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.
(a)
Proclamation of High School Girls Tennis Week
Mayor
Hansen read the proclamation honoring the achievements of the Shorewood High
School Girls Tennis Team and their coach, Arnie Moreno.
Elaine
Swanson, Shorewood High School Assistant Principal, along with several team members,
accepted the proclamation and thanked the City for this recognition.
(b)
Shoreline Star – Jeff Lewis
Mayor
Hansen presented the ninth Shoreline Star to Shoreline resident Jeff Lewis and
outlined his many contributions to the community through his involvement in the
Shoreline Bank, Shoreline Community
College Board of Trustees, Shoreline Community College Foundation Board,
Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Arts Council Advisory Board, Forward Shoreline, and the
Shoreline Breakfast Rotary. He described
Mr. Lewis’ efforts to secure funding for the Showmobile as well as other
volunteer and charitable activities.
Mr.
Lewis thanked the City for this recognition and commented on the importance of
recognizing the many opportunities for positive change in Shoreline.
(c)
King County Councilmember Carolyn
Councilmember
Carolyn Edmonds presented Mayor Hansen with a check for $1.1 million as
mitigation for the County’s Hidden Lake Pump Station and Boeing Creek Trunk
Sewer projects.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
§
Councilmember
Grace commented favorably on the
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: none
There was Council consensus to take the public hearing
portion of agenda item 8(a) next.
8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING
(a)
Continued public
hearing to consider citizens comments on the proposed 2006-2011 Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP)
and the proposed
2006-2011 Transportation Improvement Plan (continued from
Mayor Hansen opened the
continued public hearing.
(a) Ken
Cottingham, Shoreline, pointed out that there are no sidewalks proposed for
(b) Rob Hill,
Shoreline, representing Hillwood Soccer and other soccer groups, thanked the
Council and staff for raising the priority level of field turf for Shoreline
Athletic Fields A and B to Priority Level 1A.
He said he is excited at the thought of more and safer use of the fields
by soccer organizations.
Upon motion by Councilmember
Gustafson, seconded by Councilmember Ransom and unanimously carried, the public
hearing was closed.
There was Council consensus to defer action on Ordinance
No. 395 until after Public Comment and Approval of the Agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Larry
Newman, Shoreline, expressed excitement at the prospect of field turf for fields
A and B. He said his whole family is
involved in soccer, and upgraded fields will greatly enhance the safety and
enjoyment of the game. He noted that
many men’s teams refuse to play on the existing fields due to health and safety
concerns.
(b) Virginia
Paulsen, Shoreline, cited research showing that the natural environment
facilitates physical and psychological well-being. She commented on the many benefits that
nature provides, pointing out that it should not be thought of only in terms of
how it can benefit an individual or a corporation. She emphasized the importance of equal access
to nature facilities by the entire community.
(c) Brian
Dimak,
(d) Sadrina
Dorn,
(e) Todd
Linton, Shoreline, president of the Hillwood Soccer Club, stated that he would
like to see the City move forward with field turf for fields A and B. He noted that his organization has
accumulated seed money to get the project started, and that the turf upgrades
could be paid for through higher adult fees and increased usage. He said he would like to see the fields be a
source of pride for Shoreline rather than a source of shame.
(f) Bruce
Bosma, Shoreline, thanked the Council for its contributions to the Center for
Human Services (CHS), a community program which has helped him stay clean and
sober for the past two years.
