CITY
OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, Grace, Gustafson,
and Ransom
ABSENT: Deputy Mayor Jepsen
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor
Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll
call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exception of
Deputy Mayor Jepsen. Councilmember
Chang, prior to the meeting called and stated he would be arriving late.
Upon motion by Councilmember
Gustafson, seconded by Councilmember Grace and carried 5-0, Deputy Mayor Jepsen
was excused.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
4.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Gustafson
apologized for missing the Council meeting last week. He congratulated Mr. Burkett for receiving
the Award of Excellence by the Washington City Management Association (WCMA).
Councilmember Fimia
apologized for not being able to attend the Employee Appreciation Picnic last
week.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Vicki
Westberg, Shoreline, said there was a public meeting held at the Dimitiri’s
Restaurant by CNH Investment Group, L.L.C. who proposed 18 townhomes or
condominiums with 36 parking spaces on three lots at 1234, 1238, and
(b)
Dale Wright,
Shoreline, stated he has heard the City is not prudent with its money. He felt the City should continue to work
toward quality projects.
(c)
Marie Poster,
Shoreline, inferred that the City Council allows trees to be cut down to allow
multi-unit complexes to be built in neighborhoods. Currently, she said, there are three homes
that will be torn down at
(d)
William Hubbell,
Shoreline, appreciated the concerns of the City Council and attitudes to save
the casinos in Shoreline. He said
casinos are the largest private employer and taxpayer in the City and they
would appreciate a vote to keep the 10% gambling tax on card rooms in place.
(e)
Ken Noreen, Shoreline,
stated there are many individual concerns from the residents and the City
Council has done a great job to take care of the City as a whole. He outlined the 4-way test of the Rotary: Is
it the truth? Is it fair to all
concerned? Will it build good will and better
friendship among all of us? Will it be
beneficial to all concerned? He urged
the Council to keep these in mind and keep doing a great job for the residents
of Shoreline.
(f)
Councilmember Fimia moved to approve the agenda.
Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 6-0, and the agenda was
approved.
6. ACTION
ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, AND MOTIONS
(a)
Ordinance No. 400, reducing the City gambling tax
on social card rooms to 10% of gross receipts
after
Code 3.30.020.
Councilmember Grace moved to adopt Ordinance 400. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.
Councilmember Gustafson said
he was not here for the meeting but is in favor of this ordinance. He suggested an annual profitability review
of the casinos.
Councilmember Gustafson
moved to direct the City staff to review the profitability of the casinos
annually utilizing the casinos audited financial statements and report the
results to the City Council no later than
Mayor Hansen felt that a 1%
reduction, or $240,000, in the gambling tax on social card rooms would not
affect the City or the casinos. He
stated, in his opinion, some of the Council may have been influenced. He asked whether any of the Council wanted to
recuse themselves from voting on this Ordinance.
No Councilmember recused
themselves.
Mayor Hansen asked whether
or not any councilmember received any compensation, expense reimbursement, or
political contribution from gambling industry elements in the last two years
and if so, how much? He stated he has
never received any such contribution, and the public has a right to know.
Councilmember Chang
responded that he has received donations from one contributor on two occasions,
in October 2004 and June 2005.
Councilmember Gustafson
responded he has not received any contributions in the past two years.
Councilmember Grace said he
had not received any contributions from the gambling establishment while a
Council member.
Councilmember Ransom
responded that he received campaign contributions two years ago, and it is a
part of public record that can be viewed at the Public Disclosure Commission
(PDC).
Councilmember Fimia felt the
question was inappropriate. She said she
had received campaign contributions two years ago. She continued and stated this question should
be asked before the Council conducts any vote on any Shoreline business because
that is the precedent that is being set with this item.
Mayor Hansen stated if she
believed that is the precedent he would respond at any question she asked him
in the future. He explained the reason
he asked the question is that it was brought to his attention that there was an
$8,000 contribution from one of the gambling interests to the Aurora Improvement
Council (AIC). The AIC funneled most of
it to local campaigns. He felt $8,000
was a lot of money for a business industry that claims they are having
financial difficulties. He elaborated on
why he will be voting against this ordinance.
