CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 16, 2006 Shoreline Conference Center
PRESENT: Mayor Ransom, Deputy Mayor Fimia, and Councilmembers Gustafson, McGlashan, and Way
ABSENT: none
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:36 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 exceptions of Councilmember Ryu and Councilmember Hansen, who arrived shortly thereafter.
(a) Proclamation of “Arts and Humanities Month”
Mayor Ransom read the proclamation and presented it to Ros Bird, Shoreline/Lake Forest Park Arts Council, Vicky Stiles, Shoreline Historical Museum, and a representative of Shoreline Community College (SCC).
Ms. Stiles stated that the humanities department at SCC is the largest department in the college and the music department is the largest in the state. She also mentioned that they have drama, film making, and performing arts programs that offer professional technical certificates. Additionally, SCC has a visual arts center for graphic art and design. She said their Associate of Fine Arts degree is the model for the state.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Bob Olander, City Manager, reported on the following items:
Deputy Mayor Fimia reported that she was proud of the City’s booth at Odyssey Days; she handed out a summary sheet highlighting the City’s sustainability efforts.
Councilmember Way thanked the students of Shoreline Christian School for helping with the Paramount restoration project. She encouraged school groups to contact the City to assist with park projects.
Councilmember Ryu said she also attended Odyssey Days and noted that there are businesses interested in supporting sustainability in the City. She announced that there is a “Sustainable Business Conference” in Everett on October 31.
4. COMMUNITY PRESENTATION
(a) Homewaters Project
Deputy Mayor Fimia introduced the Homewaters Project which used to be the Thornton Creek Project. She explained that it is an applied learning project done through a partnership between the schools, students, businesses, jurisdictions, and the community college. The project gets the kids out doing counts, research, and observations utilizing hands-on math and science.
Chris Page, Homewaters Executive Director, introduced Board Chairperson Susan Stillman and explained that Homewaters started in 1992 with a mission to enhance knowledge concerning the human interaction between nature and the “home” community. He noted that the organization has a budget of $165,000 and consists of three staff people and numerous volunteers. He discussed the various Homewaters’ programs and events relating to water, community and GIS mapping, the ecology, and the environment. He noted that Homewaters completed their five-year strategic plan; informing the City Council of its programs and submitting a request for funding is part of that plan.
Councilmember Way thanked Homewaters and said the organization does great work. She added that there are several possibilities for partnerships within the City of Shoreline. She encouraged Mr. Page to seek partnerships with the City to leverage any work done by the school district. She said that anything he can do to partner with the City would be great. She inquired if there were any programs he could introduce to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department.
Mr. Page responded that there is a community center program called “Mapping My Place” for children ages 4 to 10, which was created for the Seattle Parks Department. When he approached Seattle Parks for permission to expand the program to Shoreline, Seattle Parks responded that they wanted to be involved in the process of spreading the program to other municipalities. However, he said there are no programs that are targeted for adults, and Homewaters doesn’t have the staff resources to create a new program. He looked forward to devising something to meet the needs of the City in the future.
Councilmember Way highlighted that there are several Shoreline schools that are located next to the watersheds, and since the schools are lacking funds it would be a good opportunity to offset their budgets.
Ms. Stillman said this program was originally run by teachers and the curriculum was developed to fit with Homewaters programs.
Councilmember Way noted that the Evergreen School remodel is a “green” project and features a rain garden. She recommended the Council and City staff take a tour of the school to get a better understanding of what these types of buildings can do.
Councilmember Ryu stated that education is a priority in the City of Shoreline and she is glad to hear about these types of education programs.
Ms. Stillman concluded and announced that the Homewaters Project website is www.homewatersproject.org.
5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Ransom stated me wanted to make sure the public knows the letter sent to King County Executive Ron Sims endorsing Transit Now was his own endorsement and not that of the Council. He stated that this is the City Council’s first review and discussion of it.
(a) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, complimented the City staff, specifically David Sinkler in the Customer Response Team (CRT), for how he answers the City’s main line, noting he is very courteous and professional. She reported on a tree that fell in front of her house, which was inspected by Bob Crozier. Mr. Crozier agreed it was dead and reported that it was a hazardous tree. She said the tree was removed, and the CRT and Public Works departments are doing a good job for the City.
(b) Bill Bear, Shoreline, expressed support for City funding for the Homewaters Project. He said he has been interested in science since he was young, and it has had a profound effect on him. He said Homewaters is doing an excellent job of affecting young people in a positive way.
