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
(a) Shoreline Library Board Council Update
Dick Deal, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Service
Director, reported on the activities and 2005-2006 goals of the Library Board. 2005-2006 goals include:
·
Developing strategies to encourage citizens to
use library services
·
Raising library visibility through neighborhoods
and other groups
·
Bringing upcoming issues to the community,
soliciting input, and acting as a conduit for feedback to the King County
Library System (KCLS)
·
Attending KCLS meetings to advocate effectively
·
Helping KCLS understand the needs of schools and
students
·
Supporting efforts of local library staff to
provide services tailored to the unique needs of the Shoreline
·
Helping shape the future of the KCLS
Councilmember Grace reported on Saturday’s cottage
housing tour, describing it as a “very productive” activity.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Barbara
Lacy, Shoreline, representing the Echo Lake Neighborhood Association Board, thanked
the Council for its financial support of the lake monitor stewardship
program. She said the Board appreciates
the City’s environmental involvement and financial commitment in preserving
good water quality.
(b) Bronston Kenney, Shoreline, commented on the cottage
housing tour, noting that the group did not visit the housing project on N 185th
and
(c) Tom Dunnihoo, Shoreline, expressed concern about the mobile
home park residents who would be displaced by the City Hall Project. He commented on the shortage of available
low-income housing in the area, noting that even cottage housing starts at $279,000. He said a minimum wage worker has to work 90
hours just to pay for a decent place to live.
He felt low-income earners should not be disenfranchised, noting that
the City would end up subsidizing them anyway.
(d) LaNita
Wacker, Shoreline, rejected the claim that she is unsympathetic to low income
people, noting she has been the only citizen asking for increases in human
services funding for the past ten years. She pointed out that the working poor are
those earning $500-$700 a month, not those making $50,000 a year. She commented on the high cost of housing in
Shoreline, noting that the working poor cannot even afford a one-bedroom rental
unit. Although some may qualify for
additional assistance, it is usually not enough to qualify for a one or two
bedroom unit. She noted that just
renting a room in someone’s house costs about $350-$400 a month, plus
utilities. She suggested that the City create
a task force on this issue, since it cannot be resolved in the marketplace.
(e) Elaine
Phelps, Shoreline, expressed support for cottage housing, noting that it is the
City’s responsibility to ensure there are adequate housing resources for those
faced with the threat of relocation. She said the City cannot say “it’s your
problem” and put citizens “on the streets.”
She said the existence of cottage housing does not mean deterioration of
the neighborhood simply because there are bigger and more expensive homes
surrounding a development. She noted
that cottage housing is one example of the many kinds of resources the City
could make available to lower income people.
(f) Janet
Way, Shoreline, representing the Sno-King
Environmental Council, expressed concern that efforts to increase density
through aggressive infill development could have an adverse impact on the
environment. She felt that some areas
should be preserved as conservation easements for creek corridors. She pointed out that piped sections of Boeing
Creek have the same value as an open watercourse, which should be protected in
the same way. She urged the City to
preserve the easements of these piped watercourses and to protect fish and
wildlife conservation areas.
6. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) Review of
the Gambling Tax Rate
Mr. Burkett introduced
Debbie Tarry, Finance Director, and consultant Roy Cupler
of Moss Adams, a firm that provides financial audits for cardrooms and tribal
casinos.
Ms. Tarry reviewed
information obtained from the State Gambling Commission regarding casino
revenue in the State of
Ms. Tarry concluded that staff
recommends that Council not change the current card room tax rate for the
following reasons:
She outlined the following options available to the
Council: 1) direct
staff to further analyze the profitability of casinos through more in-depth
auditing; 2) change the current tax rate; or 3) make no change per the staff
recommendation.
Mayor Hansen called for
public comment.
(a) Mark
Mitchell, Shoreline, said the entire staff presentation “twists the truth”
regarding gambling in Shoreline, noting that Shoreline hardly compares with the
cities identified in the staff report. He
said the average tax among 51 cities is 7.5%, and the original 11% tax
established in the 1970’s was on businesses far different than the ones
operating now. He described the
overwhelming growth of employees and overhead in the current industry, noting
that he has 350 employees and the highest minimum wage in the country. He urged the City to implement a gambling tax
break, noting that the six gambling businesses in Shoreline are the City’s
biggest taxpayers.
(b) Larry
Wheaten, Shoreline, noted that Goldie’s Casino opened in 1999 with 25
employees, and today it employs 160 people with good salaries, medical
benefits, paid vacation, and retirement plans.
