CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 5, 2006 Shoreline Conference Center
PRESENT: Mayor Ransom and Councilmembers Gustafson, McGlashan, Hansen, Ryu, and Way
ABSENT: Deputy Mayor Fimia
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:47 p.m. by Mayor Ransom, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Ransom led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exception of Deputy Mayor Fimia.
Councilmember Way moved to excuse Deputy Mayor Fimia. Councilmember McGlashan seconded the motion, which carried 6-0.
(a) Recognition of Celebrate Shoreline Sponsors
Mayor Ransom recognized and thanked the sponsors of the 2006 Celebrate Shoreline event held on Saturday, August 19, 2006. The sponsors were:
Platinum Sponsor ($1,000) Shoreline/South County YMCA
Gold Sponsor ($500) Shoreline Central Market
Anderson House
Sky Nursery
Shoreline Community College
Shoreline/Lake Forest Park Arts Council
Shoreline Bank
Silver Sponsors ($300) Chuck Olson Chevrolet-Kia
Mark Simons, DMD
James Alan Salon
Shoreline Rotary Foundation
North City Safeway
Top Food & Drug
Gordon’s Les Schwab Tires
He also thanked St. Mark’s Catholic Church, which hosted the staging area for the parade and Ridgecrest Elementary School, the location of the community festival.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Bob Olander, City Manager, provided updates and reports on the following items:
Councilmember Way inquired if the Planning Commission meeting could be televised.
Mr. Olander said since they would be switching rooms, it would be a problem. He felt it would be best if the Council invited the Cascade Land Conservancy to a future Council meeting to make a community presentation that could be televised.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Ransom said he was interviewed by Tony Ventrella for a Comcast Cable program called “Comcast Local Edition.” It airs on Cable Channel 45 in the City of Shoreline and has run twice a day for the past two weeks. The video features the Mayor outlining City projects, park facilities, and other City services.
Councilmember Gustafson thanked the Celebrate Shoreline sponsors for making the event a success and welcomed Councilmember McGlashan back from knee surgery.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Bill Bear, Shoreline said he reported to the Council a couple of weeks ago that the Shoreline Water District told him there were 20 to 30 families who have their water service shut off each month. He added that of those families, about 11 do not have their water turned back on. He inquired of Seattle City Light and found out that 175 families have had their power shut off in the last six months. He said the City has failed these families. He said families cannot be left without water and power. He added that the agencies in the City should be trying to prevent this and other problems, such as homelessness.
(b) Ellen Sullivan, Shoreline, invited the Council to the North City Classic Car Show on September 16th from 10:00 am until 4:00 pm in North City.
Councilmember Way asked Mr. Olander to address Mr. Bear’s comments.
Mr. Olander responded that the City’s Human Services Department is aware of this and it continues to be a concern. He said the Human Services budget will be discussed in the upcoming months.
Mayor Ransom said there were requests for revisions in the order of the agenda items. He said there was a request from the Shoreline Sister Cities Association (SSCA) to present their information to the Council first.
There was Council consensus to move the SSCA Update to Item 6(a).
Mr. Olander added that Councilmember Way wanted to discuss the “Transit Now” proposal. He said the King County Council voted to put an amended version of it on the November ballot by a vote of 8-1. Therefore, he said there would be time to discuss it and it doesn’t necessarily need to be discussed during the meeting. Additionally, he announced there will be a Suburban Cities Policy Committee meeting on September 13. One of the discussion items at that meeting will a recommendation to the Executive Board on the King Conservation District/WRIA-8 funding issue. He suggested discussing the issue at the end of this meeting so Mayor Ransom and/or Councilmember Gustafson can provide direction at the committee meeting.
Councilmember Way suggested the King Conservation District/WRIA-8 funding issue also be brought up for more discussion at the Council meeting next week. Councilmember Ryu said she also would like to discuss the issue next week.
6. STUDY ITEMS
(a) Shoreline Sister Cities Association Update
John Chang, Shoreline Sister Cities Association (SSCA) President, said the SSCA is based on the giving and receiving between two cities where both parties benefit by participating in an active relationship. Shoreline’s Sister City, Boryeong, Korea, has sent an invitation to us and our City hasn’t decided whether or not to accept. SSCA was formed in 2002 and both Mayors executed an agreement with Boryeong, and their Mayor visited Shoreline in 2003. At this point, he felt our Mayor should visit Boryeong. He requested the Council’s assistance in making this happen. He thanked City Clerk Scott Passey for his help in promoting the relationship. He added that without Mr. Passey the process would have been very difficult. He said a visit to Boryeong on November 4th seems to be a workable date. Additionally, Boryeong has committed to visiting Shoreline in 2007 and has sent exchange students to our schools. He wanted to see the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce working with Boryeong. He concluded that the SSCA is asking that the City expend $5,000 in travel expenses do the City can participate in the visit.
