CITY
OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang,
Fimia, and Grace
ABSENT: Councilmembers Gustafson and Ransom
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 exceptions of
Councilmembers Gustafson and Ransom.
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor
Jepsen, seconded by Councilmember Chang and unanimously carried, Councilmembers
Gustafson and Ransom were excused.
(a) Shoreline
Star—Dan Mann
Mayor Hansen presented the eighth Shoreline Star to
Dan Mann and outlined
his many years of service to the Shoreline community on the Chamber of
Commerce, the Meridian Park Neighborhood Association, the Shoreline Merchants
Association, as a Showmobile stage sponsor, as a
youth soccer coach and, most recently, as a member of the Shoreline School
Board. Mr. Mann expressed his
appreciation and said that he is a strong supporter of good neighborhoods and
schools. He honored all those who come
down to Council meetings to comment and urged citizens to become involved in
the process of governing their community.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Councilmember Grace reminded everyone of the Shoreline Arts Festival this
weekend, noting that master artisans from Shoreline’s Sister City of Boryeong will be participating.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen distributed information he gathered at the National
League of Cities Community and Economic Development Policy Committee meeting
from the cities of
Councilmember Chang expressed concerns about coordination of activities
by Shoreline’s Sister City Association with the greater Seattle Korean
community supporting the Boryeong relationship and
other groups with an interest in Shoreline’s sister city activities.
Mayor
Hansen said the Sister Cities Association met Thursday night and anyone who
wished could have attended the meeting.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Robert
Phelps, Shoreline, speaking for the Shoreline Auxiliary Communications Service,
informed the Council that Amateur Radio Field Day is the last weekend in
June. This event has been conducted in
the past in
(b)
(c) Janet
Way, Shoreline, thanked Shoreline Star Dan Mann for his contributions to the
community. She said she believed the
Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance on the north Aegis building is in
error. She emphasized that Thornton
Creek crosses the property and it is a chinook
salmon-bearing stream. She hoped
Shoreline would change some of its policies to better protect streams and
wetlands.
5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Upon motion
by Deputy Mayor Jepsen, seconded by Councilmember Fimia and unanimously
carried, the agenda was approved.
Councilmember
Chang moved to approve items 6(a) and 6(c) as consent calendar items. Deputy Mayor Jepsen seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously and the following items were approved:
Motion to authorize the City Manager to
enter into an Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement with
participation
as a member of the Community Development Block
Grant Consortium for the fiscal
years 2006 – 2008, which agreement
is
substantially the same as that set forth in the Council packet
Ordinance No. 393 adopting the
National Incident Management
System and
amending the Shoreline Municipal Code, Emergency Management, Chapter 2.50
6. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(b) Ordinance
No. 392 creating a new chapter in Title 10 of the Shoreline Municipal Code
relating to motorized foot scooters and similar devices
Bernard Seeger, Management
Analyst, reviewed the background on this issue, noting Council had originally
decided to postpone action on this item to see whether the state legislature
would act on statewide regulations for scooters. However, when this did not occur, Council
provided direction to bring back an ordinance to regulate them in
Shoreline. He then highlighted the
provisions of the ordinance, noting gas and electric powered scooters are
defined and treated somewhat differently.
He said the electric scooters only go from 9 to 15 miles per hour,
whereas the gas scooters go much faster and need greater regulation.
Mr. Seeger mentioned a
typographical error in the ordinance that will be corrected and suggested the
following editing changes to it: “Certain Uses Prohibited (B) No gas or
electric power motorized foot scooter or similar device shall be operated from
(after) sunset to (and before)
sunrise during the summer Daylight Savings period and from 8:00 p.m. to before
sunrise during the winter non-Daylight Savings period.” A
second recommended change is: “Violation—penalty
(B) In lieu of the penalty described
above, a Shoreline Police Officer may use the following for a person under 16
years of age found operating a gas or electric motorized foot scooter or
similar device in violation of the provisions of this chapter:”
Mr. Seeger said the police
will only provide verbal warnings for “a couple of months” as the education
process moves forward.
Councilmember Fimia moved to pass Ordinance No.
