CITY
OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, Grace, Gustafson,
and Ransom
ABSENT: Deputy Mayor Jepsen
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 with the exception of
Deputy Mayor Jepsen.
Upon motion by Councilmember
Gustafson, seconded by Councilmember Grace and unanimously carried 5-0 (Councilmember
Ransom arrived shortly after the vote), Deputy Mayor Jepsen was excused.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
§City Manager
Mr. Burkett then responded
in detail to the issues raised by Councilmember Fimia last week regarding what
information was available to the City Council during the
Councilmembers Grace and
Gustafson commented on the success of the Shorewood High School Jazz Band at
the Essentially Ellington jazz competition in
Councilmember Ransom
emphasized the need to provide the Councilmembers with all relevant information
on City projects, including
Councilmember Gustafson felt
it was appropriate for the City Manager to “weed out” the material that is
appropriate for the Council to see, noting that the Council does not have the
time to read voluminous materials. He
noted that staff has to make decisions based on the accuracy of information received. He felt the Council made the correct decision
on the three-lane configuration after reviewing all the facts and comments,
noting that the vote on the
Councilmember Chang agreed
that the Council should be provided with all relevant information in order to make
wise decisions. He said the Interim
Public Works Director’s report was “suppressed,” and that voters and taxpayers
deserve credible and accountable leadership.
He suggested that the Interim Public Works Director’s employment was
terminated because of his recommendation on
Mayor Hansen said the
Interim Director was a temporary employee and that his replacement had already
been hired. He said he was aware of the
INCA report and that initially he was the only major opponent of the three-lane
configuration. However, the three-lane
configurations on
Mr. Burkett noted that Mr. Maronek, the Interim Public Works Director, was actually a
contract employee who worked while Shoreline was recruiting for a permanent
director. He said he asked Mr. Maronek to look at the
City’s major projects with a critical eye, as he did with another consulting
engineer he hired under contract. He
said this illustrates that staff members do not have a monolithic point of
view. He disagreed with Councilmember
Chang’s characterization that the memo was “suppressed,” since there are a
number of memos that Council does not receive.
He said he has no doubt that the Councilmembers
who voted on this over the past five years were fully informed when they made
their decisions.
Councilmember Fimia
recommended that Council put time on its agenda in order to resolve this issue,
which is “putting a cloud over a lot of other projects and relationships and
level of trust.” She said the INCA study, which suggests substantial negative
impacts to the capacity of
Mr. Burkett said the Metro
and City of
Councilmember Fimia said the
letters relate to pedestrian safety, and they were not shared with her when the
1) Which Councilmembers were
given access to the INCA study?
2) Who approved the scope for
the INCA study?
3) How much did the INCA study
cost?
4) Who approved the scope for
the second KPG study?
5) What was the cost of the
second KPG study?
6) What happened to the plan to
widen
7) If reducing to three lanes
through the
8) Why did the KPG study shown
there would be less impact to neighborhoods?
Councilmember Ransom questioned
whether the vote on
4. COUNCIL REPORTS: none
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Stuart
Turner, Shoreline Water District Manager, clarified that SWD jointly purchased
the South Woods property with the
(b) John
Rohrback, speaking on behalf of the Student Action for
the Environment (SAFE) club at
(c)
Gretchen Atkinson, Shoreline, stated that the 16,500 Shoreline property
tax payers, along with
(d)
Alan Sharrah, speaking on behalf of Frank
Lumber the Door Store, commented on the perception that not all the information
came forward on the
(e)
Virginia Paulsen, Shoreline, spoke in support of preserving the South
Woods property on behalf of the South Woods Preservation Group (SWPG). She noted that while there are conflicting
aims and desires in the community, the South Woods property will be gone forever
if it is sold for development. She said
preserving the land not only enhances the watershed, but it provides needed
oxygen and positively impacts the entire ecosystem. She commended the Parks Director for writing
a grant request for the property and urged the Council to seriously consider
purchasing “one of the last remaining open spaces.”