(c) Wendy DiPeso, Shoreline, thanked the Council for inviting Homewaters to speak. She discussed the off-leash dog park and said the proposal to remove the understory is not good. It is not good for the wildlife; it increases erosion, and presents a hazard to dogs. She also added that it will be hard to supervise the dogs in this proposed location because of the slopes. There needs to be a flat, open area designated for this. She urged the City to consider other locations for the dog park.
Mr. Olander said he would pass along the compliments to the City staff and contact the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee about the dog park recommendations from Ms. DiPeso.
Councilmember Way asked when the next Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee meeting would be held and when this item will be on their agenda.
Mr. Dick Deal, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director said it will be on their agenda at their next meeting on October 26 at Spartan Recreation Center.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Gustafson requested that Action Item 8(b) be moved to the Consent Calendar; Councilmember Way did not concur. Deputy Mayor Fimia moved approval of the agenda, postponing action on Consent Item 7(b) to a future meeting. Councilmember McGlashan seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Gustafson moved approval of the Consent Calendar as amended. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, and the following items were approved:
Minutes of Workshop Dinner Meeting of September 25, 2006
Minutes of Special Meeting of October 2, 2006
8. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Adoption of Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Interlocal Agreement
Mr. Olander said this is an update of the existing WRIA-8 interlocal agreement (ILA). He noted that the primary revisions had to do with the government structure within the document.
Mary Jorgenson, Acting Watershed Coordinator for WRIA-8, explained that their area of operations is made up of close to 700 square miles, with two major river systems (Cedar and Sammamish), two large lakes (Washington and Sammamish), which cover two counties, and 25 different cities. She said the watershed has eight different stocks of salmon with endangered bull trout also present. The original ILA, she commented, was for five years and extended for one year and ending in 2006. She noted that the Salmon Recovery Plan was approved by the Federal government and how it details how the 15 watersheds will work together to enhance salmon recovery in Washington. She said the ILA has a nine year term which will cover the initial Salmon Recovery plan implementation, and WRIA-8 Forum passed this ILA unanimously. The work program under the new plan will focus on project construction and monitoring and adaptive management. She noted that the cost share formula under this proposed ILA is the same as the previous, with Shoreline’s portion being $16,340. The major revisions to the ILA include a reorganized committee structure. She discussed grants and the funding that WRIA-8 has received over the past years. This proposed ILA benefits the City of Shoreline by:
· Allowing the City to have a regional leadership role in the group that will implement the Salmon Recovery Plan;
· Affording the City the opportunity to build on the past six years of success with the shared governance and goals that are being accomplished;
· Giving the City the oversight authority to ensure the Salmon Recovery Plan is in fact implemented;
· Ensuring the City is complying with the Endangered Species Act; and
· Giving the City the opportunity to leave a legacy for future generations.
Mayor Ransom called for public comment.
(a) Virginia Paulsen, Shoreline, said she is concerned because a Seattle Post-Intelligencer report states that the Puget Sound is horribly polluted. She questioned what good it would do to improve the upper regions of the watersheds if they were getting poisoned and polluted downstream.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to authorize the City Manager to execute the WRIA-8 Interlocal Agreement. Councilmember Way seconded the motion.
Councilmember Way thanked Ms. Jorgenson and the WRIA-8 personnel for all their hard work. She concurred with her comments and asked what progress has been made with the work that the WRIA-8 has done already. She said she went to the locks and was amazed with the Chinook salmon numbers. However, she asked how WRIA-8 determines whether the salmon numbers can be attributed to something other than the work that has been done by them.
Ms. Jorgenson said the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) representative stated that it is difficult to tell if you are going to have the same high number of salmon next year. He also told her that the first ten years will determine how well the plan was executed. She summarized that there isn’t enough information to determine if the program has been successful, but everything seems to be moving in the right direction.
Mr. Olander added that there needs to be work done on the upper reaches of the system and downstream in the Puget Sound.
Councilmember Way commented that Shoreline is referred to as an urban area and there aren’t any projects concerning the watershed being done here. She added that there are several Chinook streams running through this City. She asked about Shoreline’s responsibilities in terms of complying with the ILA.
Ms. Jorgenson responded that Shoreline has been designated a “Tier 3” area and doesn’t get any large projects. However, the area is very valuable and is in the plan for numerous actions for water quality efforts, public education, and low impact development. These, although not major projects, still contribute to the quality of the entire watershed. Shoreline’s role is to continue to participate to determine best methods for communities across the Tier 3 areas.
Councilmember Way asked if highways have anything to do with salmon recovery.
Ms. Jorgenson said that the pollution from highways is a major issue which contributes to water quality issues.
Councilmember Way supported the ILA and stated that Shoreline has a responsibility for maintaining the headwaters and ensuring water quality.