392 to regulate foot scooters.
Councilmember Chang seconded the motion.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia, Flannery Collins, Assistant City Attorney, said there is no reason why
gas scooters could not be prohibited completely.
Councilmember Fimia said in
the practical sense it will be very difficult to regulate the noise and speed
of gas scooters. Since license plates
are not issued for these devices, it will be very difficult to track them. She also suggested that if this ordinance
passes tonight, it will be important to get information to the schools as
quickly as possible before summer vacation begins.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia, Mr. Seeger said that when the teens discussed the provisions of the
ordinance, they wanted to be sure they could use the scooters in the winter in
the early evening. This is why the ordinance
requires lights and sets the hour of
Councilmember Fimia noted
that bicycles are not restricted in terms of evening use and felt electric
scooters could be treated like bicycles.
Mr. Burkett said that if
Council wishes to delete gas scooters, staff could come back with the
appropriate ordinance language.
Responding to Councilmember
Chang, Mr. Seeger said that according to a recent study, most of those injured
while riding these devices are teenagers.
Councilmember Chang said that
based on his experience of riding on a new gas scooter, many adults would find
it difficult physically to ride these scooters as a means of
transportation.
Councilmember Grace
appreciated how the ordinance was crafted in response to Council comment. He concurred with Councilmember Fimia that
education will be very important. He did
not see a compelling reason to exclude gas powered scooters completely and noted
that no other cities have done this.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen was
disappointed that the state legislature did not take action on this, since the
state regulates many other safety issues.
He agreed that education is critical because enforcement will be a low
priority for the police. In addition to
educating teenagers, he said the more important education will be of those who
sell these devices. They must know what
Shoreline’s rules are and have them available for purchasers.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen referred
to the “Prohibited Areas” section, noting that the listing of “streets” in #1
is confusing. Mr. Seeger said it was meant
to refer to internal park streets, not public streets.
Councilmember Fimia confirmed
that her motion included the changes suggested by staff.
Councilmember Fimia moved to prohibit gas
scooters in Shoreline. This motion did
not receive a second and was withdrawn.
Councilmember Chang noted
that the new gas scooter he rode was “pretty quiet.”
Councilmember Fimia felt that
the language requiring a working muffler is not strong enough to ensure that
the motor is quiet.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen pointed
out there are many reasons why a working muffler
should be required and that the noise issue covers more than just
scooters. The City must be sure it is
enforcing the noise ordinance.
Mayor Hansen commented it is
very difficult to regulate certain types of noise. However, the noise ordinance has been applied
successfully in certain situations.
Mr. Seeger agreed that the
definition of a public disturbance noise is very broad.
Councilmember Fimia felt the
code may need to be ‘fine-tuned,” because she did not want to refer to another
ordinance to regulate noise in scooters.
Councilmember Fimia moved to amend C2 of the Requirements
for operating motorized foot scooters and similar devices to add the phrase “so
that it is the minimal necessary” at the end.
Councilmember Chang seconded the motion.
Councilmember Fimia explained
that her amendment makes it clear that a rider cannot “get away with the least
amount of noise suppression.” She said
that for some young people the noise itself will be the attraction.
Councilmember Grace was not
sure how “the minimal necessary” could be enforced because it is so subjective. He said motorcycles make more noise and yet
are not regulated in this way.
Mr. Burkett said that it is
not subjective at all to determine whether a scooter has a “working muffler.” This is the minimum that can be enforced.
A vote was taken on the amendment, which failed
2 – 3, with Councilmembers Chang and Fimia voting in the affirmative.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen suggested
taking a broader look at the noise ordinance itself to see whether other cities
have a different standard involving a decibel reading that Shoreline could
adopt in place of the more discretionary standard in the current ordinance.
Mayor Hansen was also
disappointed that this was not addressed on a statewide level. He felt it will be good to have an ordinance
on the books, even if it not easily enforceable. He asked if this ordinance applies only to
public property, and Mr. Seeger said private property is not regulated here. Mayor Hansen assumed scooters are prohibited
from school property and was told they are.
