CITY OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
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
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
§
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: none
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Jean
Christensen,
(b) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline,
provided supplemental information related to her testimony about zoning for
urban forests in the Comprehensive Plan.
She said the Washington Department of Natural Resources has an urban and
community forestry program. She said trees
have economic, psychological, aesthetic, and environmental benefits to a
community. She said her concept also
includes a sustained reforestation program.
She described the situation in
(c) Vicki
Westberg, Shoreline, commented on the prices of picnic
tables, benches and garbage cans as described in the Parks, Recreation and Open
Space Master Plan. She described the
costs to provide these and their distribution.
She pointed out discrepancies in the figures and said this underscores
the need to go over these documents thoroughly and examine the fine print.
(d) Dennis
Lee, Shoreline, emphasized the importance of citizen participation and public
comment. He said long-time residents
know their neighborhoods intimately and he was frustrated that promises were
made about process that haven’t been kept. He said there is no process to reach down
into the neighborhoods so that decisions are not made by staff or
consultants. He concluded that he has
been commenting for years about the same things: Briarcrest is a
land-locked neighborhood;
(e) Elaine
Phelps, Shoreline, corrected a comment made at a previous meeting that she was
intimated by the presence of police. Instead,
she said she was intimated by the intemperate and injudicious abuse of police
power by the Mayor. She also supported
Ms. Wacker’s comment regarding the protection of
trees, noting that trees are being cut in neighborhoods and parks for
views. This is contrary to public
benefit for several reasons, including impacts to water/air quality, surface
water management, and habitat. She said
trees are being cut in the Innis Arden Reserves to
improve views at the expense of the Reserves.
She asked the Council to consider our legacy to future generations.
(f) Pat
Crawford, Shoreline, objected to the fact that last week there was a whole
slide show responding to her comments about Peverly
Pond. She said doing this under the City
Manager’s Report is unfair, because no one knows if a particular item is going
to be addressed because it is not called out on the agenda. She also felt it took a lot of staff
time. She submitted pictures of Peverly Pond and mentioned the latest Environmental
Checklist from Aegis (October 2003) that indicated that when the vault was
installed, surface water was encountered.
She said the work could have punctured the pond, but this was not
investigated. She also contested the
City’s statement that the site was cleared under a valid permit because she
said the permit was voided by Superior Court.
(g) Tim
Crawford, Shoreline, was confused about whether there will be public notice of
a continued public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan. He said there is a big difference between a
workshop and a public hearing with notice.
On another topic, Mr. Crawford elaborated on comments made by the Deputy
City Manager last week that the City had been relieved of responsibility in the
Tia Townsend lawsuit.
He said he attended the court hearings on the City’s request for summary
judgments but the court did not relieve the City of responsibility at either
hearing.
(h) Pat
Murray, Shoreline, asked if special treatment is being given to the trail
surface of the Interurban Trail where it crosses roadways. He also asked the Council to support Fircrest staying open.
Continuing, he said months ago he had asked the City to look into
continuing the recyling rebate program; but nothing
has been done, despite the fact that Waste Management says this is within the
City’s prerogative. Finally, he asked
whether Peverly Pond is public or private.
(i) George Mauer, Shoreline, commented on
the ban on applause. He said applause is
approval and is used to encourage and support speakers. He said Council is “shooting itself in the
foot” and “throwing the baby out with the bath water” by lumping applause with
other disruptive forms of behavior. He
said there are two key components to communication, what is said and the
strength of the conviction. Applause
shows the strength of support for the speaker’s comments. Councilmembers represent the citizens and are
therefore “shooting themselves in the foot” when they restrict their ability to
determine the importance of what a speaker is saying. He said the ban is in place because it is
painful for a politician to hear support for the opposing side.
(j) Janet
Way, Shoreline, addressed the Transportation Master Plan regarding the
continuation of 165th NE from 15th to 25th, which
would go through the north end of
RECESS
Because
of applause from the audience, Mayor Hansen recessed the meeting at
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved approval of the agenda. Councilmember Grace seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously, and the agenda was
approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Fimia asked that Item 7(c)
be pulled and postponed. The City Clerk
said it should be considered as Item 9(b).