Councilmember Gustafson said he has served on the WRIA-8 and its steering committee for the past five years. He commented that 27 jurisdictions have come together and executed this agreement. The majority of the WRIAs are working on the same issue of salmon recovery. The preliminary signs are showing there is some significant salmon recovery going on. He supported the motion.
Councilmember Hansen expressed support for the ILA.
Deputy Mayor Fimia agreed that Tier 3 projects need to be funded, either regionally or locally. She said her issue is always going to be the return on the investment for any issue. She supported the ILA.
Mayor Ransom said he has attended some of the WRIA-8 meetings and is pleased with the progress. He noted that this is currently the only major cooperative agreement in this area. He said there are 177 projects to complete, and so far they have been very successful. He supported the motion.
A vote was taken on the motion to authorize the City Manager to execute the WRIA-8 Interlocal Agreement, which carried 7-0.
(b) Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with
Jones & Stokes for Environmental Work for the Aurora Corridor
Project (N. 165th Street to N. 205th Street)
Kirk McKinley, Aurora Corridor & Interurban Trail Project Manager, outlined the goals and the staff recommendation pertaining to the environmental phase of this project. He reviewed the selection process, noting that it’s the City’s intent to have the community conclude that the review process was fair and thorough.
Kris Overleese, Capital Projects Manager, said there were interviews which were conducted by City and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) staff. The business community in Shoreline also met with the Jones & Stokes team. She highlighted the qualifications of Jones & Stokes, their project manager, and the subcontractors to be utilized under the proposed contract. She said the proposed environmental team led by Jones & Stokes has met all federal requirements and that all reports from them will be written based on the newly adopted “reader-friendly” format. Ms. Overleese discussed the discipline reports which were conducted during the first mile of the Aurora Corridor Project. These reports will be utilized to evaluate the cumulative impacts of Phase II. The Public Outreach and Pre-environmental (POP) process with the Aurora Business Team (ABT) is almost completed, she said. She added that City staff has met with all of the property owners on Aurora from N. 165th to N. 205th Street. The traffic analysis, data collection, and draft alignment concepts are almost completed. She noted that the ABT has designed a business matrix with all of the issues, concerns, and questions listed to track how the feedback is in incorporated into the environmental documentation. The matrix was given to Jones & Stokes and they utilized it to create their scope of work. She noted that the completed discipline reports will be comprehensive and very detailed because they will be the basis for this phase. She recommended the establishment of an “Aurora Review Team” (ART) to review the discipline reports. She discussed the schedule which begins with an open house/scoping meeting in late November and a meeting of the Aurora Review Team in December. She added that the preliminary environmental analysis occurs from November to December, and the discipline reports will be written January through April 2007. There will also be a formal public hearing, which will lead to the completion of the environmental process by the end of 2007.
Mr. Olander noted that the environmental review process is not the decision-making process. It is designed to give the Council the most updated information on the environmental impacts of the various alternatives. The environmental information is one factor in the decision-making process; other factors include what is best for the community, cost, community will, and so on. He said this is a disclosure process and the goal of the staff is to make this process as transparent as possible. He pointed out that this is not the design process, as there are major design alternatives still to be considered.
Mayor Ransom called for public comment.
a) Virginia Paulsen, Shoreline, said she is unhappy with the Aurora Corridor Project. She stated there was air pollution present from the multitude of cars on the road. She said one gallon of gas consumed equals 25 pounds of carbon dioxide in the air. She doesn’t favor building roads made of impermeable surfaces, and the City needs to realize that it borders the Puget Sound. She pointed out that there is no wildlife at Richmond Beach Saltwater Park. She urged the Council to build permeable surfaces on the rest of the Aurora Corridor. She felt the preservation of the environment should drive all decisions in the City.
Responding to Ms. Paulsen, Mr. Olander said one of the items that will be reviewed for environmental impacts is the “no-action” alternative. He added that the City will be considering permeable surfaces.
Councilmember Hansen moved to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Jones & Stokes for Environmental Work for the Aurora Corridor Project (N. 165th Street to N. 205th Street) for an amount not to exceed $580,000. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Councilmember Way felt there was an unnecessary urgency to execute this contract. She also expressed concerned about impacts and the Aurora Business Team. She said she received the responses from staff concerning Councilmember Ryu’s inquiry. In the response, she stated there is a fundamental disagreement with the definition of “zero impacts.” She asked for an explanation from the proposed environmental team and what the assumptions are prior to the start.
Mr. Olander felt it is a worthwhile design objective, however, he said it isn’t just the runoff from the old/new road that the City has to worry about. There are mitigations, he outlined, that have to be addressed and the cost of those mitigations. He said his direction is to minimize flows and find natural filtration, retention, and detention. He stated he would like to see the next section become the model for the State of Washington.