He said despite periods of profitability and unprofitability,
it always managed to pay its taxes to the City.
The amount was $230,000 last quarter and over $800,000 in 2004. He
said local casinos are unable to compete with tribal casinos. He
said the bottom line is that “the City of
(c) Ryan Hattrup, Shoreline, expressed concern that Goldie’s revenue
generated from foot traffic would decrease as a result of the Aurora Corridor
Project. He said this would hurt
employees the most, because the cuts would affect employees and benefits.
(d) William
Hubbell, Shoreline, noted that the City’s data does not reflect the fact that benefits
have increased almost 110%, the minimum wage has increased over 12%, and living
wages have increased 20-25%. He
commented on the strategies that local casinos must employ to attract customers
due to the high competition from tribal casinos, including free food and
discounted drinks. He said all these
strategies involve higher costs, since food and beverage expenses are higher. He urged the City to lower the gambling tax in order to benefit
both the City and the gambling establishment.
(e) Russ
McCurdy,
(f) Mark
Deutsch, Shoreline, urged the Council to consider three factors in determining
whether a gambling tax reduction is necessary:
1) economic development; 2) impact on the City budget; and 3) the
gambling industry in general. He said without
an Economic Development Manager to help guide the discussion, it is difficult
to determine if the tax rate is the sole factor controlling profitability. He said if the argument is that local casinos
cannot compete with tribal casinos, which pay no tax, then
eventually they will advocate no gambling tax.
He noted that a gambling tax reduction would have to be met with budget
adjustments on an ongoing basis. He said
although economic development is needed in Shoreline, gambling is not something
people want Shoreline to be known for. He
said casinos and adult entertainment are restricted in Shoreline because there
are questions about those industries. He
urged the Council to take more time to consider this proposal.
(g) Rick
Stephens, Shoreline Merchants Association, said the gambling tax proposal is mostly
about jobs, people, family, health care, and productive citizens. He noted that the gaming establishment
provides 900 living-wage jobs and benefits in Shoreline, and makes the American
dream a reality for most employees. He
said the region has been in a recession for several years. There has been high
unemployment rates, and many businesses have had to cut back. He commented on the ever-increasing taxes,
utility bills, and franchise fees, without a commensurate increase in
services. He said the cost of doing
business has increased and profit margins have dropped, but businesses cannot
raise rates to cover these expenses due to strong competition. He said small businesses cannot operate on
the kind of profit margins of large businesses.
He pointed out that the State accommodated the Boeing Company in order
to keep it in
(h) Stan
Terry, Shoreline, said that from a pragmatic standpoint, it makes sense to
reduce the gambling tax rate. He said
although he is neither for or against gambling, it is legal, and both the State
and City benefit financially from gambling operations. He said if a 1% reduction will make the
casinos healthy and maintain the revenue stream that comes into the City for
capital projects such as City Hall, then a 1% reduction would be judicious.
(i) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, noted that the gambling
establishment has contributed tremendously to the City’s economic base since incorporation. Gambling
has provided economic development and an employment base, and the community has
benefited greatly by the presence of these casinos. She expressed support for a tax reduction,
although there could be other factors affecting their profitability.
(j) Janet
Way, Shoreline, urged the Council to consider the negative impact on
individuals, families, and neighboring businesses if gambling businesses
fail. She said many people rely on the
income that gambling generates. She
agreed with previous speakers, noting that casinos are “part of the fabric of
Shoreline.” She said the City does not
want to be responsible for putting casinos out of business by requiring a tax
that is untenable. She encouraged the
Council to support their modest request.
(k) Tom Dunnihoo, Shoreline, commented that gambling provides
revenues for the City, but it also results in increased costs. He said although local casinos probably need
a tax reduction, they should also consider changing the way they do
business. He felt local businesses
should not be run simply in response to the competition from tribal casinos. He felt one local casino should have
considered all factors before expanding.
Councilmember Ransom moved to establish a 10% gambling rate for
established cardrooms at 10%. Councilmember
Chang seconded the motion. Mr. Burkett pointed out that to
change the tax rate will require an ordinance, so the motion was restated to direct staff to prepare an ordinance
implementing the reduction of the gambling tax rate for established cardrooms
to 10%.