Councilmember Chang conveyed
that the Mayor is changing the rules and grounds for the Council. He argued that if a councilmember is voting
in favor of this issue because he has received campaign contributions, there is
another issue at stake. Councilmember
Chang reiterated he has not received any contributions from the AIC. He concluded that each councilmember or
candidate is responsible for their own actions and accepting campaign
contributions is not illegal.
Mayor Hansen stated he did
not suggest any illegality occurring. He
stated he wanted to know what may have influenced the Council vote.
Councilmember Ransom thought
the subject was inappropriate because AIC consists of up to 80 businesses. Some businesses contribute more. He asserted that the Mayor is trying to slant
this issue to one business or one industry.
This is unfair because the AIC is not here to respond to the Mayor’s
statements against an industry.
Councilmember Fimia
commented that she did not understand how the Mayor’s vote relates to this
issue and how it relates to whether or not the Council has or has not received
any contributions from the AIC. She
noted that Harley O’Neil contributes thousands of dollars to campaigns for the
opponents to this race. He owns
Councilmember Chang
expressed that the Mayor is setting the wrong precedent. He felt the Mayor was making a clear
inference and somewhat of an accusation before the Council vote. He concluded that asking this type of a
question before the Council takes its vote is very unfair.
Councilmember Gustafson
noted that candidates receive donations from many different sources and when
they are elected they must vote based on their conscience and what they believe
in, regardless of where a candidate’s donations come from. Every candidate makes a decision on where
they receive contributions and from whom.
Councilmembers must divorce themselves from the contributions and
sometimes make decisions that will oppose the person or group the contribution
came from. He understood the Mayor’s
concern, but he also preferred that the Council not address this issue in the
meeting. The Council should make decisions
based on study and community input. He
urged the Council to drop the issue and vote.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt
Ordinance 400, which carried 5-1, with Mayor Hansen dissenting.
Councilmember Gustafson
noted he will request a review of the profitability of the casinos next year.
Councilmember Fimia
responded she was not opposed to a casino profitability review being conducted
next year as long as it was not costly to the City or the casinos. She asserted if the Mayor accuses the Council
of anything in the future she will move to have him removed as Chair.
7.
WORKSHOP ITEMS
There was Council consensus to take the agenda items in reverse
order.
(a)
Aquatics Program Review
Lynn Cheeney, Recreation Superintendent,
introduced James McCrackin, Pool Manager and Bridget O’Connell, Assistant Pool
Manager. She outlined the organization
of the Aquatics Division and stated the pool is a seven day a week operation
which is open 105 hours each week. The
Aquatics Program makes up about 20% of the entire Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services budget.
Mr. McCrackin reported that
the pool is focused on the community. To
stay aligned with this focus, many amenities have been added to the pool to
include four tot docks, a tot and deep slide, a rope swing, removable stairs, a
disabled lift, bleachers, and a poolside basketball hoop. Resurfacing of the pool occurred in 1998; 36
parking spaces were added in 1999; and the pool was renovated in 2001 which
included locker room and office expansion, ADA accessibility, resurfacing
floors, repairing roof, and installing a new diving board. In a survey done in 2003, the pool received a
98% “good to excellent” customer service rating. Pool staff instructs residents and employees
in CPR, First Aid, water rescue, lifeguarding, and water safety instructor
courses. In 2003, the City of
Ms. O’Connell discussed the
instructional programs at the pool. She
stated there are instructional swim lessons for all ages and multiple time
frames for the classes to meet community needs.
The pool offers online registration for swim lessons and the CLASS registration
software system for keeping track of patrons.
The pool also has a swim and dive team to promote youth health and
participation in the community. The
coaches for this seven-week program are trained and compete against other local
cities. Additionally, the aquatics
program has a summer swim camp and a day camp.
She added there are water aerobics, deep water training, and water
therapy classes given by trained instructors.
In conclusion, she stated the future goals for the instructional portion
of the program are to refine the lesson programs, continually invest in staff
training, and continue to meet community needs by responding to customer
feedback.