(g)
Ken Cottingham, Shoreline, said that traffic signals at the
intersections of
(h)
Jules Liptrap, Shoreline, felt the traffic signal proposed for the
intersection of
(i)
Dan Mann, Shoreline, said he was disappointed to find that no members
of the Shoreline Merchants Association (SMA) were included on the Economic
Development Task Force. He noted that
the SMA was one of the few groups that have staunchly supported the business
community. He also noted that neither
the Sno-King Environmental Council nor advocates for Thornton Creek were
included on the task force. He felt the
Council should facilitate respectful dialogue with all community groups and
avoid marginalizing any one group, which only invites further division within
the City.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Upon motion by Councilmember
Grace, seconded by Councilmember Fimia and unanimously carried, the agenda was
approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved approval of the
consent calendar. Councilmember Gustafson
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the following consent
calendar items were approved:
Minutes of Special
Meeting of
Minutes of Regular
Meeting of
Approval of expenses
and payroll as of June 30,
2005 in the amount of
$2,018,988.46
Ordinance No. 396
amending Ordinance No. 392
related to the
regulation of motorized foot scooters
and similar devices
8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING
Ordinance
No. 395 adopting the 2006-2011 Six-Year Capital Improvement Plan
Councilmember Gustafson moved Ordinance No. 395,
adopting the 2006-2011 Six-Year Capital Improvement Plan. Deputy Mayor Jepsen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to allocate $1.6
million for synthetic infill turf for Shoreline Fields A and B, with
installation to be completed on or before
Councilmember Gustafson
explained the rationale for the motion, citing safety improvements, increased
rental revenues, decreases maintenance costs, and economic development
opportunities as a result of new field surfaces. He said although he is reluctant to divert sidewalk
funding, he encourages the Bond Advisory Committee to add $1 million back into
sidewalks for a bond issue. He stressed
the urgency of improving the fields as soon as possible.
Councilmember Chang
concurred, although he favored diverting $1 million from the City Hall Project
instead of from sidewalks. He noted the
tremendous opportunities for safety and economic development that would result
from improving the soccer fields.
Councilmember Ransom
suggested that the $1 million be taken from the General Fund allocation to Aurora
Corridor Phase 2. He noted there is $10
million in funding for Aurora Corridor Phase 2, but $4 million of this is
excess funding that could be used for sidewalks, South Woods,
Councilmember Gustafson was
amenable to the amendment, but requested clarification from staff as to how the
funding could be achieved, either through a bond issue, borrowing, or other
sources.
Mr. Burkett said the issue of
soccer fields versus sidewalks is a perfect example of the kinds of decisions
the Council must make on its capital priorities. He noted that the Capital Improvement Plan
assumes potential bond issues totaling $13 million, so the question is which projects
should be funded with available money in the CIP, and which should be put on a
bond issue. He said staff estimates a
need of $9 million to $11 million of City funding in Aurora Corridor Phase 2 in
order to attract grants for the project.
Councilmember Grace
questioned the estimates related to increased rental fees and reduced field
maintenance.
Mr. Burkett said although
staff takes a more conservative approach as to how much revenue can be
generated by field improvements, staff can find a way to fund the fields if it
is a high Council priority.
Dick Deal, Parks, Recreation,
and Cultural Services Director, advised caution in predicting significant
increases in rental revenues and cost savings.
He said the City would anticipate increased use as a result of the field
improvements, but increasing revenues by $100,000 would require unreasonably
high rates. He noted that the existing
fields are used quite extensively.
Councilmember Gustafson said
his estimates for rental revenues were based on other jurisdictions and were
fairly conservative.
Responding to Council, Mr.
Deal said field turf is a relatively new product and its estimated life span is
about 12-14 years.
Councilmember Chang commented
that the improved fields would increase the City’s economic base, as teams and
spectators would be traveling to Shoreline for tournaments. He suggested that the resulting increases in
tax revenue might be enough to cover the costs of the project. He also felt the school district should
become a partner with the City in improving its fields so there would be an
adequate number of soccer fields.
Mr. Burkett noted that the
school district is considering a number of bond issues, one of which might
include field turf. He agreed that improved fields could have a
positive economic impact but was reluctant to speculate on revenue
projections.