Councilmember Ransom read
into the record his memorandum regarding gambling taxes, which supported a
reduction in the rate to 10%. His memo
included the following points:
At
Councilmember Grace asked
Mr. Cupler, of Moss Adams consulting firm, if the
data required by the State Gambling Commision
provides enough information about a casino’s operation to make accurate
determinations about profitability. He
also asked about the cost estimates for performing an adequate audit.
Mr. Cupler
said that in order to get a clear picture about profitability, the City would need
a complete set of financial statements from the casinos. This would include footnote disclosures that
discuss related party transactions, leasing arrangements, continuing
obligations (food/beverage/entertainment), as well as other expenses. He said the state only requires information
on gross and net gambling income. He
said the cost of an adequate audit ranges from $1,000 to $20,000, depending on
the condition of the business records.
Responding to Councilmember Gustafson,
Ms. Tarry stated that the Washington State Gambling Commission denied the
City’s public disclosure request for audited financial statements on the
grounds that they are not subject to public disclosure. Responding to
Councilmember Fimia, she
said the City has not requested the records directly from the businesses, but
one business did indicate it would be willing to share that information. Mr. Burkett noted that Mr. Mitchell offered
to provide financial statements.
Councilmember Fimia said
staff should have gone directly to the businesses for this information, noting
this was part of the direction Council gave weeks ago. She said there has been no analysis of what
the expenditure impact might be of leaving the rate at 11% or reducing it. She said the fundamental question is what
happens if the City does not reduce the gambling tax and businesses fail. She felt the 10-12% tax rate is an arbitrary
amount. She supported the motion to
reduce the tax rate, noting that the request appears to be modest and
well-founded. She emphasized that there
is no thought to expanding gambling but only maintaining the status quo. She questioned the amount of tax needed to
support City programs while keeping gambling businesses viable. She did not favor spending a considerable
amount of money to further analyze the question. She requested Mr. Cupler’s
opinion on whether this request reflects the fact that casinos are losing net
income.
Mr. Cupler
said he does not doubt there is a decline in the cardroom
share of the gambling money in the state, but this is not directly related to profitability.
Councilmember Chang
supported the motion and Councilmember Fimia’s
statements, noting that this is not a proposal to expand gaming. He commented favorably on the many
contributions that the gambling establishment has made to the City. He reminded Council that the gaming industry
has experienced 27% increase in revenues, but their expenses have increased by
37%. He said the Chamber of Commerce,
the Shoreline Merchants Association, and the citizens who spoke tonight all support
lowering the rate of necessary for the continued viability of the gaming
industry in Shoreline.
At
Mr. Burkett pointed out that
the City hired experts in this field in order to determine the point of
“diminishing returns.” He felt the
Council should have reliable evidence that a tax reduction is needed before
approving such action. He said there is
no assurance that a change in the tax rate would allow these businesses to be
successful. He explained how the cities
were chosen for the comparison survey, noting that several surrounding cities
do not allow gambling.
Responding to Councilmember Gustafson,
Councilmember Ransom provided background on the Hideaway cardroom
and information relating to its closure.
He clarified that the Hideaway could reopen as a nonconforming use as
long as it is within one year. Ms. Tarry
said the Hideaway related it intent to reopen as a Silver Dollar Casino.
Councilmember Gustafson said
he is willing to consider a tax reduction, but he was not ready to vote on it
tonight. He felt there should be more
analysis of the casinos’ financial statements.
Councilmember Grace
supported a reduction for a year or two but he felt it is important to
establish a City policy regarding business assistance. He felt it also important for Council to
identify which areas of the budget to reduce as a result of the 1% gambling tax
reduction.
Mayor Hansen concurred with
Deputy Mayor Jepsen’s concerns regarding Senate Bill
5287. He shared excerpts of a letter dated
At
7. ACTION ITEM:
PUBLIC HEARING
(a) Public
hearing to consider citizens comments on the Purchase of the Echo Lake Property
for a City Hall
(continued from
(a) Barbara
Lacy, Shoreline, expressed support for purchasing the Echo Lake site for City
Hall, noting that it would be an aesthetic and environmental improvement and
beneficial to the south end of the lake.
She underscored the need to ensure minimal impact to the environment,
noting the plan would eliminate 57 trees and add over 1,000 parking spaces,
thereby reducing pervious surface. She
suggested that the City Hall be a separate, multi-story building in order to
preserve as much green space as possible.
She urged the City to incorporate elements that encourage alternative
modes of transportation in order to reduce the number of vehicles on site. She was confident the City would “rise to the
challenge” of balancing its building plans with environmental stewardship. She noted that the property would be
redeveloped, regardless of whether the City buys it.