He asked how a “Business District” is defined.
Ms. Collins defined a
Business District as “a territory continuous to and including a highway, when
within any 600 feet along such highway there are buildings in use for business
or industrial purposes, including but not limited to hotels, banks, or office
buildings, railroad stations and public buildings which occupy at least 300
feet of frontage on one side, or 300 feet collectively on both sides of a
highway.”
Mr. Seeger said no type of
scooter is allowed on Business District sidewalks.
A vote was taken on the motion, and Ordinance No.
392 regulating foot scooters passed unanimously.
Councilmember Fimia asked
staff to bring information about violations and complaints back to Council next
spring. She thought the ordinance could
be revisited if there are many complaints about the noise.
Mr. Burkett confirmed Council
direction to review the noise ordinance.
7.
ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING
(a) Public Hearing to consider citizens’
comments on the proposed 2006 – 2011 Capital Improvement Plan and the proposed
2006 – 2011 Transportation Improvement Plan
Ms. Tarry said the CIP
identifies $161.5 million for capital resources. Almost half of this amount is grants,
primarily for the
Mayor Hansen opened the
public hearing.
(a) Virginia
Paulsen, Shoreline, addressed the 15.96 acres called the South Woods, noting
that the South Woods Preservation Group wants the entire site preserved. She recalled that Council moved the purchase
of South Woods from a Priority #3 to #1A in the Capital Facilities Element, and
that $2 million was allocated to this end.
She was surprised to see that the CIP contains only $1 million for the
South Woods property purchase, an amount to be raised by grants and bonds. This will purchase only one-fifth of the
total site. On the other hand, nine
acres of
(b) Vicki Westberg, Shoreline, was also disappointed that only $1
million is allocated in the CIP for South Woods rather than $2 million. She said the entire site can serve functions
in environmental education, mental health, and the general well-being of the
community as the woods continue to maintain air and water quality. She believed the citizens will receive much
more value than the investment in the site, whatever it is. She asked Council not to simply appease
citizens but to support their vision.
(c) Janet
Way, Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund, supported the previous speakers
regarding South Woods. She said Council
intended to provide $2 million for this project. She asked that this level be sustained, since
the property is threatened by potential division. She said it could be used for environmental
education, a highly neglected area in school curriculum. She said the value of the site is its size
and complexity and the total value of the coverage of the trees.
Continuing, she asked about
the
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to close the public
hearing. Councilmember Grace seconded
the motion.
Councilmember Fimia moved a substitute motion to
keep the public hearing open until July 11.
Councilmember Chang seconded the motion.
Councilmember Fimia pointed
out that the public just received the CIP last week and they will functionally
have other opportunities to speak on it anyway, so the public hearing should be
kept open. She felt closing the hearing
will send the message there are no more opportunities to speak on the CIP.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen pointed
out that public comment is allowed after all agenda items, and people know they
have these opportunities to comment. So
closing the public hearing will not confuse anyone.
Councilmember Fimia said
public hearings are frequently kept open.
She thought those who do not come often to meetings will assume no more
comment is allowed if the hearing is closed.
She said leaving the hearing open will signal that Council still wishes
to hear from the public.
Councilmember Chang added
that other cities set aside a certain night of the week to discuss important
agenda items. This allows the public to
be educated in detail and participate better in the process. He felt Shoreline should do something like
this. Since it is too late to do this on
the CIP, he supported the motion.
Councilmember Grace did not
disagree with the concept of special meetings to discuss complex issues and
suggested it be thought of for the future.
He said it is important to make clear that the public has an opportunity
to comment on the CIP up to the time of adoption. He said Council should address concerns about
the timing of public hearings by looking at the Agenda Planner and then scheduling
extra time, rather than repeatedly having to change the publicly announced
process.
Mayor Hansen said the public
hearing was advertised and individuals will be allowed to comment for the next
two weeks anyway, so no purpose is served to hold the public hearing open.
A vote was taken on the substitute motion, which
carried 3 – 2, with Mayor Hansen and Deputy Mayor Jepsen dissenting, and the
public hearing was continued to next week and July 11.