Councilmember Way responded that the existing conditions in the City are not acceptable and they don’t work for the environment.
Mr. Olander said the general attitude on Aurora Corridor Phase 1 was that anything the City did to meet King County and the state standards was an improvement. However, as the next phase of this project approaches, the City must move to the next level and ensure environmental and water quality enhancements.
Mayor Ransom said there was a question about whether the ART is replacing the ABT; he wanted to know if there was some compromise that could be found between the two teams.
Mr. McKinley stressed that it is the City staff’s intent to keep the ABT involved. He explained that the ART will be there for broader representation as they review the discipline reports. He noted that on October 4th there was an ABT meeting and five members came to meet the consultant team and ask questions.
Mayor Ransom said the ABT was only given two days notice for this meeting. He highlighted that they are all business people and only five of the fifteen could be there with such short notice. He directed Mr. McKinley to hold another meeting for the ABT with the consultants.
Mr. Olander added that there are still some meaningful issues for the ABT to review. Additionally, there are ad hoc committees that need to be formed to assist the ART with the review of the discipline reports.
Councilmember Ryu asked if Jones & Stokes are requesting a limited number of participants to review the discipline reports or asking for a group separate from the ABT to conduct the review.
Mr. Olander said ABT will continue to be invited to assist staff and the consultants review the discipline reports under a separate ad hoc committee appointed by the City Manager.
Councilmember Ryu summarized that the ABT has had several meetings and have gathered numerous resources since the beginning of this project. She asked if it was possible for the ABT group to participate in the ad hoc committee.
Paul Haines, Public Works Director, stated that the ABT has been asked to “re-up” and they were told that there is quite a large commitment with this phase of the project. He advised the ABT that consistency was needed and meetings couldn’t be missed.
Mr. Olander added that the groups have to be balanced. He said there needs to be a limited group involved with the discipline reports so the process doesn’t get bogged down.
Councilmember Gustafson stated that “process” is being discussed, but the question on the table is if the Council feels Jones & Stokes is the right consultant for the job.
Councilmember Ryu informed Jones & Stokes that she is a property owner on the first mile. She asked them to look at the first mile and noted that there is not enough room to make proper u-turns. She said she hopes realistic construction impacts will be communicated to the business owners who will be experiencing them through the next phase.
Mr. Olander highlighted that construction and traffic impacts will be addressed in the traffic discipline reports.
Deputy Mayor Fimia was satisfied with the direction of this project and said it is better than the last time. She noted that the ABT wasn’t told about the ART being involved in it. She said for her to vote in favor of this, the ABT needs to be satisfied. She also suggested the name of the group be the Aurora Business and Community Team (ABC Team). She felt the community hasn’t considered the project and given the City direction on it. She said there needs to be a town hall meeting with actual discussion between the City and the public.
Mr. Olander agreed and said both of these suggestions need to occur soon in case another alternative is chosen.
Mayor Ransom noted that there was only one bidder on this project.
Councilmember Way said it is not unreasonable to wait or delay for discussion. Mr. Olander agreed and said the proposal could be brought back to the Council after a community meeting.
Councilmember Hansen moved to call the question. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 5-2, with Deputy Mayor Fimia and Councilmember Ryu dissenting.
Mr. Olander stated he would bring back a proposal with Deputy Mayor Fimia’s suggestions. He said it is technically a staff function to appoint the committee and the goal would be to make this an open and transparent process.
Councilmember Ryu asked who would lead the group.
Mr. Olander responded that Kirk McKinley, Kris Overleese, and the consultants would head up the team.
Deputy Mayor Fimia asked that name be changed. She also asked whether or not the motion on the table included having a town hall meeting.
Mr. Olander said the motion on the table by Councilmember Hansen did not include the town hall meeting.
A vote was taken on the motion, which failed 3-4 with Councilmembers Gustafson, Hansen, and McGlashan voting in the affirmative.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Jones & Stokes for Environmental Work for the Aurora Corridor Project (N. 165th Street to N. 205th Street) for an amount not to exceed $580,000, and directing the City staff to conduct a town hall meeting concerning the Aurora Corridor Project, and that the Aurora Review Team name be changed to the Aurora Business and Community Team. Councilmember Ryu seconded the motion, which carried 4-2 with Councilmembers Gustafson and McGlashan dissenting and Councilmember Hansen abstaining.
RECESS
At 9:05 p.m., Mayor Ransom called for a five-minute recess. At 9:12 p.m., Mayor Ransom reconvened the meeting.
9. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING
a) Public hearing to receive citizens comments on King County Proposition No. 2, Public Transportation Systems Sales and Use Tax
Resolution No. 252, supporting King County Proposition No. 2
Mr. Olander introduced Victor Obeso, Manager for Service Development, King County Metro and Michael Innis, Director of the Center for Transportation Policy.
Mr. Obeso presented King County’s position on Transit NOW and explained it is a proposition that will be on the November 7th ballot for all King County voters. He said the proposition to raise the sales tax by .1 percent, or a penny on a $10.00 purchase. This tax would provide over $50 million in sales tax revenue to King County Metro in its first full year and approximately $75 million by the tenth year. He reviewed the service routes and the entire proposal as adopted by the King County Council. He pointed out that there would be increased routes and other service enhancements throughout the County.
Mr. Innis examined the “Transit Now” guide and rebutted the main points of the document. He said King County claims that increasing transit service will trigger an increase in riders, an increase in service delivery, and will relieve traffic congestion. However, he said the proportion of daily travelers utilizing public transportation has remained static for 26 years despite spending and adding buses. He noted that consumers will be paying higher sales taxes for two years before noticing any substantial increase in Metro service.
Mayor Ransom clarified for the record that the endorsement sent to King County Executive Sims was his endorsement and not that of the Council. He reiterated that the Council is discussing it now for the first time. He noted that 21 of the 25 cities present at the October 11th Suburban Cities Association meeting voted in favor of the Transit Now proposal.
Deputy Mayor Fimia clarified that the staff can’t take a position on the Transit Now proposal without Council direction. Additionally, Councilmember Ryu wanted it put into the record that the letter was sent by the Mayor.
At 9:32 p.m., Mayor Ransom opened the public hearing.
(a) Bill Bear, Shoreline, suggested that the Council not endorse this item. He said he would like to be able to ride the bus and utilize one car, but the frequency of the buses is very low in Shoreline. He said there needs to be better hours and more frequency. He stated there has been tons of money thrown into the transit system and there haven’t been any results. He concluded that something that works needs to be found.
(b) Virginia Paulsen, Shoreline favored public transit. However, she highlighted that service along 15th Avenue NE has declined. She said Transit Now will not fix the problem. She pointed out that the presenter said the cities would not see any service enhancements until 2009, possibly 2012. She said that the sales tax increase is permanent without any guarantee that there will be continuing increases in public transportation. She pointed out that this issue is being heard for the first time by the Council and it hasn’t been discussed in the neighborhoods. She felt the proposal has not had adequate consideration and it is not appropriate for the Council to vote on this tax proposal. She said it is the public that will decide on November 7th and asked the Council not to take a position.
(c) Wendy DiPeso, Shoreline, said she read the proposal and the rebuttal and both were flawed. She said the Bus Rapid Transit program is great, but there will be a delay in service increases because of light rail considerations. She pointed out that increases in buses don’t necessarily mean there will be more riders. She asked why this tax would be permanent. She asserted that a sunset clause added to this tax proposal would make Metro more accountable. There needs to be a more equitable way to raise taxes, such as a flat income tax which would be distributed proportionately and not hurt the poor, as a sales tax would.
(d) Rob Johnson, Seattle, spoke on behalf of the Transit Now campaign. He urged the Council to support the resolution, noting there have been over 600,000 new riders on the Aurora Corridor as a result of road improvements. “If you build it they will come”, he quoted. He said there needs to be more bus services because employment will increase by 25% over the next 10 years. He said Transit Now will have new buses on the street as early as February 2007. He noted that the Bus Rapid Transit service that connects Shoreline to downtown Seattle is a great investment for the City of Shoreline residents. Finally, he said supporters of Transit Now include the Suburban Cities Association, the cities of Auburn, Burien, Tukwila, Kirkland, Bellevue, Sammamish, the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the King County Labor Council, Children’s Hospital, Microsoft, and the League of Women Voters.
Councilmember Way inquired about the 600,000 new riders on the Aurora Corridor testimony and whether or not the City of Seattle has endorsed the proposal.
Mr. Johnson responded that he meant 600,000 trips, or over 2,000 trips a day. He also stated that the City of Seattle hasn’t reviewed the proposal; they have the support of individual Councilmembers, but not all of them as a full Council.
Councilmember Ryu asked if he was a paid staff member for Transit Now.
Mr. Johnson said he is an in-kind contributor. He explained that he doesn’t receive any funding from Transit Now or the campaign.