(b) Steve
Dunn, Shoreline, Chair of the YMCA Board, expressed strong support for the City
Hall project, noting it makes good sense to buy rather than rent and to borrow
at historically low interest rates. He
said the City’s purchase of the
(c) Pearl
Noreen, Shoreline, noted that she has a total 350 signatures of people who
support the purchase of the
(d) Dennis
Lee, Shoreline, agreed that the City needs a city hall, but felt it has not
followed the appropriate process. He
felt the appraised value of the property was too high,
pointing out that it included the square footage for unbuildable
land. He said it is very important that
the appraisal only include the cost of buildable
land, not buffer area. He also commented
on potential conflicts that might result from Council’s dual role as purchasers
and judges on the rezone decision. He
suggested that the Council make a new offer to the developer that reflects only
buildable land area, and that the offer be speculative so the City can withdraw if there are
problems.
(e) Art Furbush, Shoreline, spoke in favor of the property purchase,
noting that this is a good spot for a City Hall. He commented favorably on the frequent use of
the park to the north, as well as the Interurban Trail. He said he looks forward to the possibility
of walking to City Hall.
(f) Elaine
Phelps, Shoreline, noted that the site allocated for a City park includes .39
acres of unbuildable buffer land, which should be
subtracted from the purchase price. She wondered
how much the land would cost without including the buffer, noting that the City
should not be paying for it. She pointed
out that Ms. Noreen is on the YMCA board. She felt all those with this type of special
interest in this project should identify themselves. She said although she has never favored
renting versus buying, the City should conserve its resources and adhere it its
established priorities. On another topic,
she commented on the ethical dilemma of collecting gambling revenues from an
industry that does not enjoy strong support in the community.
(g) Jim
Abbott, Shoreline, clarified incorrect statements attributed to him by the Shoreline Enterprise. He noted that he has no financial interest in
this property, but that he purchased land on the north end of
(h) Janet
Way, Shoreline, representing Sno-King Environmental
Council and Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund, provided a number of documents
and photos to the Council regarding her concerns about potential environmental
impacts to the
(i) Peter Henry, Shoreline, noted that a
(j) Stan
Terry, Shoreline, said purchasing this site for City Hall would be a positive
step for City. He pointed out that the
current residents of the mobile home park would be displaced regardless of
whether the City purchases the site. He
said while he has sympathy for the park residents, the proposed project will be
much better than what is there now. He
said although the City does not address low-income housing and affordable
housing as much as it could, the current owners will develop the property
despite what the City decides to do. He urged
that the project be exemplary in positively addressing environmental issues and
incorporating renewable energy sources.
(k) Jim
Hamilton, Shoreline, supported the policy to buy rather than rent. He felt the community could benefit from the
suggestions made tonight.
(l) Donn Charnley, Shoreline, expressed
concern about stream flows, noting that the entire site needs careful
evaluation as to what is draining into it, and how the proposal will affect
it. He said in his experience in the
field, he has never seen a glaciated area that has not had recessional outwash. He pointed out that this area has been
developed many times, so the City must carefully consider the geotechnical
characteristics of the site. He felt the
City should conduct further investigation and not base its decision on a
cursory study.
(m) LaNita
Wacker, Shoreline, noted that mobile homes built between 1965 and 1976 were
wired with aluminum, which are 50 times more likely to cause an electrical fire
than those with wired with copper. She
said many of the homes in the Holiday Resort were built in this time period, so
they do pose a considerable fire hazard and raise questions about code enforcement. She said she does not support preserving
hazardous housing for low-income people, noting that they deserve better,
(n) David
Fagerstrom, Shoreline, read into record a study by Bassetti
and Associates, dated
(o) Virginia
Paulsen, Shoreline, expressed concern about Shoreline’s financial condition, noting
that as a sociologist she views things from a holistic perspective and uses an
analytic framework that shows various social relationships. She
noted that the federal government has predicted that
(p) George
Mauer, Shoreline, pointed out that although the Council is the purchasing agent
for the City, the residents are the actual buyers of the property. He noted that several costs are not
considered in the financial analysis, including interest payments on bonds,
maintenance of common areas, and proportional capital costs for underground
parking. He commented that the wetland
is “ill-defined,” noting that the geotechnical study did not explore
groundwater inflows specific to the City Hall site. He brought up the issue of a potential
violation of the appearance of fairness doctrine, noting that the Council could
be conflicted by approving both the purchase and the rezone, since City
departments report to a common supervisor.