Mr. Olander stated that there is $7,000 set aside in the budget for this purpose and sending an official City delegation consisting of the Mayor and another person would be proper protocol. He noted that the overall cost of $5,000 would cover one City official and staff member, the hosting of one dinner, and a modest gift. He reported that major bilateral trade and negotiations are being hosted in the Northwest between the United States and Korea, so this trip is important. Since the City has committed itself to this relationship it is important for this to occur. Also, it is not fair to ask the Mayor or whoever attends in the future to pay their own way because they represent the City. However, if there is a funding issue then only the Mayor should attend. He concluded that the questions before Council are: 1) whether the City accepts the invitation; and 2) if the Council should authorize travel expenses for the elected official.
Councilmember Gustafson said since the City is committed to this relationship, he agreed with the City Manager’s proposal. He said since the money was set aside for 2006 the Council should go ahead and approve sending a delegation to Boryeong. However, he said he would like to revisit the Sister Cities agreement in 2007. It is important to send Mayor Ransom and Mr. Olander, he said. He asked to have this put on the budget agenda discussion for 2007.
Councilmember Hansen supported the $7,000 budget item when it passed last year. However, he has questions because last year former Mayor Jepsen and his wife paid their own way, former Councilmember Chang went and paid his own way, and he also paid his own way. He said maybe there should be a limit on Council travel expenses where they each can decide what they want to attend and what they don’t want to attend. He said he is not sure if he supports this proposal. He agreed with utilizing the money for a gift and for the Boryeong officials.
Mr. Olander pointed out that the last time the Council went to Boryeong the funds were not in the budget; therefore the Councilmembers had to pay their own way. Now, there are funds allocated for this purpose.
Councilmember Hansen said there were funds set aside at that time.
Scott Passey, City Clerk, clarified that there were $10,000 in available funds but there was no expenditure policy at the time.
Councilmember Hansen noted that the SSCA raised a considerable amount of funding in the past, and two of the people who went last time had their travel paid. He said he has no qualms if SSCA was sending the delegation.
Councilmember Ryu said it makes sense to RSVP and send a City delegation; however, the City needs to be sensitive in spending public funds. She said there is an interest among other ethnic groups in Shoreline to reach out to other cities around the world. She said this issue needs to be addressed for the long term and the Council needs to decide if the entire SSCA policy needs to be revisited. She agreed with Councilmember Gustafson that the Council needs to consider the entire SSCA policy. According to Representative Chase, she added, the SSCA could do fundraising. A fundraising effort by the SSCA would be a great opportunity to build bridges and connect with the community. She felt it would also be a good outreach mechanism and would avoid the spending of public funds.
Mr. Olander felt fundraising puts the SSCA in a difficult position and until this sister city relationship is a success it will be impossible to make the next one succeed as well. He added that this relationship with Boryeong is still new, and it will be difficult for the SSCA to raise enough travel funds for their own members. He added that it may be a problem for the City to ask the SSCA to raise the funds for the official City delegation. He felt that since the City committed to the agreement there are obligations that the City should abide by.
Mr. Chang said that fundraising would be very difficult because he accepted his position a month ago and businesses have been struggling in Shoreline because of the Aurora construction. Additionally, he said the organization hasn’t been able to really get established yet. He agreed that the SSCA needs to do more work and get momentum going towards being more self-sufficient. To benefit from the relationship, the SSCA needs to be more outgoing and when this happens the entire community will benefit. He added that the Mayor’s attendance is very symbolic and he represents Shoreline.
Mr. Olander agreed with Mr. Chang and said it would be very difficult for the SSCA to undertake a major fundraiser in the next month.
Councilmember Way supported the concept of sister cities and having positive relations with other cities from other countries, especially if it involves schools. She is interested on how this is budgeted. She asked is Council travel and sister cities are separate budget items.
Mr. Olander explained that the Council has a separate travel and education budget item, and the City Clerk’s Office has a $7,000 Shoreline Sister City Association and visiting activities budget item.
Responding to Councilmember Way, Mr. Olander confirmed that any funding approved by Council for this would come from the sister cities funding in the City Clerk’s budget, not the Council travel and education budget.