Councilmember Ransom moved approval of the consent calendar as amended. Deputy Mayor Jepsen
seconded the motion and the following items were approved unanimously:
Minutes of Special
Meeting of
Approval of expenses
and payroll for the period ending
Motion to authorize the
City Manager to execute a contract supplement to the existing Design Services
Contract for final plans, specifications and estimate (PS&E) to add additional
design services beyond the original contract scope, Aurora Corridor Improvement
Project, Phase 1
8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING
(a) Public
hearing to consider public comments on the purchase of the
Mr. Burkett provided the
background on this item, noting that planning for a city hall began when the
City incorporated and a city hall has been in the Capital Improvement Program
since 2000 and on the Council work priority list since 2001. He said that for the last three years the
City has investigated various sites, including Hamlin and
Continuing, Mr. Burkett said
the estimated project cost is $21.4 million.
Of this, $1.4 million is the cost of the park. As part of the design process, these
estimates will be refined. There is
$11.4 million in savings to be used for a down payment, with the remaining
funding coming from municipal tax exempt bonds to be repaid over 20 years. The interest rate will probably be between
four and five percent, with a debt service of about $700,000 per year. This would be paid back by the savings of not
paying rent and from some of the City’s real estate excise tax.
Mr. Burkett agreed that $21
million is a lot of money. He
demonstrated a list of cities that have moved into
Mr. Burkett discussed the
option of continuing to rent. He showed
the crossover of costs of renting versus paying for a city hall. It will be less expensive to continue to rent
for ten years, but at that point, owning will be less costly.
Mr. Burkett described the
proposal to purchase the
Mr. Burkett said staff is
considering the issues already raised with regard to the site, as well as the
issues to be raised tonight during the public hearing. The budget will be refined and the
environmental issues evaluated. He said
a Phase 1 environmental review has already been done, and staff is in the
process of evaluating storm drainage and water quality issues. He said the City has committed to increasing
the water quality by treating the water from the site and the water coming from
off site. He said soils
testing is underway to assure that the site can accommodate the parking
structure. He said the complex part of
the proposal is the development agreement with the YMCA and others outlining
the shared costs, how the operation and maintenance of shared areas will be handled
and parking issues, including putting some of the parking for the YMCA parcel
on the City’s portion.
Mr. Burkett said the key
milestones are the Council decision on the purchase and sale agreement, and the
proposal of a design/build process which will include community involvement. This approach will reduce the cost of the
project by eliminating the need to go through the low bid process. Then comes the
Comprehensive Plan site plan process, which will go through July 2005, and
design through March 2006. Then
construction can begin.
Mayor Hansen opened the
public hearing.
(a)
Stan Terry, Shoreline,
said there is a large group of “malcontents and
naysayers” who bring negative energy to the Council meetings. He mentioned various projects this group has
opposed. He supported the purchase of
the property, noting this will save taxpayers money in the long term. He also noted that the City will gain a new
park with easy access to the Interurban Trail.
The project will improve water quality in
(b)
LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, favored this
site, noting that at the end of the
bond period, the City will
own the property free and clear. She suggested
putting a smaller amount down, leaving more in cash reserves. She said the location harkens back to the use
of the park as an historic resort. The
location is excellent for a community center, particularly if the YMCA is
there. She concluded that citizens should
participate in the design, and she suggested the use of solar energy and a roof
garden.
(c)
Peter Henry,
Shoreline, said the Comprehensive Plan includes a
requirement to
provide affordable housing and encourage preservation of existing housing
stock. He asked whether the City is
currently meeting the
(d)
Jim Abbot, Shoreline,
concurred with Ms. Wacker, noting he paid
$22/sqft for commercial property at the north end of
(e)
Tracy Tallman,
are differences between
the diagram shown tonight and the one proposed in the rezone packet. In the newer diagram, much of the park is
buffer and all the at-ground parking has been eliminated. The building has also been reduced in
size. There is no access to the
condominium parking except though the common area which is purported to be a
public gathering place. She said the
buffer should be 115 feet, rather than the 100 that is proposed in order to be consistent
with the new critical areas guidelines being proposed. She said there are inconsistencies in the
environmental checklist that accompanies the application, which she outlined. Finally, she said the house at the site is on
the
(f)
Virginia Paulsen,
Shoreline, said that when buying a house all options
must be considered and
discussed. Yet in this case, there has
not been public discussion of the criteria to be applied nor how it was
applied. She said no public input has
been solicited. She felt there should
have been a pubic hearing at the point that appropriate site criteria were
developed. She also wanted to know when
the siting criteria and rankings were formally
adopted. She said it is critical to have
transparency at each point of the decision-making process to ensure that there
are no suspicions of behind-the-scenes deals.