He suggested that the City be objective and undertake an exhaustive
effort to identify and avoid all potential risk in the due diligence
phase. If the due diligence is not
thorough and effective, it could influence the purchase and potentially the credibility
of the City.
(q) Richard Johnsen, Shoreline, noted that Councilmembers have made
vague references to other potential sites for City Hall, but these have never
been identified. He asked why the Council
has not disclosed these sites, noting that Shoreline citizens are entitled to
this information. He felt that since the
Council has selected a site for purchase, it should disclose all the other sites
it has been considering. He wished to
know why
(r) Tom Dunnihoo, Shoreline, said the current property owners are
the real winners because they’re getting the City to make a zoning change so
they can do what they want with the property.
He asserted that the
Upon motion by Councilmember Gustafson, seconded by Councilmember
Ransom and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed.
MEETING EXTENSION
At
6. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) Gambling
Tax Rate (continued)
Returning to the gambling
tax issue, Councilmember Ransom moved
that the City take a strong stand against SB 5287, which would cap the City’s
gambling tax rate at 10%. Councilmember
Chang seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Councilmember Ransom moved to reduce the gambling tax rate for new
establishments to 9% for a period of 1-2 years.
Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion.
Mr. Sievers described the
terms of the moratorium on new casinos, noting that any casino in Shoreline
must trace its beginning date of operation prior to the 1999 moratorium.
Councilmember Grace
commented that giving such a benefit to new businesses without a business
record or access to financial information establishes an unfair advantage over
existing businesses. Councilmember
Ransom responded that
A vote was taken on the motion, which failed 1-6, with Councilmember
Ransom voting in the affirmative.
Councilmember Fimia said
this idea could be revisited in six months and information on new casinos could
be included in the study.
(b) Briefing on the North Central segment of the Interurban Trail
Kirk McKinley, Project
Manager, introduced staff member Dave Buchan, Capital Projects Manager, and
consultant Connie Reckord. They announced an open house on alignment of
this section of the trail on Thursday evening.
They reviewed the 30% design drawings that describe the proposed
alignment of the trail between
Ms. Reckord
explained that the trail mostly stays within the Seattle City Light
right-of-way, but the drawings show an alternative alignment of the trail
between
Ms. Reckord
noted that Sky Nursery plans to dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way
back to the City, upon which they will generate substantial landscaping and
improvements. The design also includes
“speed tables,” elevated sections of the pedestrain
crosswalks that assume the characteristic of speed bumps and give pedestrians a
sense of right-of-way. The project
includes a signalized intersection at
Mr. Buchan noted that the
City is currently negotiating with Dunn Lumber to acquire a section of the
right-of-way behind their storage building for the trail.
Councilmember Grace asked
about the proposed features of the narrow strip between the trail and
Mr. McKinley noted that
staff used the pre-design study for the Aurora Corridor as a basis for designing
the Interurban Trail. Ms. Reckord pointed out that the trail design preserves a large
section of
Mayor Hansen called for
public comment.
(a) Richard Johnsen, Shoreline, said Mr. McKinley and the City Manager
have not been honest with the citizens regarding the design of the north
central segment of the trail. He said
people were under the impression that Sky Nursery planned to move its parking
lot to
Councilmember Fimia asked if
there were any alternatives to preserve Monarch Applicance
in Shoreline. Mr. Burkett explained the
City’s efforts to help relocate the business, but said the owner has decided to
close rather than move.
Councilmember Fimia wished
to ensure that subsequent designs of the trail include adequate access from
neighborhoods and businesses. She noted
the absence of adequate access at the south end of the trail. She also emphasized the need to acknowledge
the City’s partners, Seattle City Light and
Mayor Hansen described his
proposal to maintain a portion of the red brick road and locate an Interurban
railcar as part of a park on
Mr. Buchan said staff will
be looking at various alternatives for using the bricks as the design moves
forward. Mr. McKinley said staff would
solicit feedback on all trail features at the upcoming open house and report
back to the Council.
Councilmember Ransom had
concerns about the meandering nature of the trail in this section. He felt that if it could not stay adjacent to
Councilmember Fimia
supported the proposed configuration, noting that it is always hard to satisfy
all the project’s goals when there are so many stakeholders involved. She said safety becomes an issue when the
trail is close to
Deputy Mayor Jepsen asked
staff to briefly review the project costs as described in the staff
report.
