CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, November 22, 2004 Shoreline Conference Center
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, Grace, Gustafson, and Ransom
ABSENT: none
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Hansen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Steve Burkett, City Manager, reported that the Comprehensive Plan 2004 Update and the master plans for Transportation, Surface Water and Parks, Recreation and Open Space were distributed this evening and will be discussed on December 6.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: none
Councilmember Gustafson reported that the WRIA 8 draft report has been published with a Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. He distributed an executive summary to Councilmembers and provided the locations and schedule for public meetings to be held in December. He urged the public to provide comments on the draft.
Councilmembers Chang and Fimia reported on their attendance at a HUD seminar regarding various HUD programs available in Shoreline. Councilmember Fimia noted that the meeting was in response to a request from Councilmember Chang.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Mark Mitchell, Shoreline, commented that local casinos are paying the City at least three times what they make in annual income. He noted that many casinos have gone broke, and that several cities have lower gambling taxes than Shoreline. He urged the City to approve a 2% reduction in gambling taxes for a year so that local casinos can avoid bankruptcy. He noted that his casino, Club Hollywood, is an $11 million investment in Shoreline.
(b) William Hubbell, Shoreline, also urged the Council to reduce the gambling tax by 2%, noting that local casinos make many contributions of time, labor, and money to the community. He said the partnership between the City and casinos “needs an overhaul,” and the City should consider all options for keeping local casinos viable. He said local casinos help build the tax base, provide jobs, and support City needs.
(c) Tim Iszley, Seattle, reported that the Golden Nugget casino had a net profit of only $56,000 and paid the City about three to four times that amount in taxes. He said the Hideaway casino has lost $193,000 and is for sale. He noted that Federal Way, which once had four casinos, now has only one, and several other cities have lowered their gambling tax rates to help local casinos.
(d) Larry Wheaton, Shoreline, said Goldie’s casino employs 160 people and paid the City $800,000, despite its net profit of less than $200,000. He felt the Aurora Corridor project would have a detrimental effect on business. He urged the Council to consider implementing a 2% gambling tax reduction for 1-2 years.
(e) Henk Kunnen, Shoreline, expressed support for a four-lane configuration on 15th Avenue NE. He also commented that elderly people have difficulty turning left without a left-turn lane. He said nobody waits for the pedestrian light at the current crosswalk location because it takes too long between cycles. He suggested removal of the pedestrian crosswalk in favor of a traffic light on the corner fronting the Anderson House, since that was the original location of the crosswalk many years ago.
(f) Harley O’Neil, Shoreline, commented on the urgency of completing the North City project, since many people are relying on various infrastructure improvements. He also expressed support for a four-lane configuration from NE 145th Street. He then urged the Council to consider a 2% reduction in the gambling tax because Club Hollywood has made such a large investment in the community. He noted that it’s a “win-win” situation for the City if the casino is successful.
(g) Barbara Lacy, Shoreline, noted that the next speaker, Barbara Guthrie, has voluntarily taken samples of the water in Echo Lake for the past two years in connection with the King County Lake Stewardship (KCLS) Program. She thanked Ms. Guthrie on behalf of the Echo Lake Neighborhood Association (ELNA) for her commitment to improving water quality.
(h) Barbara Guthrie, Shoreline, read a letter from the ELNA board to the City requesting the City’s financial support of the Lake Stewardship Program. She provided background on the KCLS program and explained that the county would begin offering the program as a contract service. She said she would be willing to continue volunteering her services in the future. She pointed out that Echo Lake will be enjoyed by a greater number of people as the Interurban Trail becomes increasingly popular. She urged the City to underwrite this program at a cost of approximately $6,800 per year ($18,900 without volunteer labor) to provide the City with a valuable history of the health and vitality of Echo Lake.