(g)
Pearl Noreen,
Shoreline, said this is visionary decision and she has
collected
165 signatures in one week of people who support it. She painted a picture of what the site will
look like, with a park, the Showmobile for a concert,
people using the Interurban Trail, a City Council meeting underway, people using
the YMCA, and people are living in the new condos.
(h)
Tom Dunnihoo, Shoreline, said this picture does not take into
account that
there
are other infrastructure needs in the City, such as housing for those who are
being relocated, sidewalks, street lights, etc.
He said the people of Shoreline do not support building a city hall at
this point. They want police protection,
safe streets for driving, sidewalks, and fire protection. After these are resolved, Council can think
of building a city hall.
(i)
Cindy Neff, Shoreline,
supported the project, saying there is a need for
indoor
and outdoor meeting space. She said this
will make the City one her children will want to stay in. She said owning versus renting is a positive
financial step.
(j)
she said, cannot speak
for themselves. She suggested that
Council find a solution to help them make a transition to find a decent place
to live. Speaking for Thornton Creek
Legal Defense Fund and the Sno-King Environmental
Council, she suggested looking at the actions Council is taking for conflict of
interest and appearance of fairness. She
asked if it is legal for the City to undertake a rezone while endeavoring to
purchase a piece of property. She thought
the purchase should be completed first.
She felt there should have been a public hearing before the option to
buy was exercised. She was concerned
that the appraisal was done without disclosure of important environmental
information regarding soils, wetland/stream analysis, gas station/convenience
store information, and other detrimental factors that might affect the value of
the property. She stated there is a stream
in the stream inventory that runs under the site. She suggested that the City order a new
appraisal, the cost of which should be shared with the property owner. She concluded with concerns about the
historical values of the property; the stream habitat, especially for salmonids, the amount of impervious surfaces (which will
increase by 85%), bias in the decision-making process, costs, traffic flow and
the value of public/private partnerships.
(k)
Richard Tinsley,
Shoreline, discussed the rent/own decision.
He said there
are costs with owning,
and purchase should only be made when it can be afforded. In his opinion, Shoreline is at a point where
it cannot afford a city hall because there are other more important needs, such
as roads, sidewalks, and low income housing.
He commented on the financing plan, noting that although the City says
it will not raise taxes, they have already been raised but they are called
fees. He felt the City has been
negligent in preserving the environment and advocated a 200-foot buffer and
improvements in wildlife habitat. He
concluded with a suggestion that the City look at building city hall at Fircrest.
(l)
Cindy Ryu, Shoreline,
said that if a private home is to be purchased by
a husband and wife,
usually either has veto power. If the
concerns of the other are ignored, the “marriage won’t be that happy.” She wished to hear the response to the
request for documentation on public process for the site criteria. She pointed out that the residents survey
showed that city hall was fifth of six items that people supported a bond
for. She also questioned the financing
plan.
(m)
Dennis Lee, Shoreline,
understood the process of buying property and
agreed
that this could not be done in the public eye.
He also agreed that Shoreline needs a city hall. However, he suggested that if not being
centrally located has been eliminated as a criteria, sites such as Fircrest should be reevaluated. He said the City could buy this property for
other uses. He said there is no momentum
to rezone and build right now. He said
selling some of the property might even generate income for the City. He did not think the private/public
partnership should be part of the rezone process. He said the City should take the time to work
out the details.
(n)
Pat Webber, Shoreline,
made the analogy of the woman discussing a
potential
relationship with two elderly aunts to this discussion of the concerns of the
citizens. She said citizens want to see
substantive issues of financing, environment, traffic, and other infrastructure
needs addressed before moving forward. She
said the citizens asking questions are being responsible, not negative.
(o)
George Mauer,
Shoreline, mentioned that ownership brings property taxes.
He asked if it is lawful for the City to pay more than the
appraised value of the property. Even if
lawful, he said it is very poor policy.
He said it is not clear to him that the City gets the 55,965 square feet
of common area. The $23/square foot
appears to be an average of the buffer costs, city hall site pad and common
areas. He did not think it was
appropriate to average the costs of these components. He suggested that if a new appraisal is made,
these be evaluated separately. He said
the latest appraisal is May 2003, which he said gives a cost of $18.50/square
foot, not $23. He said the City should
get a new appraisal, with the cost shared by the property owner.