Mr. McKinley said if all the
private development proposals come through, the project should be completed significantly
under budget. He said in the event that
Sky Nursery proceeds on a slower timetable, staff would recommend the City
complete the 175th to 185th segment, including the
signalized intersection, with the available budget. Sky Nursery would then complete the major
section from 185th to 192nd later.
Councilmember Chang asked
about the financial impacts of Monarch Appliance leaving the City. Mr. Burkett said the City tried to assist in
finding a location in Shoreline because the financial impact is not
insignificant. Olympic Boats is also
leaving and Les Schwab Tire is relocating in
Councilmember Gustafson
preferred the meandering nature of the trail for aesthetic and safety
reasons. He also asked
about
Mayor Hansen suggested that
Ms. Reckord
explained the rationale for the meandering design of the trail. She said the trail must stay within the
parameters created by
Councilmember Gustafson
suggested a meeting with members of the Lake Forest Park City Council about
completing the trail across the I-5 bridge, with the
ultimate connection to the Burke-Gilman Trail.
He felt this long-term vision is feasible if the two cities
cooperate.
There was Council consensus to consider item 9(a) next.
9. ACTION ITEM: OTHER
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) 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 of City-sponsored meetings and events, and allowable
sister city expenditures (motion to adopt postponed from January 24, 2005)
Mayor Hansen noted that a
motion to adopt Resolution No. 228 had been postponed from the January 24
meeting and was on the table.
Mr. Burkett noted that the
City’s current business expense policy is silent on the issue of reimbursement
for service club participation. He said
staff is currently researching the practice of other jurisdictions and could
bring that issue back for discussion. He
said staff recommends that the resolution be adopted tonight.
Councilmember Ransom raised
the issue of per diem, which has not increased since the policies were adopted
in 1996. He felt that the amount
allocated for breakfast should be raised to that of lunch to acknowledge that
costs have increased over the years.
Councilmember Ransom moved to amend the policies to allocate the same
amount for breakfast as for lunch. Councilmember
Fimia seconded the motion.
Councilmember Grace pointed
out that claims up to 150% more than the per diem rate can be submitted with
appropriate receipts.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen recalled
that he had originally proposed that the City use the federal per diem rates,
which recognize that costs vary from city to city.
A vote was taken on the amendment, which carried 4-3, with Mayor
Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.
Councilmember Fimia raised
the issue of the City paying for memberships and food for staff attendance at
service organizations. She quoted the
State Auditor, who has raised concerns about this practice and has established
some criteria if this is done. She felt
this practice is risky without clear policy direction from Council.
Councilmember Grace moved to add “and civic” between “professional” and
“organizations” in Section 5 of the policies.
Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Councilmember Grace read
excerpts of an e-mail from a Shoreline rotarian,
who supported the practice of reimbursing City staff for participation in
Rotary: “As a long-time Rotarian, I don’t know of any activity on the part of
staff that could benefit the community more.”
Councilmember Grace spoke in favor of his motion, noting that Council
should leave it up to the City Manager to determine if this practice benefits
the City.
Councilmember Fimia read from
the State Auditor’s manual: “The Attorney General’s Office and State Auditor’s
Office has concluded that the intent of membership payments by a municipal corporation
should be considered. However, payments
of memberships to fraternal organizations or community social organizations
continued to be questioned. While
municipal corporations have no obligation to pay for employee and officer
memberships, should they choose to do so, a formal
policy should be adopted...” She then
read the applicable criteria for such a policy.
She said based on this opinion, legislative bodies have a responsibility
to create clear policies in this regard, and the City would not be in
compliance by adopting this amendment.
Responding to Councilmember
Ransom, Ms. Tarry explained that the practice varies from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 5-2, with Councilmembers
Fimia and Chang dissenting.
A vote was taken on Resolution No. 228 as amended, which carried 6-1,
with Councilmember Fimia dissenting.
8. CONTINUED WORKSHOP ITEM
(a) Deliberations
on Update of 2004 Comprehensive Plan and master plans for Transportation, Surface
Water and Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Responding to Councilmember Grace’s question about the
format of the meeting, Councilmember Fimia said six to eight of the Sno-King representatives will present various aspects of
their concerns to the Council and Commission.
The meeting will be limited to two hours. The goal is to be able to have a face-to-face
dialogue in which questions can be asked and answered in a more informal way. She
felt the Council should not take any formal action on outstanding items until
it heard from the Sno-King group.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At
_________________________