(i) Janet Way, Shoreline, explained that a new group called the Sno-King Environmental Council (formally the Shoreline Environmental Council) has been organized to address environmental issues on a regional level. She said the group would address many issues, including the WRIA 8 report, Shoreline’s Critical Areas ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, master plans, energy efficiency/sustainability, natural drainage, and protection of habitat, clean water, and open space. She read a portion of a resolution adopted by the 32nd District Democrats, which advocates science-based environmental analysis and stewardship. She expressed concern that the City has not included Thornton Creek as a wildlife habitat/conservation area in its planning process.
(j) Chuck Leone, Shoreline, opposed the North City project on the grounds that “its underlying agenda is to raise property taxes and drive the middle class and those on fixed incomes out of the area.” He said there is no real economic recovery happening, and people favor “no-frills” improvements in infrastructure only when necessary. He felt the City should build on what is already has, help businesses succeed, provide services for the aging and disabled populations, and help the next generation become productive members of society. He felt the City should try to revive the cultural optimism of the Kennedy years, emphasizing the ideals of progress and modernization. He warned of the adverse financial consequences that would follow if the City does not change its course.
Mr. Burkett said staff is evaluating the Echo Lake water testing issue and would bring back a recommendation to Council. He noted that this issue is exactly the kind of urban subsidy the City has been objecting to for some time.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Gustafson moved approval of the agenda. Councilmember Grace seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon motion by Councilmember Gustafson, seconded by Councilmember Grace and carried 6-1, with Deputy Mayor Jepsen dissenting, the following consent calendar items were approved:
Minutes of Workshop Meeting of October 18, 2004
Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 25, 2004
Minutes of Special Meeting of November 1, 2004
Minutes of Special Meeting of November 3, 2004
Minutes of Dinner Meeting of November 8, 2004
Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 8, 2004
Approval of expenses and payroll for the period
ending November 5, 2004 in the amount of $1,366,996.64
Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute an
amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for jail
services with Yakima County
8. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Ordinance No. 365 levying the general taxes for
the City of Shoreline in King County for the fiscal
year commencing January 1, 2005, 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
Debbie Tarry, Finance Director, briefly reviewed the background on establishing the property tax rate. The proposal is to increase the property tax rate by 1%.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to pass Ordinance No. 365. Councilmember Grace seconded the motion.
Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Tarry affirmed that an increase of more than 1% in the property tax rate would require a vote of the people. Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Ms. Tarry explained that the current inflation rate is higher than 1%.
Councilmember Ransom asked Ms. Tarry to explain the relationship between the property tax rate, assessed valuation, and the portion of the tax the City collects in order to understand why even though the rate is going down, their own assessed valuation may go up on their individual homes.
Ms. Tarry explained that the total property tax a Shoreline property owner pays goes to many jurisdictions; the City of Shoreline receives approximately 10% of the taxes collected. The tax is based on assessed valuation and the rate set by the City. Since assessed valuations increase at a rate faster than 1%, the rate must decrease for the overall levy to remain at 1%. It is estimated the average homeowner in Shoreline will pay $4-5 more to the City of Shoreline in 2005 compared with 2004.
Councilmember Ransom wondered if a 1% increase would apply to school districts, which receive 60-66% of the property tax collected. Ms. Tarry said the school district rate is established by local elections. Mayor Hansen clarified that the school district establishes a levy amount, which is then divided by the assessed valuation to determine the rate.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen pointed out that the owner of a median-valued home in Shoreline paid approximately $350 to the City last year (roughly 10% of the total property tax bill). A 5% projected increase in assessed valuation for 2005 means the same owner will likely pay about $353 in 2005.
Councilmember Gustafson said despite the fact that a 1% increase is not keeping up with inflation, he would not support the motion because he feels property taxes should only be increased by a vote of the people.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 6-1, with Councilmember Gustafson dissenting and Ordinance No. 365 setting the property tax levy for 2005 was passed.