Mr. McCrackin concluded the
presentation by thanking the City Council and communicating the importance of
swimming to a waterfront community.
Mr. Burkett stated usage of
the pool has increased, which means most of these new programs have been funded
by user fees, not the General Fund.
PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Lisa
Clayton, Shoreline, shared her experiences with the Shoreline Pool staff. She praised the Shoreline pool and staff for
opening their doors to her family and working with her disabled daughter. She said her daughter, Brianna, was shown
kindness, patience, compassion, encouragement, and friendship by the staff at
the Shoreline pool and now she knows that she is a part of the community for
the very first time. Bridgett is
wonderful and the staff has fulfilled a need in the community. She said she is proud to be a resident and
the City has positive role models.
(b) Fay
Sato-Beland,
Councilmember Ransom
inquired how much General Fund support the pool currently receives. Ms. Cheeney stated the pool is supported by
49.4% of the General Fund.
Councilmember Ransom
commented on the quick action of the Shoreline pool staff that saved his
daughter from a potentially fatal injury.
He said the cooperation from the pool staff was excellent and their
service was greatly appreciated.
Councilmember Gustafson
thanked the staff. He said he has
watched the pool grow over the years and agrees there is a different attitude;
it has heart there. The instructors are
friendly and the facility and programs are much better than they were three to
five years ago. However, he expressed
concerns with the age of the pool. He
inquired how long the pool would last and how much will it cost to renovate it
for the long-term.
Ms. Cheeney stated there is
no longevity calculator for the pool. In
the next several years she doesn’t believe it will need any attention. She concluded that it is well-maintained by the
staff and it seems to be in good shape.
Councilmember Gustafson
suggested the creation of a community advisory board to possibly submit to the
voters a bond for building, expanding, or renovating the facility.
Councilmember Grace
appreciated the thoroughness of the report.
He said it seems this place is a great workplace where the staff is
focused on the community and the managers ensure that staff members attend
regular training opportunities. He
applauded the staff for their efforts.
He closed by inquiring whether or not a new aquatic center came up with
the Bond Advisory Committee.
Councilmember Gustafson
responded saying it did come up, but it is just an idea. It was not discussed as a part of the current
Bond Advisory Committee.
Councilmember Chang echoed
the praise of the pool. He stated when
the delegates from Shoreline’s
Mayor Hansen stated the
Council was advised not to take over the pool from
Councilmember Ransom
supported Councilmember Gustafson’s comments and shared that he hoped the
Council can propose a bond in the future to expand the aquatic center.
Councilmember Fimia thanked
the pool staff for their service to the citizens of Shoreline. Based on the intangibles, she said, there is
a great need for this recreation facility.
There is also a greater need for this type of facility on the east side
of
Mr. McCrackin responded that
there was a long waiting list for residents who want to take classes, and 17 to
20 people who have lesson programs they want to give. He said there is not enough pool space or
time to accommodate all of the people who want to offer new classes.
Councilmember Fimia
suggested it may be time to seriously think about adding another facility in Shoreline
if the need is there.
Councilmember Gustafson
concurred with Councilmember Fimia on the addition of an aquatic center in the
City.
(b)
North Central Interurban Trail Use Permits
Bob Olander, Deputy City
Manager, stated the Council asked for more information regarding the North
Central Interurban Trail. He explained
that the City has received a $1.2 million grant for a part of the trail from
the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC). At present, the City is halfway through the
design phase for this section of the trail.
The final design will be brought to the Council in the spring of 2006
for Council review and input with the construction for the North Central
section slated to begin next summer.
Continuing, he said the
Council also requested information on the terms of the permits of the tenants
that are on that section of the trail.
At the City’s request, Seattle City Light (SCL) gave the permit holders
a one-year notice to vacate, which was sent to the tenants in March 2005. Most of the permits issued through SCL
provided for 30 days notice. He noted
that the permit holders waived relocation assistance and all permit holders are
responsible for removing all physical structures and property from the SCL
right-of-way upon notice. He introduced
Tom Boydell, Economic Development Manager, who assumed responsibility for
outreach activities to the businesses in Shoreline.