(f)
Todd Linton, speaking on behalf of the Hillwood
Soccer Club and Shorelake Soccer Club, urged the
Council to consider their proposal to provide soccer turf for Shoreline
Athletic Fields A and B. He said his
organizations are willing to provide seed money to get the project started, and
they have identified a source that will allow them to finance the remainder
over a ten-year span. He said this
project is a matter of pride for the community because Shoreline Fields A & B are the Seattle Youth Soccer Association’s (SYSA) designated
fields.
(g)
Brian Bodenbach, Woodinville, said that while
the South Woods property only represents a small portion of the 1,200 acres of
the Thornton Creek Watershed, it is a very valuable part in terms of water
capacity. He said as a landscape
contractor, he has found that building large infrastructure elements to deal
with surface water and other things are very costly in terms of construction
and maintenance.
(h)
LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, pointed out that the South Woods property was
not available when the City planners put together the priorities for the Parks
Master Plan. She illustrated the fact
that priorities must often shift in response to changing circumstances. She clarified that she brought forward the
zoning designation of “urban forest” at the January 18 meeting and identified
the importance of the South Woods property at that time. She said the property
should be considered a priority because of its many environmental
benefits. She said the Council must
preserve this property if the City wants to preserve birds and wildlife habitat
for the next 100 years.
(i)
(j)
Elaine Phelps, Shoreline, concurred with previous speakers in support
of purchasing the South Woods, noting that as Shoreline’s population increases,
so will the need for open space. She
said the goal should be to put density in areas that are already built, not to
replace open space with density. She
also commented on the importance of preserving the 80-year-old, second-growth
forest. On another topic, she commented
that the Mayor should not interrupt other Councilmembers or lose his temper,
since he is responsible for setting the tone of the meeting.
Councilmember
Gustafson emphasized the need for the school district to be involved in the
South Woods issue if the property is to be maintained as an environmental
classroom. He felt the students should discuss
the proposal with the school board and science departments.
6. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) First
Quarter Financial Report
·
Actual
first quarter expenditures were $3,902,167, $232,732 or 5.63% below projections of $4,134,899. At this time
2005 projected expenditures have not been revised, so more actual expenditure
data is needed before an accurate spending outlook can be developed.
Mayor
Hansen thanked Ms. Tarry for the comprehensive report.
(b) Motorized
Scooter and Transportation Regulation
Bernard
Seeger, Management Analyst, commented on the input from the Youth Council and
the Empowering Youth Everywhere (EYE) group.
He summarized that the youth groups wanted to differentiate between
electric scooters and gas-powered scooters, and in general they wanted fewer
restrictions on motor scooter use. He
compared the six 911 calls received in the past six months with the 20 calls
received in the months of June, July, and August.
Councilmember
Fimia said while she is not in favor of banning scooters, because they are a
viable mode of transportation, Shoreline needs regulations to ensure that
people operate them safely and do not create a public nuisance. She felt
that licensing of motor scooters would aid the enforcement effort. She wondered if jurisdictions have the
authority to ban gas-powered scooters.
Ms.
Collins said the City cannot require licenses because licensing of motor
vehicles is a function of the State.
Councilmember
Grace commented on the unsafe scooter use he witnessed in his neighborhood
where two young people were riding together at high speed. He felt it would be preferable to have
adopted regulations rather than waiting until there is an injury or death. He felt an ordinance addressing age,
mufflers, and helmet use could be put together fairly easily using other
jurisdiction’s ordinances.
Councilmember
Gustafson asked about the difference between motor scooters and “pocket bikes.”
Mr.
Seeger said that staff focused on motor scooters because pocket bikes fit the
definition of a motorcycle, which are covered by state licensing
regulations.
Councilmember
Gustafson gave examples from several states around the country that have adopted
a variety of motor scooter regulations.
Some cities have banned them outright, whereas others have adopted
regulations related to operator age, time of day, and helmet use. He said he agrees with restricting motor scooter
use to daylight hours and to streets with posted speed limits of 30 miles per
hour or less.
Councilmember
Chang agreed with Councilmember Grace’s sentiments and emphasized that scooter
riders should not be able to take passengers.
He also stressed that parents should ensure that their children wear
helmets.