(b) Ordinance No. 367 establishing a utility tax on
the City Stormwater Utility, and amending
Shoreline Municipal Code 3.32.020
Ms. Tarry explained that Ordinance No. 367 expands the definition of sewage operation to include operation of a surface water utility and establishes a 6% surface water utility tax. She explained that 41 other cities in Washington include a tax on water utilities. She estimated that a 6% tax rate would generate approximately $150,000 in annual revenue and impact the average single-family resident $6 per year.
Mayor Hansen called for public comment.
(a) Janet Way, Shoreline, said most people don’t realize they pay for surface water management, and it is the City’s responsibility to help neighborhoods solve surface water problems. She said all surface water eventually ends up in creeks and waterways, so the City should spend surface water funds wisely and in ways that protect the environment. She urged the City to pursue surface water improvements such as natural drainage, sustainable drainage, and SEA Streets. She also urged citizens to study the draft surface water master plan coming before the Council in the next few months.
Councilmember Ransom moved to pass Ordinance No. 367. Councilmember Grace seconded the motion.
Councilmember Fimia opposed Ordinance No. 367, expressing her fundamental policy concern about levying taxes on utility fees. She felt the City could get an additional $150,000 from other sources without imposing this kind of “ back door tax.” She said the tax is so incremental that people are not really aware of it, but it is significant. She felt the tax could have a significant impact on commercial businesses and larger residential areas. She wondered if there were any limitations on how much the City could charge, and why the preference is for a utility tax rather than a rate increase.
Mr. Burkett said the Council is limited to what is approved through the fee ordinance. He noted that Council could determine any future fees/rates as part of the master plan discussions starting in December. He explained that revenue generated from the utility tax is available for general use, but the utility fee is restricted to the surface water program. He said this is one source of revenue available to cities to provide general services.
Mayor Hansen stated that although he does not generally support a “tax on taxes,” he is a pragmatist who realizes the City requires a certain amount of taxes with which to operate the City. He said he would support the measure.
Councilmember Ransom said this tax is part of the overall effort to make surface water management a self-supporting enterprise fund, as are the other utilities. He supported the motion because the majority of cities raise revenue in this way and surface water issues are a real problem in Shoreline.
Councilmember Gustafson concurred with Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Ransom, noting that the tax puts Shoreline in line with the majority of Washington cities.
Councilmember Fimia clarified that the utility tax would be applied to the General Fund, not to specific surface water projects.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 5-2, with Councilmembers Chang and Fimia dissenting; and Ordinance No. 367 imposing a surface water utility tax was passed.
(c) Ordinance No. 366 adopting the annual budget
of the City of Shoreline for the year 2005
Ms. Tarry noted that this ordinance reflects the 2005 budget as proposed by staff, which includes the 2005 salary schedule and fee schedule.
Mayor Hansen called for public comment.
(a) Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, expressed concern about the expenditure of reserve funds in the 2005 budget and urged the Council to consider maintaining the current reserve balance. She noted that the property tax and surface water tax will only increase 2005 revenues by $263,449, which does not equal even one-tenth of the reserves being reduced. She urged the Council to proceed wisely and consider what is really important for the citizens of Shoreline.
Councilmember Grace moved to pass Ordinance No. 366. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom moved that the Human Services budget be increased by $33,039 to restore the cuts made to social service programs and to fund Community Health, Volunteer Transportation and Child Care resources as recommended by the Human Services Committee. Councilmember Chang seconded the motion.
Councilmember Grace moved a substitute motion to change the amount from $33,039 to $62,113. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.
Councilmember Grace stated that he wished to fully fund the total amount requested by all the agencies. He said $62,113 is the difference between what the Ad Hoc Human Services Committee submitted and what they approved, which represents about a $30,000 increase for fiscal year 2005.
Councilmember Fimia wished to clarify whether this amount would fund Community Health, Volunteer Transportation and Child Care Resources.
Rob Beem, Human Services Manager, explained that the $62,113 represents the amount necessary to fully fund each of the requests for agencies that were recommended for funding by the committee, as well as the inclusion of three new programs. The $33,039 figure is the committee’s recommendation that restores funding for all agencies recommended for funding at their current year level.