Ms. Tarry then continued
with her background discussion on the CIP.
She noted that this year there has been an additional flow of
information for the CIP during the master plan discussion and 20-Year Capital
Facilities Element adoption. These
helped identify the broad investment needs for capital projects for the
long-term and the foreseen funding thresholds.
The CIP/TIP was developed from the Capital Facilities Element. Costs are continuously refined from these
planning documents through the project scope development for individual
projects.
Ms. Tarry then reviewed the
17 projects in the General Capital Fund (GCF).
These are programmed for $28.4 million.
She also outlined the various funding sources for these projects. She said City Hall is the largest project in
GCF, followed by parks and open space acquisitions. There is also non-project-specific funding,
which is an allocation of indirect costs and chargeable time in the engineering
group not directly attributed to any specific project (planning, training,
etc.). Ms. Tarry then reviewed the projects
in the GCF.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia,
Councilmember Fimia said
there is no doubt that citizens wish to have the parks maintained and certain
parks upgraded. However, there was a
great deal of public input on the parks before Shoreline was incorporated. She used
Mr. Deal said it is critical
to have plans ready when grants become available because sometimes grant
funding becomes available on short notice.
Sometimes it takes more than a year to do the planning and conduct a
community process and without these things in place, opportunities could be
missed to apply for grants. He used
Councilmember Fimia
cautioned that staff should first go to the public and neighborhoods around
these areas to find out what, if any, improvements are desired. She said if this has been done already, she
would like to see the documentation.
Then, with this input as a guide, a consultant could be hired to do a
master plan. She did not want to do the
master plans before the public process.
If the plan is not what the public wants, delays are created. She asked if there has already been a public
process to identify the greatest needs in the parks.
Mr. Burkett added that the
development of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan involved extensive public
review through the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Board.
Ms. Tarry moved on to the
soccer fields upgrade, which is scheduled for 2007 with funding coming from a
voted bond issue and possibly grants. Mr.
Burkett added that the soccer groups have set aside some money for this. They would like to do the fields sooner than
2007. He said staff will definitely work
with these groups and their funding would be part of any matching funds grants for
which the City might apply.
Turning to the
Ms. Tarry said the funding
for the South Woods purchase would be Conservation Futures grant funding and
possibly from a voted bond issue. Mr.
Burkett explained the $1 million recommendation. Information is expected from the County about
how much funding will be available there.
The other funding is a bond issue.
Council could assign a higher allocation. It is currently estimated it would cost $6 –
9 million to acquire the entire site. Balancing
this project with all the other projects, staff has made this
recommendation. Three acres is proposed
because there is a need for a neighborhood park, so the $1 million would be for
the acquisition (not construction) of this land. Mr. Burkett noted that the City already owns
80 acres at
Deputy Mayor Jepsen recalled
that at one time School Superintendent Welsh had written a letter saying that
the
Responding to Councilmember
Grace, Mr. Burkett confirmed that the school district is willing to sell three
acres. He said the site is owned
jointly with the Water District, but these entities are proceeding with a subdivision
of the property. Both districts feel a
responsibility to their constituents to receive maximum value for the
property. The Water District is amenable
to waiting on the sale of the property.
The school district has agreed to possibly sell the property at less
than current market value, but it wishes to proceed within the next two or
three months. The district is counting
on the sale of the property for at least a half million dollars for their
projects.
Responding to Councilmember
Grace, Mr. Burkett reported that he had been told there had been an offer to
buy the entire site for $6 million.
Councilmember Grace
suggested that the entire site could be preserved for some period of time if
the City would buy the school district’s half for $3 million and the Water District
would hold on to the other half of the site.
Mr. Burkett concurred that if the City wants to take this approach, the
City could probably acquire the school district’s half for less than $3
million.
Councilmember Chang
supported purchasing the entire South Woods site. He suggested looking for a “creative” way to
get it. He felt it would be a “huge
mistake” for the Briarcrest neighborhood if the site
goes out of public ownership. He
suggested the possibility of delaying the City Hall purchase in order to buy
this site.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia, Mr. Deal said that the PROS Plan was passed with $2 million assigned for
South Woods. Councilmember Fimia said
this site was discussed at the retreat and given a priority. She felt it is very important to purchase the
entire site. She suggested that councilmanic bonds might be used.