Councilmember Way inquired if there was any contingency funding if an emergency arose while in Boryeong.
Mr. Olander said any problems could be addressed with travel insurance, which could be paid for individually. However, he added the insurance would be very specific on what it covers.
Councilmember Way concurred with Mr. Chang that the SSCA doesn’t have the capacity to raise funds at this time.
Mr. Chang responded that because the SSCA doesn’t even know if the City is participating, it is pointless to plan. He said the committee is awaiting confirmation from the City delegation. He said the last trip to Boryeong was attended by 30 SSCA members.
Councilmember Way asked if there was any potential for the committee to make a contribution.
Mr. Chang explained that each committee member who goes to Boryeong already pays $3,000 and takes time off from work. Therefore, to ask them to pay for the Mayor to attend would be a burden. He felt that it would be hard to fundraise at the current time because of the “Dollars for Scholars” auction coming up, elections, and other Shoreline events which will compete with fundraising efforts. He said this relationship with Boryeong is a commitment and both entities need to commit to having exchange activities going back and forth between countries. He said that after the trip the SSCA could begin to work on fundraising for the following year. He added that in the City of Federal Way, Weyerhaeuser and McDonald’s support their program.
Councilmember McGlashan supported utilizing the $7,000 and felt that there is no point in sending the SSCA unless the Mayor was with them. He asked what the status of the SSCA is.
Mr. Chang responded that he can’t comment on the activities of the past president, but she was very busy with her own personal responsibilities. Meanwhile, he said the Korean-American residents in the SSCA are meeting every month. In July, SSCA took 15 high school students to Boryeong for the Mud Festival. He noted that there are many activities and events going on “behind the scenes.” He added that the groundwork is laid out and he is ready to get to work.
Councilmember McGlashan reiterated that he will only support utilizing the $7,000 if the Mayor and a City staff member are going.
Councilmember Ryu clarified there is $32,500 in the Council travel budget. She suggested dividing the travel budget evenly among the seven Councilmembers and let them decide how to use their portion.
Mr. Olander reported that the amount spent this year will be very close to the allocation, and the allocation could be increased through a Council policy decision.
Councilmember Gustafson restated his opinion to pay for the Mayor and the City Manager through the $7,000 Sister City Association budget item. He also noted that there is a proviso in section E of the Sister City Relationship Policy which outlines annual review of Sister City relationship. He said the annual review needs to be scheduled on the Council’s agenda as stated in the policy.
Mayor Ransom said it should be automatic for the Mayor to visit the sister city. He noted that the City of Federal Way pays for all of their councilmembers to attend all sister city related events. He pointed out that it has taken Federal Way five years to build their business base to allow for the travel. He felt the direction to the City Manager is to go ahead and utilize the $7,000 and make arrangements for the Mayor and City Manager to travel to Boryeong.
Councilmember Hansen suggested that Mr. Passey be funded and attend as a liaison to the City delegates for protocol purposes. He informed the Council that former president Cheryl Lee’s uncle was a motivating factor behind the committee. He was killed two years ago in an auto accident and since then the committee has stopped meeting. He suggested the Council analyze all of the Council travel expenses prior to approving any travel to Boryeong. He also noted that the City of Edmonds has a very established sister city relationship with the City of Hekinan, Japan and each councilmember pays their own way.
Councilmember Ryu asked how much money each Councilmember has used out of the travel budget.
Mr. Olander said he will bring it to the next meeting, along with a motion for the Council to take formal action on approving the utilization of the Sister City funding for travel to Boryeong.
(b) Domestic Partner Health Benefits and Revised Personnel Policies Regarding Definitions of Immediate Family and Domestic Partner
Marci Wright, Human Resources Director, discussed the possibility of adding domestic partner health benefits to the City’s benefit packages. Currently, benefits are provided for eligible dependents which include spouses and children or stepchildren. Unmarried domestic partners are not currently eligible for medical coverage through the City. A few years ago, the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Trust revised their regulations to allow cities to add domestic partner coverage. She added that it is an option and there is no legal requirement for the City to execute this agreement at this time, however, Council approval is required to start the benefit. She added that if the program was started the Council would need to determine whether domestic partner would include same sex partners, opposite sex partners, or both.
Mayor Ransom called for public comment.
a) Greg Logan, Shoreline, supported providing benefits for same gender relationships. He said it is an issue of justice and we need to treat each relationship in the same manner. The State Supreme Court failed to do this. He said there is also a religious element against it in society. As a person of faith, he said he is disappointed with the religious people who are against this. He said he wants Shoreline to become a city that practices genuine justice.