Mr. Boydell explained that
at present, six businesses have already found locations outside of Shoreline to
relocate; two have declined the City’s assistance; and the remaining ten will
be receiving expanded assistance from the City.
The expanded assistance, he concluded, will involve creating a
relocation assistance pamphlet, conducting a needs analysis, identifying
possible relocation sites for these businesses to relocate, and holding “brown
bag” information sessions.
Upon call of the Mayor,
there was no one wishing to provide public comment.
Councilmember Ransom stated
that businesses are very much interested in relocation assistance. In the original Aurora Corridor Plan, the
City agreed to provide $5,000 to $10,000 per business to assist them in
relocation. Now the City is denying them
the funds because there was no grant money for this section of the
project. He urged the Council to direct
staff to assist these businesses that must relocate as it committed to do years
ago.
Mr. Olander said he recalled
that this allotment was a part of the original commitment to businesses as part
of the Aurora Corridor Plan. The Aurora
Corridor Project is covered by federal regulations, and they will only approve
grants to furnish money to business owners who privately own the land from
which they are being displaced. The land
the businesses are being relocated from is owned by SCL, not privately-owned by
the relocating businesses. He requested
that Kirk McKinley, Aurora Corridor and Interurban Trail
Project Manager, to comment on this issue.
Mr. Kirk McKinley, Aurora
Corridor and Interurban Trail Project Manager, responded that the original
policies and procedures manual for right-of-way acquisition that was adopted in
1999-2000 included $5,000 for business assistance along
Councilmember Grace inquired
what type of professional services are the ten relocating businesses requesting from City staff.
Mr. Boydell stated that
these ten businesses are diverse. Some
of them want to grow, some want to stay in Shoreline, and some are struggling
and are looking for some assistance. He
went on to explain the assistance programs that pools resources and helps
businesses with real estate and business planning. The City provides the information and then
allows the individual businesses to choose what level of assistance they
desire. Businesses can also participate
in the economic development program, which involves non-profits that assists
with the cost side of business, environmental issues, and translation
services. Community Capital Development
(CCD) is an additional program that provides training, technical assistance,
business mentoring, and access to loan capital.
Councilmember Gustafson
asked if leaseholders have any responsibility to help the business owners.
Mr. Boydell stated he
strictly works with the business owners.
A part of this relocation process, he explained, is not just assisting
them into another “rental” situation but actually determining if the business
owners have the capability to own the new property they occupy. If so, it will give the business owner
greater stability and opportunity for growth.
Councilmember Fimia asked
whether the affected businesses were told about the Council meeting
tonight. She conveyed that the Council
has asked in the past that all affected people be notified. She stressed that this must occur in the
future. She said this relocation
assistance is a step in the right direction, but the City is not doing
enough. In conclusion, she requested
this item be put back on the agenda on a future date with notification to the
affected businesses. She questioned if there
were any legal problems with the City providing funds for these businesses.
Mr. Olander replied that
direct payment to businesses may constitute a gift of public funds, but more
research needs to be done to determine this.
The problem, he expressed, is that permit holders have explicitly waived
their right to relocation assistance and that part of the lease terms include
demolishing the building when the lease ends.
He felt there may be some legal problems with assisting the permit
holders with the cost of demolishing the building, but felt there should not be
any problems with helping the sublessees or business owners with funds to
assist in relocation. He stated he would
have to verify this with the City Attorney.
Councilmember Fimia felt
that the City is displacing these businesses for a trail, which is not a
community necessity. If these businesses
were profitable, she felt it would be the City’s obligation to help them with
relocation costs. She stated she would
like to see this brought back with a motion or an ordinance to the Council.
Councilmember Chang referred
to three buildings that were demolished by the SGA Corporation because the
Gateway Development could not wait for business owners to demolish the
buildings. He wondered who would pay for
the demolition if the similar situation occurred in which business owners could
not pay for the demolition of their buildings.
Mr. Olander explained the
SGA development approvals and said the permit holders would be responsible for
the demolition if this occurred.
Mr. Burkett added that
Gateway and Mr. Alseth negotiated on the demolition of the buildings to get the
project started.