Mr. Burkett said the key to councilmanic bonds is that the funding must be repaid.
Councilmember Fimia
suggested moving the $600,000 for gateways to parks acquisition. She said gateways were not a priority at the
retreat, nor mentioned in the master plans.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia, Mr. Burkett said an appraisal of the property two years ago was $5.72
million. She said any process that moves
forward must include the South Woods Preservation Group, which was not included
in this discussion. She wanted staff and
the Council to make the commitment that none of the South Woods property would
be “negotiated away” without the full knowledge and commitment of the South
Woods Preservation Group.
Mr. Burkett said staff has a
plan and has already applied for grant funding and have discussed the site with
the owners. He said if Council directs
purchase of the entire site, staff will try to find a “creative” way to do
that.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen said the
site is already in public ownership. He
suggested asking the school and water districts to explain why the property is
to be removed from public ownership.
Moving on to the
Facilities-Major Maintenance Fund, Ms. Tarry said this is a new fund for major
maintenance for the police station, pool, and
Councilmember Grace
commented that this is confusing because the milestones look more like
facilities upgrades rather than maintenance.
He wondered if this was not capitalizing maintenance costs.
Mr. Burkett said this is
“gray area,” and Ms. Tarry clarified that these projects meet the criteria
defined for being a capital project because each is more than $10,000 and
extends the life of the building.
Councilmember Fimia
commented on the $16,000 feasibility study for public works maintenance and a
$33,500 general facilities management plan.
She felt less money could be spent on these items.
Ms. Tarry said these will be
completed in 2005 and were authorized in the 2005 – 2010 CIP.
Moving on to the Roads
Capital Fund, Ms. Tarry said there are 19 projects for $117.7 million. She reiterated that the reason the largest
component of this fund is grants is because of the
Councilmember Fimia said she
continues to have a real disagreement about using Surface Water Utility fees
for roads projects. She felt that when
roads are expanded, the project should assume the burden of the surface water
needs that must be met because more impervious surface is created. The utility
fees deal with the impacts of existing infrastructure. She said there are so many past infrastructure
surface water needs to be addressed by the fees.
Ms. Tarry said the other
alternative is to show the components of the roads projects that address
surface water issues within the Surface Water Capital Fund. Staff felt it was easier to leave them in the
Roads Capital Funds. She said the
utility fees are paid by both residential and commercial properties.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen asked
how much could be generated through Section 108 loans. He noted that President Bush has not
allocated this type of loan in this budget cycle, but it appears Congress will
restore it. He asked to see “the Section
108” numbers. He wondered how much could
be generated to address the sidewalk programs and to fund them more quickly.
Mr. Burkett suggested at
this point just taking Council questions, since most of the projects have been
in the CIP for several years and have been thoroughly discussed. He suggested staff could highlight the new
projects.
In response to a question of
Councilmember Fimia’s earlier in the meeting, Councilmember Grace noted that
“In 2005, the City Council can levy up to $83,008,404 or 1.5% of the City’s
estimated assessed value” in Councilmanic debt.
Ms. Tarry pointed out that
the CIP does not include Alternative 2 funding for the Interurban bridge
crossings because the document was produced before the Council’s decision on
that contract. The final document will
show funding at the Alternative level of $4.7 million.
Ms. Tarry said the annual
roads surface maintenance funding has been increased with anticipated fuel tax
money. She also commented on an error in
the document, noting that on page 125, the $1.82 million that shows as Roads
Capital funds in 2006 is really grant funding.
Ms. Tarry commented on the
estimate for the
She turned to the additional
funding in the CIP for new sidewalks programmed at $5.4 million over the six
years to do priority routes. The design
will happen early next year if approved.
She said the funding will come from Roads Capital monies freed up by
financing the surface water components of certain roads projects from Surface
Water Utility fees as previously discussed.