Councilmember
Ransom expressed support for a municipal ordinance and said he would be willing
to consider the electric versus gas-powered scooters arguments. He noted that motorcycles are licensed by the
state because they have vehicle identification numbers and mini-motorcycles do
not. He asked if it is possible for a
mini-motorcycle to receive a motorcycle license.
Mr.
Seeger responded affirmatively, noting that mini-motorcycle manufacturers are
starting to produce vehicles with VINs. He said this is different from his initial
research.
Councilmember
Fimia emphasized that any regulations that are adopted should include
reasonable and appropriate parameters.
She felt it might be reasonable to allow scooter use on the Interurban
Trail at night if vehicles are equipped with lights. She wondered about the feasibility of banning
gas-powered scooters and whether or not the City could require mufflers or
other noise reduction measures.
Ms.
Collins noted that state law prohibits the use of motor scooters on trails
built with federal funds.
Mr.
Seeger noted that many communities have not succeeded in banning scooter use,
but they have succeeded in regulating them.
Councilmember
Gustafson felt that an ordinance should include an operator education aspect and
possibly a parental education component.
He also wished to get input from the Teen Council before an ordinance is
adopted.
Mayor
Hansen noted that the City of
There
was Council consensus to direct staff to prepare a local ordinance to regulate
certain aspects of scooter use. Mr.
Burkett said staff will bring back an ordinance with various options.
(c) Continued
deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan and master plans for Transportation,
Surface Water and Parks,
Recreation and Open Space
Prior to beginning this item, Mayor Hansen received Council concurrence to reserve ten minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss Councilmember Ransom’s memo and request regarding travel for himself and Councilmember Chang.
1. Motion to accept the transportation
components of the draft Capital Facilities Element dated
Noting that this is the
eighteenth meeting on the Comprehensive Plan,
Councilmember Chang inquired
about the projected expense of $1.7 million for the 2011-2024 timeframe for
Ms. Marilley said
projections show the City would need to do an improvement at that intersection
to accommodate traffic traveling to and from Interstate 5. She said the current
Noting that the City plans
to spend $90 million of its total $130 million in the first six years of the
plan, Councilmember Chang asked if the early expenditure might jeopardize the
City’s ability to get grants for major projects in the last 14 years.
Mr. Haines did not feel it
would jeopardize the City’s ability to compete for grants because it reflects
the fact that grant projections are fairly conservative.
Councilmember Chang
speculated that underground utility costs for the Aurora Corridor Phase 2 and
Mr. Haines noted that the
City will have a good idea about how much a mile of
Mr. Burkett concurred, noting that costs for Aurora Corridor Phase 2 is
only an estimate. He said Council could decide to reduce the scope to save
money, but the important issue is that grant funding is projected at 85-90% of
the total project costs. The savings
achieved from a reduced scope could not be used for field turf or open space acquisition
because it is dedicated transportation funding.
Councilmember Ransom
speculated on the high costs for underground utilities on
Ms. Marilley noted the
difficulty of comparing
Councilmember Fimia
commented that the bulk of the money for 20 years is tied up in a few major
road projects at the expense of many other priorities. She noted that $82 million worth of
pedestrian and safety improvements are not addressed in the proposed plan. She agreed with Councilmember Chang that the
Aurora Corridor plan should be scaled down so there is adequate funding for
sidewalks throughout the City. She said although nothing precludes the City
from proposing a bond issue, people would be far more likely to vote for a bond
if they see the City spending money wisely.
Councilmember Gustafson
asked about the rationale for dropping
Mr. Haines said the
community college has an obligation to mitigate the impacts of future
development. He said the City
anticipates that the school would fund any major improvements there when it
redevelops.
Councilmember Grace noted
that the short-term plan does not reflect the emphasis on safe
streets/sidewalks that the Council had discussed at its retreat. He asked for staff assistance to trying to
make this a higher priority in the next five years. He pointed out that City money is only a
small proportion of the bulk of the funds for Aurora Corridor Phase 2.
Mr. Burkett said staff is
working on a proposal for the current six-year CIP to address Councilmember
Grace’s concern about sidewalks. He said
the ways to find funding include: 1) changing
priorities and taking funding from another project; 2) acquiring or assuming grant
funding in the 20-year plan; or 3) proposing a bond issue or some other kind of
public funding.