Responding to Councilmember Fimia, Councilmember Grace clarified that Community Health, Volunteer Transportation, and Child Care Services are not included in this amount because the committee did not recommend them for funding.
Councilmember Fimia maintained that the committee’s guidance was to restore the 10% reductions and fund Community Health and Volunteer Transportation if funds became available. She noted that staff recommended funding for Child Care Services.
Mayor Hansen stated that he would support restoring funding in 2005 for those agencies that were recommended for a 10% reduction.
Councilmember Gustafson expressed concern about using reserves to fund these programs. He supported no more than the amount it would take to restore funding to agencies that received a reduction. He felt the committee could make additional recommendations at a later time if it determines there are legitimate human service needs.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen commented that many federal, state, and county human service programs have suffered significant budget cuts, and these would likely “trickle down” to the City. He did not feel the City could afford to restore funding to all programs. He said he could support $33,039 but was undecided about $62,113.
Councilmember Grace clarified that anything above $33,039 would be allocated based on the committee’s further recommendations.
Councilmember Ransom supported Councilmember Grace’s motion, although he had originally wished to allocate an additional $100,000. He reminded the Council that the per capita support for human services in Shoreline is only $3.92, which is very low compared to other cities. He said the $62,113 increase would only bring Shoreline up to $5 per capita, which is still much lower than most cities.
Councilmember Fimia reiterated that the ad hoc committee did not recommend funding at the levels Councilmember Grace suggested, but it did recommend Community Health and Volunteer Transportation if additional funding could be found. She said with the addition of Child Care Services, these three programs would only require an additional $15,000. She felt the funding could be made available through modest reductions to non-essential budget items, such as dues and subscriptions, registration and training, and food and travel.
Councilmember Gustafson reiterated his view that the Council should wait and see what its final budget figures are before allocating more funding. He felt it was premature to provide funding without really knowing the actual need.
Mayor Hansen agreed with Councilmember Grace that the ad hoc committee should decide the distribution of whatever amount is approved.
Councilmember Chang commented on the ongoing human service needs in Shoreline and on the importance of “investing in humanity.” He emphasized that Shoreline spends much less on human services than other jurisdictions. He said it is time to share with those in need. He supported Councilmember Fimia’s proposal to allocate an additional $15,000 to the $62,113, which would still only bring Shoreline up to $6 per capita.
Responding to Councilmember Grace, Mr. Beem stated that he felt the ad hoc committee could be reconvened to consider additional allocations. Councilmember Grace felt the committee should decide how any additional funding is distributed.
After further discussion, Councilmember Fimia moved to amend the substitute motion to add an additional $15,000 (raising the total allocation to $77,113) with direction that the Ad Hoc Human Services Committee consider funding for Community Health, Volunteer Transportation and Child Care Resources. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion. A vote was taken on the amendment, which failed 3-4, with Councilmembers Chang, Fimia and Ransom voting in the affirmative.
A vote was taken on the substitute motion to allocate an additional $62,113 to the Human Services budget, which carried 5-2, with Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.
Councilmember Fimia moved that Neighborhood Block Watch signs and any
(e) Motion to appoint a Planning Commissioner for
a term to expire on March 31, 2008
Councilmember Grace reported that the subcommittee comprised of himself, Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Gustafson met on November 18 and interviewed 8 applicants for the Planning Commission vacancy created by Commissioner Doering’s resignation. He said the subcommittee unanimously recommends Michael Broili to fill the vacancy.
Upon motion by Councilmember Grace, seconded by Councilmember Ransom and unanimously carried, Michael Broili was appointed to fill an unexpired term on the Planning Commission.
Staff then presented an amended version of Ordinance No. 366 to reflect the changes approved by Council. It was noted that $72,000 was taken from the fund balance to cover the additional expenditures.
A vote was taken on the motion to approve Ordinance No. 366 as amended, which carried 6-1, with Councilmember Fimia dissenting, and the 2005 budget was approved.
