob Olander,
Deputy City Manager, provided a review of the committee’s report. He said the committee concluded that the
spring of 2004 is not an opportune time to seek a voter approved tax levy for
capital improvements. He provided the
reasons for this conclusion and said that in order not to lose valuable expertise
and energy, staff recommends that the committee proceed with some additional
work in 2004.
Councilmembers thanked the committee and
accepted their final report.
Councilmember Gustafson
provided his perspective on the committee’s work, noting the committee could
not achieve a consensus to propose a bond issue. The projects that were considered included
sidewalks near schools, property acquisition for parks, storm drainage
projects, and linkage of the Interurban Trail.
Despite the lack of consensus, he felt the results were positive and
will lay the foundation for a future bond issue.
Councilmember Ransom cited a
poor economy as the primary reason for the recommendation. He was glad that the committee will continue
its efforts in 2004, emphasizing the fact that a bond issue is a protracted
process.
Cindy Ryu,
a committee member, advised that the committee’s work should be incorporated
into the Council’s 2004 Work Plan. She
also questioned the inclusion of the City Hall project in the Capital
Improvement Plan.
Deputy Mayor Grossman read
the names of the committee members and thanked those present in the audience.
Councilmember Chang
commended Councilmembers Gustafson and Ransom for
their efforts in bringing the community together via the BAC. Mr. Burkett thanked everyone involved for
their contribution to the effort.
RECESS
At 9:05 p.m., Deputy Mayor
Grossman declared a five minutes recess.
At 9:12 p.m. the meeting reconvened.
(b) Completion
of Presentation of the Proposed 2004 budget
Mr. Burkett provided
additional information on the following outstanding budget issues that emerged
from the previous budget discussions:
·
Sister City funding – Should there be matching funds? How much?
·
Additional Human Services funding ($100,000)
·
“Showmobile” funding ($20,000)
·
Pavement Management Program ($700,000)
·
Recreation Fee Increases
Before beginning this
discussion, Councilmember Ransom suggested that Councilmember salaries should
be reviewed by a citizen committee. He
was unsure whether this would be a budget commitment. Mr. Burkett said staff could bring back some
background information on the options for later discussion. He said such a review would have no budget
impacts.
Turning to Sister Cities
funding, Councilmember Ransom suggested an amount equal to what he said is
allocated in Federal Way, $15,000.
Councilmember Chang supported this proposal. Councilmember Ransom said his recommendation
is based on the fact that Shoreline does not have a strong business base such
as Bellevue, which has multiple sister city relationships. He felt the City should take the Federal Way
approach and assist the Sister City Association with initial funding.
Councilmember Hansen
supported including some amount, possibly $10,000. He felt the details of how the money would be
spent could be worked out later. He also
pointed out that Federal Way supports two sister city relationships.
Deputy Mayor Grossman
expressed support for a matching funds approach.
Councilmember Chang
recommended that the City budget include at least $15,000 for Sister Cities,
noting that Boryeong, Korea spent far more than that
when it hosted the Shoreline delegation.
Based on his experience, he was not optimistic that the Sister Cities
Association would be able to generate adequate funding. He said an initial amount of $15,000 will
give the City a good start and provide a gauge of how much will be needed in
the future.
Councilmember Gustafson had
mixed feelings about the proposal, noting that he could not justify funding the
Sister Cities program when there are proposed recreational fee increases and
property tax increases. Councilmember
Montgomery also did not support additional Sister Cities funding.
Councilmember Ransom
supported adding $100,000 to Human Services funding. He said of the total $750,000 budgeted for
Human Services, only $307,000 is earmarked for Human Service contracts. He said agencies are finding it more
difficult to find funding, and that the addition would help many needy people. Other Councilmembers
did not support this proposal.
Responding to Councilmember
Gustafson, Councilmember Ransom suggested that the funding could come from
capital projects, which could be slowed down.
Councilmember Hansen opposed
the proposal, noting that there will always be human service needs the City
cannot satisfy with any amount.