(p)
Walt Hagen, Shoreline,
said he has always asked the Council to err on the
side of appearance of
fairness and forthrightness. He protested
having a public hearing coming after the decision has been made. He said the developer is trading buffer land
for the common area, and the City should not pay the same price for buffer land
as for the City Hall. He supported a
centrally located city hall but not a public/private partnership. He said nothing has been published about how
the site criteria was applied. He also questioned paying $23/square foot for
$18/square foot land. He said he would
like to have a city hall, but not at these costs. He suggested getting more citizen input
before moving forward.
(q)
Timothy Peterson,
Shoreline, speaking for the Holiday Resort Association,
said
(r)
Elaine Phelps,
Shoreline, said the country was founded and developed by
malcontents. She said speakers are not in an organization but
they have independently come to the same conclusions. She suggested buying the
(s)
Pat Crawford,
Shoreline, speaking for Twin Ponds Fish Friends, said this
is “Aegis II,” because
environmental protection is being overlooked
She questioned the wetland designation, quoting from the Army Corp of
Engineers description of Peverly Pond: “the open water pond is considered to be a
water of the
(t)
Tim Crawford,
Shoreline, said development of this site ignores the
families
and retirees being displaced by this decision.
He said the property owner is being given a ten-year moratorium on his
taxes when the City is paying $23/square foot.
He said the Gaston decision is “the elephant in the room” and a Superior
Court judge will end up deciding the site plan.
He said the creek in the pipe will need to be upgraded and the City will
not get a hydraulic permit to do this.
He said the property owner will say he has spent his money on design,
which was what the Aegis developers argued.
He said that this site is not centrally located and water quality issues
and retention will come up. He concluded
that he heard that the site is glacial till, which is what Aegis said, but it is
a bog, which will require driving pilings for the building at great cost to the
taxpayers.
(u)
Dave Fagerstrom,
Shoreline, agreed with previous speakers questioning
the feasibility of this
site. He asked for more information
about discounted cash flows, a responsible discount rate, and account
reinvestment. He said a crossover
illustration is not an analysis at all.
He mentioned a person named Danny Day, and used being told about his
death in a traffic accident as an analogy for decision-makers who do not want
to tell citizens about how decisions are made.
He said the focus in Shoreline should be on safety. He asked how it looks to third parties
evaluating risk when it appears a higher priority is being placed on having a
city hall than on safety.
(v)
Pat Murray, Shoreline,
said this site is not the most cost effective one. He
wanted to
have a site wholly owned by the City with an austere design without views. The
(w)
Matthew Fairfax, Shoreline,
supported this site. He said the Council
cannot
respond to incorrect facts, but the audience tonight does not represent the
whole community. He said many people
support this decision. He thanked the
Council for doing
due diligence. He reminded everyone that
the YMCA purchase is a separate negotiation from the city hall purchase.
(x)
Harley O’Neill,
Shoreline, said he is not receiving a tax
abatement. He
was concerned that false statements
are made and then viewed on television.
He said two appraisals were done on the property, which both came in at
$30/square foot. The price was reduced
to benefit the community. He said this
proposal saves the waterfront. He
reported that the group was sued by the Holiday Resort Homeowners Association
and they agreed to set aside $175,000 for them.
He offered to share the appraisals that were done. He explained the condition of ownership of
the trailers in Holiday Resort. He concluded
that the reason for applying for the rezone was to allow for retail development.
(y)
Scott Becker,
Shoreline, speaking as an architect, said the schematic looks
like a very early drawing
for a site. He said this site has
potential to demonstrate environmentally sustainable design, and it would be regrettable
if the site is used simply for a business park type development. With the lake on the site, a higher order of
design should be the goal. He said
public input in the design process is important.
(z)
Richard Johnsen, Shoreline, urged Council not to rush this
decision. He
favored a
city hall but wanted it on a proper site.
He asked why retail is proposed for the site, wondering whether that
would be compatible with the civic uses.
He also asked what the building would look like, how tall it will be, and
how it will accommodate future growth.
He wondered where the civic plaza is in the design. He remembered that when the city was in the
incorporation process citizens envisioned this whole area as a park. He did not think the current plan and size of
the park fit with that vision. He also
asked about the historic home on the property.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to close the
public hearing, but Councilmember Fimia noted that on January 3 the Council had
voted to continue this public hearing to February 7. The City Clerk
confirmed this.