Mayor Ransom commented that he received some e-mails and phone calls for and against this proposal.
Councilmember Hansen said adding coverage for domestic partners is not significant financially. He questioned the calculations Ms. Wright had in the staff report and asked for clarification.
Ms. Wright responded that they are made up of assumptions based on different family scenarios. She also pointed out that the figures in the staff report were the annual totals for coverage.
Councilmember Way wondered if there were any trends in the private sector versus the public sector in relation to domestic partner medical coverage.
Ms. Wright responded that the trend in the public sector is that more jurisdictions are offering medical coverage for domestic partners.
Councilmember Way asked if Ms. Wright saw any problems in the future regarding this.
Ms. Wright said she doesn’t expect to encounter any issues or any significant differences from other cities.
Councilmember Way wanted to know if a waiting period would be appropriate for same sex couples.
Ms. Wright said the City will not have much control over the rules of the benefit since the AWC Trust came up with the criteria, which was modeled after the marriage criteria.
Mr. Olander added that he hasn’t seen any significant abuse occur with this program.
Councilmember Gustafson said he doesn’t support Shoreline taxpayers paying benefits to domestic partners who are not married.
Councilmember Ryu inquired what the City of Seattle’s rates are for domestic partner coverage. She clarified that the AWC criteria wasn’t flexible. She asked if the children of a domestic partnership were covered.
Ms. Wright replied that the children of a domestic partnership were covered.
Mr. Olander said there would have to be some judgments made on cost estimates.
Councilmember Ryu asked if the AWC rates are based on the number of participants in the pool.
Ms. Wright replied that they negotiate the rates with the insurance firms.
Councilmember Ryu said she didn’t want to open the City up to any lawsuits. She asked Ms. Wright to find out whether there are any couples who choose to have the insurance through their partner rather than the City.
Ms. Wright responded that there are going to be some who choose to have coverage elsewhere in order to have more funds diverted into deferred compensation.
Councilmember McGlashan said marriage is a choice. He said after the National League of Cities conference the Council came back and discussed celebrating diversity in Shoreline and becoming an inclusive City. However, if the City doesn’t offer anything like this, we are putting conditions on people. He said he doesn’t see people abusing it. He supported the proposal for same sex and opposite sex relationships. He concluded that doing this will support the existing City policy of equal treatment in Shoreline regardless of marital status or sexual orientation.
Mayor Ransom did not support this proposal. He said that in the pool of over 200 Washington cities, 90 percent of them do not have this coverage. He said there are ten comparison cities, and eight of them don’t have the coverage. He said the phone calls and e-mails he has received have not been in favor of this.
Councilmember Hansen also said he would not be in favor of this proposal.
Councilmember Way said diversity is a value. She highlighted that she has received approximately fifteen comment letters and ten of them supported the proposal. She commented that this is a civil rights and social justice issue. She added that this is a way to take care of employees and provide security for both partners so they can provide the best customer service to the residents of Shoreline. There is stress involved when someone cannot afford proper health care, and this stress will be felt by the current City employee if their partner is not taken care of. The City provides other options to families and other benefits, so why not provide them for domestic partners and their families. She supported the proposal.
Councilmember Ryu wanted staff to bring back more information.
Councilmember McGlashan suggested that the Council not form an opinion based on the fact that over 90 percent of AWC cities do not offer these benefits. It is unfair to base the decision on that information since it is unclear whether or not they are aware of or have time to review the information from the AWC.
Mayor Ransom responded that the program has been an option with the AWC for the past two years.
Councilmember McGlashan added that he didn’t know about the program until this meeting.
Mr. Olander stated the staff would bring legislation and more information on this back to the Council at a later date.
RECESS
At 8:54 p.m., Mayor Ransom called for a five-minute recess. At 9:05 p.m., Mayor Ransom reconvened the meeting.
(c) Comprehensive Housing Strategy Work Plan
Steve Cohn, Planner, stated this staff report focuses on the public involvement piece of the comprehensive housing strategy, which is the next step of the overall plan. He stated the objective of the plan is to determine how the housing needs of Shoreline’s changing demographics should be met. He stated that the best way to involve the public at this venture is to form a Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC). City staff will advertise the opportunity to be involved, announce that applications are being accepted at City Hall until September 30, conduct interviews, and make initial recommendations for subsequent Council appointments in October. He stated that the outreach and communication with the public during the CAC process will involve two public open houses, two meetings with City Council for check-in and direction, and use of Channel 21, the City’s website, and the City’s newsletter “Currents.” He continued that the timeline for the CAC begins with a committee meeting in early November to review data, develop a vision statement, and formulate preliminary strategies. He added that the timeline will continue with a report to Council and the refining of strategies and development of implementation tools. Once that is completed, the CAC will once again report to the Council and hold an open house. The final step will take place with the Council review and adoption of the work plan.