Additionally, $1 million was moved from Phase 2 of the
Finally, Ms. Tarry said that
the improvements at
Councilmember Grace asked
about the traffic small works projects.
Responding to Councilmember
Grace, Ms. Marilley said these are generally traffic solutions as opposed to
pedestrian safety projects, such as crosswalks.
Mr. Burkett said the
advantage of this approach is that neighborhood problems can be addressed
quickly rather than having to wait for the annual CIP process.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia, Ms. Marilley said the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program funding is for
staffing and analysis of how to solve neighborhood safety problems. Once a solution is determined, there are
multiple opportunities to try to find funding.
Councilmember Fimia
reiterated her question about which projects are getting grants and what other
types of projects would be eligible for that funding. She said she was looking for a specific
answer as to the major grants the City applies for and what types of projects
are eligible. For
Councilmember Fimia
reiterated her request for the categories that projects grants can be used for.
Ms. Marilley said many
grants are time-sensitive, and granting authorities make the rules. She used the Transportation Improvement
Board’s granting criteria as an example.
The City must determine if particular projects meets the criteria, so
there is flexibility in what project is used.
Once the grant funding is received, it must be applied to that
particular grant. Very few grants are
broad.
Councilmember Fimia
expressed her familiarity with how grants are awarded. She asked for a consolidated list for the
types of grants the City is going after and the criteria for each. She also reiterated her desire to change the
gateway allocation, probably to the sidewalk program. She asked how many sidewalks can be installed
for the $5 million allocation.
Ms. Marilley said the range
of costs was $70 to $250/lineal foot.
Using $150/lineal foot as the estimate, six or seven miles of sidewalks
could be constructed. This would take
care of the arterials. She said $5
million spread over six years allows for better planning.
Responding again to
Councilmember Fimia, Ms. Marilley outlined the three components of the 3rd
NW project. She said that as this
project has progressed, less expensive ways of achieving the goals of the
project have been identified. The third
phase of this project was to install a pumping system at Pantera
Pond to address drainage problems in
Councilmember Grace
commented that the sidewalk priority routes are to be identified in the first
part of 2006. He said sidewalks around schools
are a priority. Setting forth these
priorities will help determine where the funding is focused.
Councilmember Fimia asked
that staff list options on how to reduce costs on Phases 2 and 3 of the Aurora
Corridor project. Ms. Tarry said staff
will bring forward a schedule of actions.
Mr. Burkett said the City is in the environmental process now and within
the next year the Council will be making decisions about the elements and
alignments of Phase 2. Councilmember
Fimia wanted to discuss these decisions sooner rather than later. She feared staff is already talking to
property owners and making a number of assumptions about what the elements of Phase
2 will be.
Ms. Marilley said the Public
Words Director and Kirk McKinley have been talking with businesses about the
remaining phases but have not brought forward a specific design. This allows for earlier input by the businesses.
Ms. Tarry moved to the
Surface Water component, noting it reflects the Surface Water Master Plan.
Mr. Burkett said that as
part of the master plan, there was some additional funding added. This is reflected in the CIP.
Councilmember Grace asked
whether the funding for the “Small Projects,” page 175 of the CIP, will be used
for already identified projects or if it is a contingency fund.
Jesus Sanchez, Operations
Manager, said it is a combination of both.
He said the City has learned from the several major storm events that
have occurred in the past few years and the problem areas have been
prioritized. Two have been identified: 187th and Midvale and 152nd
and Ashworth, which will be addressed this year.
Responding to Mayor Hansen,
Mr. Sanchez said the
Councilmember Fimia
commented on the $200,000/year allocated to surface water management and
engineering. She felt this $1.8 million
for six years should be put into the actual projects instead. Mr. Burkett responded that the total allocation
for surface water is $22 million, so it makes sense to spend ten percent of
that to do the planning. Sometimes
additional planning has saved millions of dollars, at Ronald Bog and
Councilmember Fimia
responded that through the master planning process, the projects have been
identified. Each project has a planning component already.
Ms. Tarry said some of the
costs are not allocated directly to specific projects. She concluded that this discussion will
continue next week.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At
_________________________