Mr. Obeso responded to the comments made and stated that he can’t take position on the proposal because he is employed by King County. He announced that if Transit Now is passed by the voters Metro will have additional services on the street in February 2007. However, they will not be new buses, but there will be more bus service during the middle of the day, during the evening, and on the weekends which can be done with the current fleet. He said it will take 12 – 24 months to procure an additional 175 to 200 buses.
Mr. Olander clarified that the tax proposal is for one-tenth of one percent, not 1%.
Mr. Innis said his role is to provide a summary of the report, not to respond to Mr. Obeso or the public’s comments.
Upon motion by Councilmember Hansen, seconded by Councilmember McGlashan, and carried 7-0, the public hearing was closed.
Deputy Mayor Fimia said that Metro passed out answers to the questions raised by the Washington Policy Center report on Transit Now and they differed from the findings of the report given by Mr. Innis to the Council.
Mr. Innis said he is disappointed that there is a reference that the analysis was incorrect or misleading. He restated that it is an accurate report and he stands by it.
Councilmember McGlashan asked the Council to excuse the speakers.
Deputy Mayor Fimia said that if the Council is being asked to endorse this proposal she has questions for Mr. Obeso.
Councilmember Gustafson suggested that the Council take a neutral opinion and excuse the speakers for the evening.
Councilmember Gustafson moved that the Council take a neutral position on the Transit Now Proposal. Deputy Mayor Fimia seconded the motion.
Mayor Ransom said Transit Now was a real opportunity for the City. He noted that King County Executive Ron Sims has offered his support for Sound Transit to assist the City in its request for $40 million from Sound Transit to assist in Phase II of the Aurora Corridor Project. He said the City needs to support it if it wants bus services in Shoreline. He said he is on the Regional Transit Committee representing SCA. He commented that the SCA passed the proposal by 80%. He also noted that he is against the motion on the table.
Councilmember Gustafson said that he supported Transit Now and noted that a portion of the Aurora Corridor would be bus rapid transit.
Councilmember Hansen moved to table the motion and adjourn the meeting, Councilmember Ryu seconded the motion.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to divide the question of tabling the motion and adjournment. Councilmember Ryu seconded the motion, which failed 3-4, with Deputy Mayor Fimia and Councilmembers Ryu and Way voting in the affirmative.
A vote was taken on the motion to table the motion and adjourn the meeting, which failed 1-6 with Councilmember Hansen voting in the affirmative.
MEETING EXTENSION
Councilmember Ryu moved to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Way seconded the motion, which carried 6-1 with Councilmember Hansen dissenting.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to postpone action on the current agenda item until the end of the meeting. Councilmember Ryu seconded the motion, which carried 4-3 with Mayor Ransom and Councilmembers Gustafson and Hansen dissenting.
(c) Ordinance No. 445 authorizing the City Manager to initiate
eminent domain proceedings for the acquisition of real property
in the City of Shoreline.
Mr. Olander explained the appraisal process and the negotiations that took place to acquire the property known as Southwoods. He said the Shoreline Water District informed the City that they intend on listing the property for public sale. He added that the City’s appraisal was completed in July. He said he felt the City can continue with negotiating the sale, however, eminent domain would be the last resort if negotiations fail. He recommended that the Council pass the ordinance.
Councilmember Way moved to adopt Ordinance No. 445 authorizing the City Manager to initiate eminent domain proceedings for the acquisition of real property in the City of Shoreline. Councilmember Ryu seconded the motion.
Mayor Ransom called for public comment.
1) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, on behalf of the South Woods Preservation Group (SWPG), stated that the SWPG is appalled at the letter from the Shoreline Water District (SWD). She said initially the water district said the property was for sale for public purposes only, and the City has the right to exercise eminent domain. She said the 70% vote on the bond measure is a mandate from the electorate to purchase the property for the public. She added that the City needs to present SWD with an offer so they have something to consider. She concluded that fair market value is what the buyer and seller work on together. She urged the Council to pass the resolution.
2) Vicki Westberg, Shoreline, said the Shoreline Water District’s real estate agent clearly is taking care of the water district. She said the SWD Commissioners need to realize that it is their ratepayers who voted in overwhelming numbers to preserve Southwoods as a natural area. She urged the Council to pass Ordinance No. 445.
3) Charles Brown, Shoreline, spoke in support of eminent domain and preserving the public’s interest in Southwoods. He said there are “private property, no trespassing” signs along the border of Southwoods. These signs, he said, signify the effort by SWD to deter the public from entering Southwoods and turn it into private property. He said as a member of SWPG that they had an ivy removal program in Southwoods. He added that they had to enter into a legal agreement with SWD in order to work in Southwoods. Eventually, he said the SWD said there were too many people entering into the area and denied SWPG further access. He urged the City to begin the eminent domain process immediately.