Mayor Ransom opened this item to public comment.
a) Bill Bear, Shoreline, commented that Shoreline doesn’t have a hospital, and there have been times when patients en route to either Stevens Hospital or Northwest Hospital and Medical Center have been rerouted to another location. He said there are times when resources are stretched to the maximum at these hospitals, and the population in Shoreline is only projected to increase. Therefore, he felt it is not a good plan to maximize the housing infrastructure in Shoreline. He stated that the citizens need to decide what reasonable density is. He urged the Council to investigate, understand, and consider the needs of the people of Shoreline and how much they are willing to pay for increased infrastructure.
Councilmember Hansen questioned the need to include members of the business community on the committee, as well as the need to have a Councilmember on the committee.
Mr. Cohn responded that it is good to have different perspectives when different forms of housing are discussed. He felt this would also add balance to the committee.
Mr. Olander added that both the business and residential community will grow. Thus, population growth will relate to the business community and the need for more businesses to serve the residents. This perspective from even a general business person will be useful on the committee. The question on whether to have Councilmembers on the committee has pros and cons. It was useful on the Parks bond committee, but the danger is that the committee members might see what that Councilmember says as direction and not render their own independent decision.
Councilmember Way felt this proposal is heading in the right direction. She asked if Mr. Cohn considered having a category for renters and group homes. She said they need to be represented here because these groups are not represented often.
Mr. Cohn said it is their intention to have them involved in the CAC. He argued it would be difficult to find two people willing to join the CAC, but the City would try to get them involved.
Councilmember Way compared this committee to the WRIA-8 organization and said that King County Councilmembers keep it afloat. Councilmembers, she said, may have more of a focus on the big picture.
Councilmember Gustafson thought the vision on this issue should not be beyond 20 years. He noted there should be someone from the Council of Neighborhoods and the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Board on the CAC. Additionally, he felt that a Councilmember should be on the CAC, but only as an observer.
Councilmember Ryu said she would prefer as many “fresh” ideas in the committee from residents who don’t come to regular Council meetings. She noted that there needs to be some revisions to the zoning and land use codes. The CAC should also take a look at transportation impacts. She pointed out that it will be hard for Councilmembers to be engaged in the committee only as observers. She suggested the Councilmembers participate and not be counted as one of the 12 members of the committee.
Mr. Cohn said 12 is not a “magic number.” He added that the committee could end up consisting of 14 or 15 members. It depends on who submits applications.
Mr. Olander said a key driver is if the City can get the desired diversity. He added that the Bond committee was different than this one because it was initially to help build community support for the bond issue and more members were needed.
Councilmember McGlashan congratulated Mr. Cohn on the aggressive timeline. He concluded that if he was a common Shoreline resident and had to present his ideas to a committee that had a Councilmember on it, he would feel odd. He said he would be more apt to observe and not share his ideas if a Councilmember was present.
Mr. Olander thought this process has some built-in checkpoints already, so the committee can report to the Council instead of them observing and participating in the committee meetings.
Mayor Ransom commented that the Council usually does the interviewing for committees and in the past it has worked well to have two Councilmembers involved in the committee. Deputy Mayor Fimia has been heavily involved in this issue and Councilmember Gustafson has been involved with this topic in the National League of Cities Steering Committee. He felt that they can make a great contribution to this committee. He summarized that he wanted Councilmembers to formulate a committee to screen and choose the members of the CAC, not the City staff.
Mr. Olander responded that this is an ad-hoc committee so it is appropriate for staff to make the initial recommendations and the Council makes final selections. However, if the Council doesn’t agree with the recommendations the Council can exercise their options to choose other candidates. He added that the proposal considers that the committee will have to work closely with the staff and the Council. He concluded that sometimes it takes the Council a long time to consider candidates and this item is on the fast track.
Councilmember Way asked Mr. Cohn if he would be soliciting families with children for the committee.
Mr. Cohn said the committee does need to have diverse representation, so families and those with children are welcome to be on the committee.