Councilmember Gustafson concurred, emphasizing that adding $100,000 may
give King County the impression its support is not needed as much.
Councilmember Chang felt he
could not support the proposal without an adequate source of revenue. He suggested exploring other alternatives to
help people in Shoreline.
Deputy Mayor Grossman felt
he could only support a proposal that had a well-defined allocation plan. He commented on the grid/scoring system the
Council has used to prioritize human service allocations in the past.
Councilmembers concurred with an
additional $20,000 allocation for the Showmobile,
noting that many organizations are involved in this purchase and have raised
significant funds already.
Councilmember Gustafson supported
looking at non-resident user fees for recreation programs. Mr. Burkett said staff cannot put together
such a program by next week, but an analysis of the issue can be brought
forward later.
Councilmember Gustafson also
questioned the proposed one-cent property tax increase. It was noted this raises about $60,000. Finance Director Debbie Tarry and
Councilmember Ransom concurred that not taking the increase will have cumulative
impacts down the road.
Councilmember Gustafson
suggested asking voters to increase the levy lid. Deputy Mayor Grossman opposed the idea since
the amount per taxpayer is negligible, yet the long-term compounding effects on the City budget is significant. Mr. Burkett added that the judicial decision
on Initiative 776 has left a permanent loss of $500,000 in revenue.
At 10:00 p.m. Councilmember Hansen moved to extend the meeting to 10:30
p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the
motion which carried unanimously.
8. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Dan Mann,
Shoreline, opposed the proposed process to fill the Council vacancy. He said the ill-timed resignation is
perceived as a manipulation of the process and a way to deprive people’s
right’s to vote on a new representative.
He said trying to replace Councilmember Montgomery with someone of
similar views is an affront to the elective process. He urged the Council to rethink the process
in favor of a more open-minded discussion.
(b) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, said
the legislative intent of Ordinance No. 340 is to cover the full cost of
utility connections for Aurora properties, so the ordinance should reflect that
intent. She noted that the owner of
Highland Ice Arena has multiple utility connections. She suggested a change in the ordinance to
include “existing businesses,” since they are the ones the City intends to
help. She commented that the
Councilmember selection process is too short and ill-timed, and noted that many
people believe the selection process has already taken place.
(c) Janet
Way, Shoreline, felt the Council should change its rules to allow for more
public comment on action items. She
thought the three speaker rule is an unnecessary and arbitrary limit imposed by
the Council. She thanked Councilmember
Montgomery for her service to the City, but said that tonight’s meeting is an
example of how things are not working.
She felt the proposed process to fill the vacancy does not fit the
citizen’s needs.
(d) Richard Johnsen, Shoreline, expressed support for Sister Cities
funding, noting that the visit by Boryeong officials
next year will be a major international event for the City. He commented on the significance and success
of the sister city relationship between Houston, Texas and Stevenger,
Norway.
(e) Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, commented on the results of her recent
campaign and stated she will be applying for the City Council vacancy. She said she hopes the Council will use the
process as an opportunity to build goodwill and consensus. Regarding the budget, she said the Council
should reduce unnecessary expenditures such as travel and lodging for employees
and focus on providing essential public services. She asserted that an increase in recreation
fees amounts to a tax increase on Shoreline citizens.
(f) Maggie Fimia, Shoreline, expressed opposition to the proposed
Council vacancy process. She said the
proposed process is ill-timed due to the holidays and budget negotiations. She felt it limits the City’s ability to
appoint someone from a broad pool of qualified applicants. She also felt the public does not have an
adequate opportunity to provide input in the process. She characterized the Council as “referees”
who should consider public input. She
urged the Council to reconsider its decision and allow more time for
deliberation.
Deputy Mayor Grossman
briefly responded to the public comments.
Councilmember Ransom suggested that Council think about allowing the
public to give feedback before deliberations on the Council appointment.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:20 p.m., Deputy Mayor Grossman declared
the meeting adjourned.
_________________________