Councilmember Fimia supported
accelerating the field turf option, but not at the expense of sidewalks. She
noted that the increased rental revenue could be “siphoned off” due to the projected
gap between City revenues and expenditures in the future. She
felt the City could borrow half of the funding ($800,000), with the remainder
coming from the community ($200,000), gateways ($400,000), and lower priority
projects.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen
emphasized the need to provide staff with concrete direction and to avoid “moving
things around.” He said the proposals to
this point would require extensive modifications to the CIP. He would support borrowing half ($800,000)
and using funding from gateways ($400,000), community ($200,000), and sidewalks
($200,000).
Mayor Hansen felt since there
is already expenditure for fields in 2007, it could simply be accelerated to
2006, so identifying additional funding sources may not be needed.
Mr. Burkett clarified that
the future funding in 2007 is for grants or bonds, so it should not be
considered secured funding.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen advocated
for sizing the borrowing against the anticipated revenues and fees, and then reconciling
the difference with other sources.
Councilmember Grace noted
several other potential amendments to the CIP and emphasized the need to “look
at the whole picture” before making a decision.
Councilmember Fimia suggested
looking at the
Staff affirmed that the
City’s cash flow situation could accommodate this change. Mr. Deal requested that $55,000 remain in the
Councilmember Gustafson accepted as a friendly
amendment that turf
for fields A & B be funded using loans ($800,000), community contribution ($200,000),
and transferring funding from
After further discussion, a
vote was taken on the amendment, which carried 7-0.
On another topic, Councilmember
Ransom felt that rather than having a long list of gateway projects in the CIP,
the City should only concentrate on the highest priority locations. He felt strongly that the City should move
forward with construction of the
Mayor Hansen expressed
support for improving this site, although he doubted the City could complete
any capital project within a one-year timeframe.
Mr. Burkett said the
Councilmember Fimia said she could
not justify spending $250,000 for a City gateway at this site since it is not
conducive to multipurpose use or safe pedestrian circulation. Noting the future need for reconfiguration of
this intersection, she felt the money would be better spent on reconfiguring
the site now and installing modest signage.
She felt that spending $250,000 on signage and not addressing the
functional aspects of the site would not be a good use of funds. She asked if the $450,000 line item for
reconfiguration was an accurate estimate, noting that the item is not even funded
in the 20-year plan.
Paul Haines, Public Works Director,
said the $450,000 is a “ballpark estimate,” since the project is not slated as
a high priority. He said staff has done
some preliminary sketches and knows enough about the site to avoid disruption
to the areas defined for reconfiguration.
Councilmember Fimia
enumerated the various options for the site, noting that it could be used for a
gateway, for reconfiguration and signage, or for modest signage only (with the
balance to be allocated to other City projects).
Given the limitations associated
with the site, Deputy Mayor Jepsen felt that selling the site would be a viable
solution to the problem. Selling the
site would allow more funding to be allocated to other gateway projects
throughout the City. Councilmember Chang
agreed that selling the site might be a good option.
The Council then discussed
the size of the site and associated environmental conditions.
Mr. Burkett summarized that
much more work and discussion is needed on this particular item. He recommended that staff return at a future
time to present further options. Mr. Haines
added that selling the site increases the options that staff can explore.
Councilmember Ransom moved to increase the
Councilmember Ransom noted
that appraisals for the
Responding to Council, Ms. Tarry
clarified that this budget transfer could be accomplished by transferring the
funding to the General Capital Fund.
Mr. Burkett noted that the
City has received a grant of $450,000 for this open space acquisition.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen clarified
that the General Fund allocation to the Aurora Corridor Phase 2 project is
really accumulated reserves. He felt this
should be made clear to the public. He
also felt the Council is “being rather sloppy” about how it is considering these
funding options.
Bob Olander, Deputy City
Manager, noted that property acquisition is a high priority among members of
the recently reconvened bond subcommittee.
He advised the Council to delay action on this item until the bond
subcommittee can outline its recommendations later this year.