Mr. Olander said most cases of eminent domain involve private property being taken for public use. This case, he highlighted, involves public property and eminent domain would only be utilized as a last resort if an agreement cannot be reached.
Mayor Ransom asked if the price and our appraisal has been shared with SWD.
Mr. Olander responded that he has shared it with the district manager, but he said he was waiting for them to get their appraisal before making a reasonable offer.
Councilmember Way asked for the definition of eminent domain and the process.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, responded that State law denotes that cities can acquire property as long as the property isn’t being used. The last resort is to file a petition in Superior Court and attach the ordinance. The action will be expedited in the court.
Councilmember Way inquired if there was any counter-action that could be taken if this occurs.
Mr. Sievers said that the counter-action would be for the SWD to test whether it is surplus property and file a dispositive motion early in the proceedings.
Councilmember Ryu felt the intent and goodwill was expressed towards the SWD for the Southwoods purchase by the City. She is surprised at the notice that they were planning on selling the property privately. She added that she normally would not be in favor of eminent domain, but the fact that 70% of City residents voted for the bond issue shows strong support for acquiring this property. She said she supports the motion.
Deputy Mayor Fimia asked Councilmember Hansen if he knew what prompted the SWD to change their stance and who the Commissioners were.
Councilmember Hansen replied that the Commissioners are Charlotte Haines, Larry Schoonmaker, and Ron Ricker. He added that he didn’t know what prompted them to change their minds and list the property for private sale.
At 10:22 p.m., Councilmember Hansen recused himself from the vote on this item and left the table.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 445 authorizing the City Manager to initiate eminent domain proceedings for the acquisition of real property in the City of Shoreline, which carried 6-0.
MEETING EXTENSION
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor Fimia, seconded by Councilmember Ryu and carried 4-2, with Councilmembers Gustafson and McGlashan dissenting, the meeting was extended until 10:40 p.m.
At 10:32, Councilmember Hansen returned.
10. NEW BUSINESS
a) Transmittal of the 2007 Proposed Budget
Mr. Olander began the presentation by discussing the staff report and the budget process. He discussed the budget review schedule and summarized that the City is in good financial condition. He highlighted that the 2007 budget was formulated with some of the Council’s guiding principles in mind. He announced that the budget for 2007 was balanced and totals $68,200,000. He said it essentially features the same level of services with some enhancements, including the 2007 Capital Improvement Projects. The following changes from 2006 to 2007 were discussed:
· Operating budget in 2007 is 3.5% less than the current budget, however, if the one-time expenditures are taken out from both years a 6.8% increase would remain
· In 2007, the highest source of operating revenue, the property tax rate, will drop to $1.14 per $1,000 of assessed value
· Personnel costs will increase 8.4% in 2007 (3.78% or $548,000 CPI adjustment in 2007 and $383,000 in benefit cost increases)
He pointed out that the City still provides great services with a minimal level of City staff; there are 2.64 City employees per 1,000 residents.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:40 pm. Councilmember Ryu moved to extend the meeting until 10:50 p.m. Councilmember Way seconded the motion, which failed 3-4, with Deputy Mayor Fimia and Councilmembers Ryu and Way voting in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion, which carried 4-3, with Deputy Mayor Fimia and Councilmembers Ryu and Way dissenting.
Mr. Olander continued his report and noted the staff also has allotted a contingency of $65,000 for possible retirement benefit and Seattle City Light street light rate increases. He noted there is $9,000,000 in Council general reserves available for beginning and end-of-the-year cash balances and for a cushion in case of an economic downturn. He added that this year the staff is recommending the inflationary adjustments to the building permits, recreation fees, and a $9.00 surface water rate increase to meet the capital obligations that the Council has previously adopted. He said the two major capital improvement projects next year will be the parks bond and the City Hall/Civic Center projects. He stated that there are various sidewalk, paving, overlay, floodwater/surface water, water quality, stream rehabilitation, and environmental protection projects scheduled for 2007. He noted that the $4.17 per capita tax the City receives is fairly low when compared to other cities. This, he added, provides some constraints on the City’s ability to provide additional services to the residents. He warned that in early 2008 there will be some difficult decisions to be made concerning decreasing services or looking at some revenue enhancements. He said he and the Finance Director will be presenting some of the financial issues to the Council in the first quarter of 2007 because some of the decisions will take a while to consider and implement
The Council then considered Action item 8(a), Resolution No. 252.
Councilmember McGlashan moved to adopt Resolution No. 252, supporting King County Proposition No. 2 (Transit Now). Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion.
Mayor Ransom called for public comment. No further public comment was given on the item.