Councilmember Way added that the cost of housing is rising, and families with children are having problems obtaining adequate housing. There should be a good representation of that demographic on the committee. She asked if there would be more detail on future work of the committee and whether the work would be related to other sectors and factors such as access for people with disabilities and pedestrian-friendly design standards. She added that “connectivity” is one of her main concerns. This, she said, refers to openness, accessibility, and a sense of quality of life in Shoreline’s communities.
Mr. Olander noted that this committee will focus on housing, but there are some things that Councilmember Way stated that will affect the committee.
Mr. Cohn concurred and said there will be very specific recommendations on development code amendments from the committee.
Councilmember Ryu added that Shoreline has historically been defined by its schools and the committee should have representatives who send their children to public schools.
Mayor Ransom concurred with having the staff interview the committee members. However, he felt the Council needs to consider appointing Councilmembers to the committee.
d) King Conservation District Distribution (KCD)
Mr. Olander noted that the draft policy paper from the Suburban Cities Association (SCA) has been provided to the Council.
Mayor Ransom discussed the proposed distribution and noted that there were thirty-seven SCA members involved in this proposal. He also said WRIA 9 worked with the federal government to come up with a list of projects to recover salmon, and those are listed.
Councilmember Gustafson said he would like this brought back to the Council because the SCA Policy Issues Committee (PIC) will be taking a position on September 13. He stated that the recommendation of the PIC will be that the SCA support the KCD’s plan to assess each King County parcel $10.00, but not at the proposed assessment allocation of 3-3-3-1. The committee, he highlighted, recommends the SCA request the King County Council reject the proposed assessment and funding allocation plan unless the KCD revises it to be similar to the 2006 assessment allocation of 6-2-2. He said the Council needs to prepare a position on this. He asked the Councilmembers to look at the “white paper,” and the rationale listed in items 1-4 point out why the subcommittee is making this recommendation.
Councilmember Way inquired if the KCD had a representative present their position to the PIC.
Councilmember Gustafson responded that at the last WRIA-8 meeting there were three different people from the KCD who spoke and answered questions for an hour. He added that the KCD representatives felt that they could do a better job at distributing the funds. He noted that they proposed a grant that would take over $1,500,000 from the WRIA-8 focus on salmon recovery and allocate it into farmlands and rural implementation projects.
Mr. Olander called attention to policy issue #1 on page 2 of the white paper. He explained that the proposal would reduce the direct funding to WRIA by $1,500,000. He said WRIA would submit projects to the KCD as a part of the new competitive grant program. However, this is additional work and would include another layer of review. On the other hand, jurisdictions could use their 50% increase to fund projects under the salmon recovery. However, he noted there is no guarantee the jurisdictions would do that.
Councilmember Way wanted clarification on the statement that there is no guarantee jurisdictions would use the funds for the salmon recovery projects.
Mr. Olander explained that there is a list of 170 projects identified by WRIA for salmon recovery. The controversy is that cities can utilize the funds for other salmon projects that they identify rather than those major projects identified on the WRIA list.
Councilmember Way said she has had experience with the KCD in the past on salmon recovery projects and they are practical and extremely qualified. KCD helped with the acquisition of 96 acres of Shadow Creek bog for preservation purposes. She added that they have adequate funding to be effective. They have clear objectives and they want to ensure the survival of salmon. She highlighted that there are many reasons she supports what they do, but she said she isn’t ready to endorse the proposal yet.
Councilmember Hansen noted that the cities with the KCD went to the State Legislature in order to get the assessment raised from $5.00 to $10.00 per parcel. Therefore, KCD’s share has doubled and this is four times what they previously received. He felt this proposal wasn’t going to happen. He said SCA is having an executive board meeting immediately after the PIC meeting on September 13th to adopt or reject this or a different proposal.
Councilmember Gustafson concurred with Councilmember Way that the KCD does good things. However, he disagreed with them taking the majority of the funding for implementing salmon recovery. He objected to the idea that they think they should allocate money beyond what WRIA-8 recommends. He added that perhaps they can spend their current allocations more wisely.
Mayor Ransom added that the federal government has made it clear that if there is no progress on salmon recovery in ten years, they will tax the cities and do the work themselves.
Councilmember Ryu felt that the additional bureaucracy would not be that arduous, and that the KCD is very good at what they do in getting the work done.
Mr. Olander said he would put the item back on the agenda for the next Council meeting.
8. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:03 p.m., Mayor Ransom declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Scott Passey, City Clerk