Councilmember Fimia had a
series of questions for staff related to this issue. Mayor Hansen wished to move on to the next
hearing and asked that questions be submitted in writing. Councilmember Fimia
moved to be allowed to ask her questions tonight so that the questions are not
duplicated from various sources. Councilmember Chang seconded the motion, which carried 4 – 3, with
Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember
Gustafson dissenting.
Councilmember Fimia’s asked for:
·
All the appraisals
that were mentioned and the law regarding how much over the appraisal a city is
allowed to pay;
·
how moving funds were
allocated to Holiday Resort residents;
·
more detailed
financial analysis with the discount rate;
·
the criteria that were
used and the public process used for creating the criteria, which sites were
concerned and how they matched the criteria;
·
finite list of cities with
new city halls in the three counties for the last five years, and did they
include police departments and other city buildings;
·
how much buffer is
there in the plan and could the buffer be used as part of the park;
·
results of the soils testings and what
underground streams are there and are they classified as streams.
Councilmember Grace asked for
documents related to
Councilmember Ransom
expressed concern about: 1) the status
of the historic home, which he did not think had landmark status (he suggested
contacting Vicki Styles of the Historical Museum); 2) the legal status of the “stream in the
pipe;” and 3) the results of the soils testing and whether pilings will be
needed to construct the city hall.
Mr. Burkett said the home on
the property is not on an Historic Register. It was on a survey done by the county of
potential homes and structures eligible for such a listing. He concluded that the Council has reviewed a
very complete financial analysis over the past three and a half years, but this
could be provided again.
MEETING EXTENSION
At
(b) Public hearing to consider citizens
comments on the extension of the moratorium on developments using cottage
housing bonus densities beyond February
23, 2005 for up to six additional months
Mr. Stewart reviewed that
there is moratorium on building cottage housing. After the public hearing, Council will be
asked to consider an extension of the moratorium until August 22, during which
time a study and public process will review current regulations and possibly
propose changes to the Development Code.
Mayor Hansen moved to open
the public hearing.
(a) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, opposed
extending the moratorium, just as she opposed the original moratorium. She noted that the current regulations are fine. The moratorium denies builders the right to
make a living and citizens the right to buy an affordable house while interest
rates are still low. She pointed out
that this year’s building season will be completely eliminated. She said cottage housing serves a need, and
Councilmembers must recognize the demographics in the City, which includes
single, divorced and widowed people who want to buy smaller houses.
(b) Dennis
Lee, Shoreline, supported the moratorium.
He agreed there is a need for cottage housing, but he felt there are
problems with the Code. He said there is
a design standard in the regulation to force open space, but some developers
take advantage of cottage housing. If
there are loopholes in the regulations, they should be a quick and simple
fix. He also wished Council to consider
other housing types such as duplexes on corner lots with zero lot lines. He said it would be nice to trade density and
do infill but it must be done in an open process.
(c) Pat
Crawford, Shoreline, agreed it should not take until August to resolve this
issue. She said an ordinance is only as
good as enforcement and there is no enforcement during the design or
construction phases. She did not want
cottage housing to be the only solution to housing problems and suggested there
should be smaller single family dwellings on small lots.
(d) Stan
Terry, Shoreline, agreed with Ms. Wacker. He said the pricing for cottage housing has
been exorbitant. It was supposed to
provide affordable housing but has not worked out that way. He asked if the implementation of cottage
housing is supporting the City’s affordable housing goals. If is isn’t, he
wondered what can be done to fix it. He
felt changes in the laws could be made without a moratorium.
(e) Janet
Way, Shoreline, said the “devil is in the details.” Design standards will dictate whether the
housing is attractive and something people will accept in their
neighborhoods. She urged that the
regulations include standards to ensure good design.
(f) Scott
Becker, Shoreline, said he develops cottage housing and it is a site dependent
process. He commended City staff member
(g) Dave
Fagerstrom, Shoreline, believed there should be other forms of housing besides
cottage housing. He said that the City
of
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor Jepsen,
seconded by Councilmember Gustafson and unanimously carried, the public hearing
was closed.
Ordinance
No. 371 extending a moratorium for six months on the filing, acceptance or approval
of any applications for development of land utilizing cottage housing bonus
densities
Councilmember Fimia moved to pass Ordinance No.
371. Councilmember Grace seconded the
motion.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen mentioned that the testimony tonight is not the same
as what was heard at the last public hearing.
He said his primary concern with the current regulations is the
proximity issue. He felt this could be
addressed fairly quickly.