Councilmember Ryu clarified that this is the first time the Council has discussed Transit Now, which is contradictory to the letter that was sent to King County Executive Ron Sims. She said she supports this item; however, the resolution endorses the concept of asking voters to tax themselves without having a say on how the funds are spent.
Mayor Ransom disagreed, noting that the Regional Transit Committee of the Suburban Cities Association (SCA) reviews which jurisdictions get funding, and he is a member of that committee.
Councilmember Ryu added that she still has concerns because the SeaShore Forum was cancelled.
Mayor Ransom said the SeaShore Forum meeting was cancelled by King County Executive Ron Sims.
Councilmember Way commented that everyone supports transit, but the entire process is concerning because the letter was sent without Council approval. She said the issue should be left to the voters in King County and the Council should remain neutral.
Councilmember McGlashan said this item needs Council support because there should be more buses running up and down Aurora Avenue since light rail is not going to happen. He said the sales tax is fair and supported it. He urged the Council to support the item.
Councilmember Gustafson expressed his support for the item.
Councilmember McGlashan also noted that this is the first time the Council is discussing the item but they have heard about light rail and bus rapid transit (BRT) from Deputy Mayor Fimia in the past.
Deputy Mayor Fimia said that she has been involved in bus rapid transit since 1992.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 11:00 p.m., Councilmember Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 11:30 p.m. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 4-3, with Deputy Mayor Fimia and Councilmembers Ryu and Way dissenting.
Deputy Mayor Fimia favored BRT and said it works for this region, but the funding is being directed towards light rail. She urged the Council not to take a position because this may not necessarily be a good investment. She said the City’s endorsement could carry great weight, and she is concerned with the amount of funds the City spends on transportation and the amount of services the City gets in return. She questioned why mass transit usage in the City of Shoreline has not increased. She said Mr. Sims opposed her proposals in 2001, but now he recognizes that BRT is important. The planned alternative for transportation is a full build-out, she explained, which will increase congestion issues. She said there is an assumption in the Sound Transit Long Range Plan that the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes don’t work. If that is the case, why are funds being allocated for things that don’t work? Sound Transit said they were going to consider increasing services in Shoreline but they won’t because they are going to need all of their funds to build a light rail system. Congestion will quadruple on the highways through the year 2030, she stated. She added that there will be a 34% increase in automobile traffic in the north corridor, with a northern light rail system and an increase of about 32% if the 125-mile system is built. She said there needs to be a transit plan that is connected, straightforward, and all jurisdictions need to work together. She added that something needs to be done about the HOV lanes and is there a way to ask for a three-lane HOV lane analysis. She discussed the proposed 75-cent fare increase and why the City of Bellevue and Seattle haven’t taken a position on these issues. She concluded that more questions need to be asked and urged the Council to stay neutral.
Mayor Ransom stated that the SCA supported Transit Now and that cities said it would be the only way they would see an increase in bus services.
Councilmember Ryu inquired if the City of Lake Forest Park took a position on this issue.
Mayor Ransom responded that Mayor Dave Hutchinson of Lake Forest Park voted in favor at the SCA meeting. He added that he did not know if they supported it as a full council.
Councilmember Ryu read in Proposition No. 2 that it “will provide benefits to Shoreline residents.” She inquired what those benefits were.
Mayor Ransom responded that the benefits were that 20% of the funding would go to Seattle and Shoreline for bus service on Highway 99.
Deputy Mayor Fimia added that there are already fifteen minute headways and it is unlikely they will increase.
Councilmember Ryu expressed concerns over the competition for regional tax funds with the City of Seattle. She said according to a poll, the voters in Seattle want the viaduct rebuilt and Mayor Nickels said he can get the money for the project. She said Shoreline and Seattle have similar debt and tax burdens; however, Shoreline will not receive a fair share of the regional funding based on the public’s view of the viaduct.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 11:30 p.m., Councilmember Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 12:00 a.m. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 4-3, with Deputy Mayor Fimia and Councilmembers Ryu and Way dissenting.
There was Council consensus to insert the words “most likely” to the last “Whereas” statement between the words “will” and “provide” in Resolution No. 52.
Deputy Mayor Fimia explained a PowerPoint slide which presented the cumulative and collective amount being spent on transportation under the “2030 Plan.” She highlighted that all this is being spent with no significant increase in ridership occurring. She concluded that it is unwise to force this issue through.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Resolution No. 252 supporting King County Proposition No. 2, as amended, which carried 6-1, with Deputy Mayor Fimia dissenting.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At 11:38 p.m., Mayor Ransom declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Scott Passey, CMC
City Clerk