Mr. Haines said the need for
pedestrian/non-motorized projects has been captured in the plan, but it is really
a matter of finding the revenue that meets the desired level of sidewalk/pathway
construction.
Councilmember Ransom
expressed concern that the plan includes a very aggressive schedule for
completion of the Aurora Corridor. He
questioned the City’s ability to acquire the necessary grant funding for Phase
2 and asked what would happen if sufficient grants are not acquired. He speculated that the project might be
delayed for a number of years under such a scenario.
Mr. Stewart explained that
if probable funding runs short of existing or future needs, the plan would
require an update to balance projects with expected revenues. He said the City is obligated to reassess its
plan every year as part of the Growth Management Act.
Mr. Haines noted that staff
is cautiously optimistic about the available resources, and most agencies
consider Highway 99 a high priority in the region. From a
strategic standpoint, the City has a certain amount of federal funds that must
be spent by a certain time or theoretically they will become unavailable. He said the City has enough federal money to
build portions of the next two miles, but if continuing the project is in
question, it could be completed in smaller segments.
Councilmember Ransom was
reluctant to approve a 20-year plan that does not address sidewalk needs near
schools and neighborhoods. Mr. Burkett
pointed out that the funded plan includes several million dollars for sidewalk
improvements.
Mr. Haines emphasized that
there is still much work to do, but the Capital Facilities Element provides a
flexible framework for identifying and funding the various priorities. He
said specific neighborhood priorities will be further refined through the
Neighborhood Traffic Action Plan process.
He felt the plan should be viewed as a list of priority interests, noting
that this is the first time it has been created in a 20-year format.
Mr. Burkett noted that staff
is operating on the assumption that Aurora Corridor Phase II will be built with
80-90% grant funding. Therefore, if
funding falls short, the project would most likely be delayed. He clarified that staff is not going to
recommend a bond issue or other local funding in order to rebuild a state
highway.
Mr. Haines said the purpose
tonight is to determine if Council is comfortable with the priorities and the amount
projected for reasonable funding sources.
He said Council could ask for a more aggressive plan in terms of outside
resources, but the plan assumes all the City’s resources in the numbers. He said the projects listed in the document,
whether funded or not, are essentially a statement of the City’s interest in
building them over the next 20 years.
Mr. Burkett noted that
sidewalk projects make up about 50% of the non-Aurora related projects in the
20-year plan (approximately $20 million over 20 years). He said if the Council wishes to make
sidewalks a higher priority, then it could increase funding amounts and assume
the City will aggressively pursue a corresponding amount in grant funding.
Councilmember Fimia pointed
out that the focus on the
She noted that if the City
can provide more pedestrian and bicycle access, it will reduce the number of
trips in the City, which will ultimately relieve congestion and allow more
growth. This means committing to more
sidewalks throughout the City.
Councilmember Grace said he
would appreciate it if Councilmember Fimia could have provided those questions
to staff prior to the meeting so Council could have a more productive discussion.
Councilmember Fimia said the
Council has expressed interest in making sidewalks a higher priority, but it
keeps getting the same alternatives from staff.
Mayor Hansen said he
suggested a street program patterned after the
Mr. Burkett advised that
Council could propose a revenue line for a property tax program or other proposal
and then allocate it for sidewalks. He
reiterated that the Council can reallocate funding by changing the priority
levels or by exploring options for creating additional funding.
Mr. Haines estimated that it
would take a significant amount of time to compile and analyze the data requested
by Councilmember Fimia.
Councilmember Gustafson
supported moving forward with the Planning Commission recommendation, noting
that this is the City’s first 20-year plan.
He emphasized that the plan can be changed anytime, and there will
always be time to consider sidewalks and pathways.
Councilmember Ransom moved to amend the Capital Facilities Element to
allocate an additional $5 million for neighborhood sidewalks around elementary
school areas and to subtract this amount from the Aurora Phase II funding. Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion, which
carried 4-2, with Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.
Responding to Mr. Burkett
and Councilmember Gustafson, Councilmember Fimia clarified that the intent is
to pursue all options, including additional grant funding, reducing the scope
of existing projects, and councilmanic bonds.