Councilmember Gustafson noted
that this can be handled after the tour and a review of the codes in less than
six months.
Councilmember Ransom
commented that the Council has received e-mails and letters complaining about
cottage housing in R-4 and R-6 zones. He
said at least 30 people have complained at various points. He said people probably did not testify
tonight because they thought the Council would automatically extend the
moratorium. He said the real issue is
putting cottage housing in R-4 and R-6, without considering the neighborhood
character.
Councilmeber Grace supported the ordinance but not the extended
timeline. He felt that after the tours
and research, Council should determine the remainder of the work plan. He felt the issues are fairly limited and
easily addressable.
Responding to Councilmember
Ransom’s comment, Mr. Stewart said that although the City Council and the
Planning Commission can meet jointly on this topic, the Planning Commission is
required to hold the public hearing in a process outlined in the Development
Code.
Councilmember Fimia concurred,
saying she believes in cottage housing.
She agreed with Councilmember Grace’s proposal to decide the remainder
of the process later. She said she has
an alternative process with a more open workshop but this can be brought up
later.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried
unanimously and Ordinance No. 371 was passed.
9. ACTION ITEMS:
OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Motion to
authorize amendments to the City Manager’s employment agreement
Councilmember Gustafson moved to authorize the amendments to the City
Manager’s employment agreement. Deputy
Mayor Jepsen seconded the motion.
Mayor Hansen called for
public comment.
Responding to Councilmember
Grace’s question about the appropriateness of taking public comment on items
discussed in executive session,
(a) Jim
Abbott, Shoreline, referred Council to his earlier e-mail.
(b) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline,
expressed disapproval of the City Manager/Council form of government and
suggested the Council be reorganized into districts because there is no
representation from the eastside. She
said that since Shoreline has a Council/Manager form of government, the Manager
should be paid competitively.
(c) Virginia
Paulsen, Shoreline, asked for the performance criteria by which the substantial
increase is recommended and the evidence used to support the performance. She noted there are
(d) Pat
Crawford, Shoreline, said there is a problem with the funding coming from the
surface water management fees. She said
before the City Manager was hired, she asked Council to find someone local who
could understand the importance of preserving the environment (such as the
trees on the Aegis site). She noted the
status of various lawsuits and the fact that she had to work personally with
the
(e) Tim
Crawford, Shoreline, said this contract rewards failure. He said staff is not doing its job, which
means the City Manager is not doing his job.
He gave examples of how this administration worries about “harpooning
citizens.” He also felt the new
Comprehensive Plan has less public process than the previous one. Finally, he said the fact that police
officers attend the Council meetings is a poor use of their time and also shows
failure. He concluded that the Mayor has
allowed Mr. Burkett to
“embarrass us all.”
(f) Tom Dunnihoo, Shoreline, said his neighborhood does not get
what those who live west of I-5 get. He
felt that because property values are lower on the eastside, citizens do not
receive the same degree of representation.
He said in his meetings with people from the City on traffic problems,
“we haven’t gotten anywhere”
and if people “don’t get answers,” it is the fault of either the
City Council or the City Manager.
(g) Stan
Terry, Shoreline, supported the City Manager, saying he has done an outstanding
job and is very accessible to members of the community.
(h) Caralee Cook, Shoreline, also commended the City
Manager. She said he is more
approachable than his predecessor and she admired how he worked with the
Chamber of Commerce in a difficult time.
She said there have been amazing improvements in the City over the past
five years and she listed several, including Ronald Bog improvements, drainage
improvements, the celebrations and parades, working with people of disabilities,
and the improvements at Ballinger Homes.
(i) Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, noted that Council pays staff with
taxpayer dollars. She said if anyone
deserves a raise, it is the City Council.
She said the City Manager choose to work here. She felt the Manager’s salary should be
related to the City Councilmembers’ salaries.
(j) Walt
Hagen, Shoreline, noted he invited the City Manager to a meeting with the
Concerned Citizens of Shoreline when he first came to town, but since then
there has been no constructive working with the City of
(k) Janet
Way, Shoreline, mentioned the drainage problems on
(l) Harley
O’Neill, Shoreline, said there were problems between the administration and
staff before Mr. Burkett arrived. He
said Mr. Burkett has brought the staff together and encouraged problem-solving
and positive attitudes. He commended the
Council for listening to everyone’s view and Mr. Burkett for doing a “tough
job.”