Councilmember Grace agreed
that acquisition of this property is a high priority for the City, but it
should be pursued through the bond committee.
He felt there would be sufficient community support to propose a bond
issue.
Councilmember Gustafson
concurred, noting that the bond committee is considering several properties,
including
Mayor Hansen felt the
acquisition should be contingent upon bond approval, because even though the
Council allocated $2 million to South Woods as part of the Capital Facilities
Element, it is mostly bond funding.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to substitute “increase
the expenditure for
The Council then discussed
the timeline for a bond election. It was
noted that the earliest a bond issue could be voted on is spring of 2006.
Councilmember Fimia noted
that it could take up to a year before the City secures the property, and by
then the price would have likely increased or the property might not even be
available. She felt it would be a risk
to rely on a bond issue, noting that voter sentiment is not very positive.
Mr. Burkett stated that the
City has been negotiating with the current property owner (Seattle Public
Utility) in an attempt to secure a longer-term financing plan. Mr. Olander felt the current property owners
have been cooperative and are willing to work with the City, whether on a direct
purchase or a bond, as long as the
timeframe is reasonable.
Mr. Burkett was comfortable
that the property owners would reserve the property if they know that the City plans
to propose a bond issue in the spring.
A vote was taken on the substitute, which
carried 7-0.
Councilmember Fimia
emphasized the importance of securing the entire South Woods property, noting
she would consider councilmanic bonds if necessary to retain this site.
Mr. Burkett explained that
the proposal to purchase three acres now came in response to the school
district’s cash flow needs. Aside from
this, the water and school districts are not in a hurry to sell the
property. This would give the City more
time to consider funding for the remainder of the property.
Council and staff discussed
the need to schedule a meeting with the two districts in order to understand
all the issues involved.
Councilmember Chang felt the
City could expedite the purchase by the City by expediting the process for
acquiring the water district. Mayor
Hansen commented on the complex legal process involved in annexing the water
district.
Councilmember Ransom
emphasized the need to partner with one or both districts, since the City does
not currently have the funding to purchase the entire site. He noted that one school board member stated
that he has never voted on the sale of this property. Furthermore, the bond committee is not
contemplating preservation of the entire parcel.
Responding to Councilmember
Grace, Mr. Burkett expressed his view that the school district would consider
an offer of $720,000 for three acres ($240,000/acre).
Councilmember Grace recommended
purchasing three acres now while the City negotiates with the districts for the
balance of the parcel. He supported
moving as quickly as possible on this option.
Councilmember Fimia moved to increase the
allocation for South Woods Acquisition to $6 million, with the funding sources
identified as future grants, bond issue, and General Fund, and that the entire
property be included in the purchase. Councilmember
Chang seconded the motion.
Councilmember Fimia
emphasized the importance of communicating to the districts that the City is
serious about this acquisition. She felt
the public strongly supports this acquisition since there are very few forested
areas on Shoreline’s eastside.
Councilmember Gustafson felt
the City should meet with the districts and consider its options before passing
this motion. He supported purchasing
three acres now and negotiating with the property owners.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen suggested
a friendly amendment to encourage the districts not to sell the property,
because in its current status it is already preserved in public ownership. He
felt the City should explore the district’s reasons for selling the property and
try to reach an agreement on maintaining the property in public ownership. Councilmember Fimia did not feel this
amendment would be in order.
Mayor Hansen noted that the
districts are currently engaged in a process to subdivide the property, and
this is a prerequisite to buying a portion of the parcel.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved an amendment to limit
the purchase price to the amount the school district and water district paid
for the property. This motion died for
lack of a second.
Councilmember Fimia accepted as a friendly
amendment the addition of “co-ownership” as a funding source.
MEETING EXTENSION
At
Deputy Mayor Jepsen felt that
identifying the specific figure of $6 million in the CIP sends the wrong
message to the districts.