A vote was taken on the motion to accept the transportation components
of the Capital Facilities Element dated April 7, 2005 as amended, which carried
4-2, with Councilmembers Chang and Fimia dissenting.
2. Parks,
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan
*South Woods Property and field turf for Fields A and
B
Dick Deal, Parks, Recreation
and Cultural Services Director, reviewed the draft Parks, Recreation and Open
Space (PROS) plan. He described the extensive
public involvement process of determining community needs and the work
conducted by the various stakeholders involved.
The process included interviews, focus groups, surveys, community open
houses, and meetings of the Parks Board and the Planning Commission. Mr. Deal then outlined the following plan
goals:
Continuing, Mr. Deal
described the “recreation program pyramid,” which prioritizes the various recreation
programs in terms of the amount of community benefits and individual benefits
they provide. He pointed out that the
pool provides a high level of community benefit, whereas diving lessons provide
a high level of individual benefit. He
said the goal of the recreation program is to have majority of programs at the
bottom of the pyramid. He concluded his
presentation by highlighting the capital funding recommendations for the PROS
plan.
Mr. Burkett summarized that the
plan includes $34 million in Priority 1A projects that are funded with projected
revenues over the next 20 years. The
amount of unfunded priorities total $41 million.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to accept the Parks and General Capital
component of the draft Capital Facilities Element dated April 7, 2005. Councilmember Grace seconded the motion.
Councilmember Grace asked
about the process for moving items such as the South Woods property or field
turf to Priority level 1A. He also asked
about the $1.6 million for athletic field restoration and wondered if it could
be used in conjunction with the funding proposed by the soccer clubs.
Mr. Burkett said the Council
could simply move items to Priority 1A and then include additional projected
revenue lines from grants and/or bonds.
Using open space acquisition as an example, he noted that
Mr. Deal explained that the
$1.6 million for athletic fields is to replace the soil fields with synthetic
infill material.
Councilmember Chang asked
for clarification about the $2 million estimated cost for the South Woods
property as noted on the list of Suggested Property Purchases.
Mr. Burkett said the $2
million estimate is derived from a larger amount that would be provided through
partnerships and other funding sources such as grants and/or bonds.
After further discussion on
the feasibility of changing priorities, Councilmember
Chang moved to change the revenue available line (page 36 of the Capital
Facilities Element) to assume new grants and/or other sources, including debt,
to $3.6 million, in order to raise the South Woods property and field turf for
Fields A and B to Priority Level 1A. Councilmember
Grace seconded the motion, which carried 6-0.
Responding to Councilmember Ransom,
Mr. Deal provided additional information on three potential acquisition
opportunities: 1)
There was Council consensus
to continue this discussion next week.
MEETING EXTENSION
At
NEW ITEM
(a) Travel
for Councilmembers Ransom and Chang
Councilmember Ransom
reviewed his memo to the Council describing his request to the City Manger that
he and Councilmember Chang be funded to attend a National League of Cities
Conference on budgeting in
Mr. Burkett clarified that
he did not deny the request, but he was not comfortable approving a trip that
was not budgeted. He said while there
are surplus funds due to the fact that some Councilmembers have not attended
certain conferences, the Council should adopt a policy addressing this
issue.
Councilmember Ransom noted
that this particular conference would take the place of the budgeted Association
of Washington Cities conference that he and Councilmember Chang usually attend
in August.
Councilmembers Grace and
Fimia supported the request. Councilmember
Grace felt that such travel requests should be approved as long as there is
money in the budget. Councilmember Fimia
felt that budget issues should be referred immediately to the City Council
rather than the City Manager.
Councilmember Gustafson
questioned the necessity of this trip since similar workshops are often available
through the Association of Washington Cities and National League of Cities.
Mayor Hansen felt the City
Manager was correct in referring the matter to the Council instead of approving
an unbudgeted item.
Councilmember Ransom moved that Council approve the trip request made
by himself and Councilmember Chang in an amount not to exceed $1,600. Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion,
which carried 6-0.
7. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:10 p.m., Mayor Hansen
declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________