MEETING EXTENSION
At
(m) Richard Johnsen, Shoreline, mentioned deceased resident Mickey Gau, who talked about the difference between a
Council/Manager and Council/Mayor form of government. She favored the later so that she could vote
out the Mayor. He said Mr. Burkett had
brought a certain amount of stability to the City, but he was angry with Mr.
Burkett’s response to his request to visit the accident at Dean Morgan’s house two
years ago. He said overall Mr. Burkett
has done a good job, but he suggested the Council postpone the raise or only
give a portion of it.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 4 -3, with Councilmembers
Chang, Fimia and Ransom dissenting, and the amendments to the City Manager’s
employment agreement were approved.
(b) Resolution No. 228, repealing Resolution No. 111 and consolidating
various business expense policies with regard to reimbursement of business
expenses, payment of seminar or conference registration fees, purchase of food and
beverages at City-sponsored meetings and events, and allowable sister city
expenditures.
Mr. Burkett said the
resolution simply consolidates various policies, and no changes are proposed.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to adopt Resolution
No. 228. Councilmember Gustafson
seconded the motion.
Councilmember Fimia asked
for clarification about payment of employee dues and memberships as outlined in
Section V, which talks about “professional organizations.” She said right now the City is reimbursing
staff for dues, memberships and lunches for service organizations, although the
Council is not receiving this reimbursement.
She asked if service organizations are covered elsewhere.
Debbie Tarry, Finance
Director, said Section V is the only place in which payment of dues and
membership is addressed.
Councilmember Fimia wished
to ensure that this was interpreted as applying to only professional
organizations. She did not think the
taxpayers should reimburse staff for service organizations such as Lions Club,
Kiwanis, Rotary, etc.
Councilmember Ransom
commented that originally it was clear that there would not be reimbursement for
service organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce. Mayor Hansen did not recall that. Councilmember Ransom said he has never been
reimbursed for belonging to a service organization. He felt it is a gross inconsistency to
reimburse staff but not the City Council.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen agreed with the current interpretation. He said Council wishes staff to attend
service organizations in order to provide a City presence. Elected officials can decide whether they
wish to participate.
Councilmember Gustafson
concurred that there is an expectation that staff represents the City in the
community. This is a direct benefit to
the City.
Councilmember Fimia
reiterated that service organizations are not professional organizations. She felt that Council is the presence at
service organizations. She said even if
she agreed to reimbursing a staff member, there are currently four staff
members in the same organization, when there are also two Councilmembers in
attendance. She said in these economic
times, the City should not pay for attendance.
She asked for this policy to receive further review and a change of language.
Councilmember Chang said
there are both benefits and liabilities of staff attendance. He did feel that the number of staff should
be controlled. He supported looking at
this more in depth.
Councilmember Grace said
Council must focus on being policy makers.
He said if Council determines the number of staff at a service
organization, then it is getting into administrative issues.
Mayor Hansen stated it is
short-sighted to deny the administration the opportunity to belong to service
clubs. He felt it should almost be a
requirement to engage in service activities.
He noted that the Rotary Club is making a $10,000 gift to the City, and
the City’s involvement in the club is part of the reason.
Councilmember Fimia said
that staff could attend meetings without being a member of the organization.
Councilmember Ransom stressed
that service clubs and professional organizations are different. He reiterated his strong opposition to
differentiating between Councilmembers and staff in this policy. He added that his issue is per diem, which he
will bring up next time.
Councilmember Fimia moved to postpone this item to February 7. Councilmember Chang
seconded the motion, which carried 4 – 3, with Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Grace dissenting.
10. NEW BUSINESS
(a) Review
and comments on the Sound Transit Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SDEIS)
Mr. Stewart said the
comments on Sound Transit’s Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS)
are due on January 31. Staff recommends
submitting a letter that follows the City’s historic position and any other
points the Council would like to add.
Councilmember Grace
reiterated for the audience the City’s historic position as outlined in the
Council packet. He said all these are
still relevant, with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on
Deputy Mayor Jepsen supported the City’s historic position (Option #1,
but adding in Option #2, change of the historic position to request
consideration of alternative light rail corridors (such as
Councilmember Fimia emphasized
that this is one of the most important decisions facing the region. She said adding more light rail will preclude
doing anything else in the northern subarea. She noted that Shoreline is in the same subarea as
9. ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Councilmember
Grace, seconded by Councilmember Ransom and unanimously carried, the meeting
was adjourned at
_________________________