Councilmember Fimia replied
that the $6 million figure does not mean the City is committed to spending $6
million on acquisition. It simply
relates the City’s intentions and provides a basis for a discussion with the
districts.
Councilmember Ransom
expressed support for the motion, noting that it is simply a planning document.
A vote was taken on the amendment, which carried
5-2, with Deputy Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.
Councilmember Grace moved to allocate $720,000 to purchase three
acres of the South Woods property at $240,000 per acre, with the funding
sources identified as future grants, bond proceeds, other City funds, and
$350,000 from the Conservation Futures Trust grant. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
A vote was taken on Ordinance No. 395 as
amended, which carried unanimously.
9. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a)
Resolution No. 236
adopting a Six-Year (2006-2011) Transportation Improvement Program and directing
the same to be filed with the State
Secretary
of Transportation and Transportation Improvement Board
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor Jepsen, seconded by Councilmember
Grace and unanimously carried, Resolution No. 236 adopting a Six-Year
(2006-2011) Transportation Improvement Program was adopted.
10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(a)
Resolution No. 234
adopting the City’s Transportation Master Plan
Mr. Haines explained that the
Transportation Master Plan serves as a vision and bridge between the
Comprehensive Plan and CIP. The plan
provides concurrency and guidance on project priorities, service needs, and
funding expectations for the next 20 years.
The plan considers a priority
evaluation system to rank the various transportation systems while also
considering revenue sources. Responding
to earlier comments regarding concerns about
Councilmember Gustafson moved Resolution No. 234,
adopting the City’s Transportation Plan.
Councilmember Grace seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom
requested further clarification of Mr. Cottingham’s concerns related to
MEETING EXTENSION
At
Mr. Haines noted that
Councilmember Fimia spoke
against the motion, noting that it does not resolve issues related to traffic
congestion, neighborhood traffic, pedestrian safety, or the LOS
deficiency. She did not agree with the
plan’s priorities, since 70% of the 20-year funding is allocated to three miles
of
Councilmember Gustafson
expressed support for the motion, noting that the plan is designed to be
flexible to meet changing circumstances, and it does not commit the City to any
specific financial obligations. He noted
the plan considers all forms of personal travel, including, walking, biking,
bus, automobile, and freight.
Councilmember Chang agreed that
the plan spends a disproportionate amount of money on only a few projects. He indicated he would vote against the
motion.
Councilmember Ransom said he
would vote for the motion since all of his concerns have been “discussed and fought for.”
The vote is on the compromise master plan.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried
5-2, with Councilmembers Chang and Fimia dissenting.
(b)
Resolution No. 235
adopting the City’s Surface Water Master Plan
Councilmember Grace moved Resolution No. 235,
adopting the City’s Surface Water Master Plan.
Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom asked
staff to explain the recent problems associated with the
Mr. Haines explained that
resources had to be shifted from landscaping in order to reconstruct the
failing roadway. The road failed because
it was not capable of handling the heavy construction loads, but staff was not
aware of this problem until after it started the drainage project. He assured Councilmember Ransom that the new
drainage infrastructure is capable of handling much larger quantities of
water.
Councilmember Fimia asked
when the City became aware that a full road reconstruction would be needed. Mr. Haines explained that staff noticed the
problem after the project reached about one-third completion. Staff concluded that the problem would only
worsen as construction proceeded, and there was no indication or prior data to
suggest that the road might fail. He
said the loads carried by the trucks are fairly standard for large construction
projects, and most other City streets can adequately accommodate such loads.
Councilmember Gustafson
pointed out that the Surface Water Master Plan is aligned with the Water
Resource Inventory Area 8 Salmon Conservation Plan.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried
6-1, with Councilmember Fimia dissenting.
Responding to Mr. Mann’s
comment earlier in the meeting, Deputy Mayor Jepsen noted that one member of the
Economic Development Task Force is also a member of the Shoreline Merchants
Association.
11. ADJOURNMENT
At
_________________________