(d) Direction on the North City Project
Mr. Burkett provided a brief introduction, noting that a majority of the Council seems to approve the alternatives identified as Option 1 and Option 2.
Mayor Hansen called for public comment.
(a) Stan Terry, Shoreline, said the opposition is trying to depict the North City project as wasteful and unnecessary, but nothing could be further from the truth. He said North City is an economic development project that will fulfill the needs of businesses, residents, commuters, and pedestrians. He expressed support for the original three-lane configuration, noting that Option 1 spends the same amount of money for something a bit less. He said the biggest complaint he hears is the difficulty of accessing 15th Avenue NE from residential streets. He commented on the pedestrian fatality that occurred at the intersection of NE 172nd and 15th Avenue NE. He felt the installation of a stoplight at NE 172nd would improve access for motorists and provide increased safety for pedestrians.
(b) Janet Way, Shoreline, commented on the increased traffic congestion on 15th Avenue since the road was narrowed to three lanes. She supported the installation of a traffic light where Tia Townsend was killed, and felt the Council should seriously consider Councilmember Fimia’s Option 4. She said she favors pedestrian-oriented development, livable communities, improved drainage, and underground utilities. She said any plan that is adopted should ensure safety and reduce cut-through traffic. She felt the public should have a greater opportunity to provide input on Option 4.
(c) Gregg Paisley, North City property owner, expressed support for the original plan with a three-lane configuration. He said the opposition is led by a tiny minority trying to obstruct progress that would benefit the majority. He said 38 of 40 (95%) property owners signed easement agreements, thereby tacitly agreeing to the original project, and most have made major improvements and business investments, with the exception of the dissenters. He said the prime antagonist is a regional operation that is less reliant on local patrons and foot traffic than many neighborhood businesses. He estimated that 96% of the people support the project, and only 3.9% of Shoreline adults have indicated dissatisfaction with the project. He said the opposition’s claims are misleading and inaccurate, and they deliberately misrepresent stakeholder and public opinion. He commented on City staff’s hard work over the years and urged the Council to construct the project as designed.
(d) Gary East, North City property owner, thanked all those who participated in last week’s forum on the North City Project. He said although there was much debate and disagreement, the project has a tremendous amount of support in its original configuration. He said he could employ the tactics of the opposition to encourage support for the project, but he prefers that the Council consider all the work that was done in arriving at the original design configuration for the project.
(e) Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, pointed out that the North City project is funded entirely by the City, whereas the City’s Capital Improvement Program is funded mostly from grants. She said despite the $2 million contribution from Seattle City Light, ultimately the ratepayers of Shoreline would be paying for the project. She felt that a properly noticed community meeting should be held because the vast majority of stakeholders neither heard about last week’s forum nor were they able to attend. She felt the business and property owners would appreciate hearing from those who are underwriting the cost of the project. She urged the Council to spend more time gathering public input and exploring more options, such as Councilmember Fimia’s proposal.
(f) Richard Johnsen, Shoreline, generally supported the design features of the North City project, but felt a three-lane configuration would create problems for motorists trying to access 15th Avenue from neighborhood streets. He also expressed concern about the transition from four lanes to three lanes at NE 180th Street and at NE 172nd Street. He said it is difficult for motorists to suddenly merge into a three-lane configuration. He encouraged the Council to approve a plan that creates a more even traffic flow.
(g) Alan Sharrah, Director of Operations for Frank Lumber, said he attended last week’s forum and noticed the frustration from people on both sides, despite the overall consensus that improvements are needed. He said nobody is opposed to improving North City, but the three-lane configuration “is choking the business district” by channeling hundreds of cars out of the business district daily. He said the project lacks adequate sidewalks and that neighborhood traffic has increased. He urged the Council to address the concerns of all stakeholders to achieve a “win-win” situation.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At 11:25 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Sharon Mattioli, City Clerk