Mr. Olander did not foresee
any other private developers stepping in to do private demolition. The permit holders will have the
responsibility for the demolition of their buildings.
Mr. Burkett felt because the
permit holders were receiving substantially lower lease rates they would comply
with the terms of their leases and pay for the demolition of their prospective
buildings.
Mr. Olander added that SCL
could enforce the terms of the leases in court of the leaseholders ignore their
agreements.
Councilmember Gustafson felt
that the property owners who entered the 30-day notice leases with the SCL
should know and be responsible to do the things that are asked in the lease
they signed. Therefore, he concluded,
the City has no obligation because they knew the terms of the lease. However, the subleases should receive some
help.
Councilmember Ransom
expressed concern about public relations, noting that the Council originally
committed funding to help the displaced businesses. The City has received about $11 million, most
of it grant money, and supporting these businesses in finding a new location in
Shoreline is good public relations. The
City needs to go the extra step by paying them $5,000 to $10,000 for
relocation. The City will lose
credibility if they do not receive monetary assistance. He urged the Council to allocate funds for
these businesses.
Councilmember Chang
questioned whether or not these businesses would stay in Shoreline if they
received monetary assistance from the City.
Mr. Boydell stated he was
not sure whether $5,000-$10,000 would make any difference or keep the
businesses in Shoreline. The City needs
to look at the problems and the entire relocation and what the goals and
capabilities are for the relocating businesses.
Mr. Olander said whether or
not a business stays in the City is based on the individual business and several
factors which are going to be determined by the business owner. These businesses will not be able to find
another low-rent option they experienced on
Councilmember Chang agreed
with Councilmember Ransom that a commitment was made by the Council to help
these businesses years ago and the Council should abide by it.
Mr. Boydell offered an
alternative solution to provide additional capital through the Community
Capital Program (CCP). The City could
also wait until the consultants have worked with them and see what needs are
identified.
Councilmember Grace said he
prefers a more flexible approach. A
fixed dollar amount is not applicable because there is a wide range of
businesses. He believed if a business
needed more than $10,000 for assistance then the Council should be notified.
Mr. Boydell outlined the
funding sources available for this effort.
There is $8,500 committed to one direct service contractor, and the two
pilot programs that have been established have been allocated $15,000 for a
five month pilot. A sum of $10,000 is
allocated in the Economic Development Program.
These programs are to cover all of the small businesses in Shoreline as
an additional resource.
Mayor Hansen advised that
leases work the same way everywhere, so this is not a unique situation. He said the Council has no obligation to
assist, but would like to retain businesses in Shoreline.
There was Council consensus to direct staff to provide follow-up information
on the progress of the relocating businesses and the Interurban Project at a
future meeting.
Mr. Boydell stated he can
return in eight weeks with a report and he will provide notice to businesses
and permit holders of the next meeting discussing this issue.
Councilmember Fimia outlined
the various amounts being spent on economic development and asked why Forward
Shoreline is not involved in business retention. She noted the City is spending over $100,000
in economic development, with a large proportion ($25,000) being contracted
with Forward Shoreline.
Mr. Boydell responded that
$100,000 is a small amount to invest on economic development compared to other
jurisdictions.
Councilmember Fimia felt
that City staff is making decisions and signing contracts without the consent
of the Council. She asserted that the
Council should be making these decisions.
Businesses are being displaced and it appears the decision to compensate
them will be made by City staff. The
Council has the final responsibility to establish how these funds get spent and
it was given to the Council by the voters.
The Council has established a development group which has not made any
decisions.
Mr. Boydell commented that
the amount of money allocated is small.
The City and the Council will be looking at ways to use the money more
creatively and effectively. There are
some ideas for the 2006 budget and they are being tested with this budget. The recommendations, once the Economic
Development Task Force prepares them, will be presented to the Council for
consideration.
(c)
Preliminary 2006 Budget Briefing
Ms. Debbie Tarry, Finance
Director, introduced this item and stated she will review the budget calendar
and give a status on what has been done.
She outlined the 2006 Budget Schedule and reminded the Council of the
budget policies that were adopted for the City.
She communicated that as of now the City has a $500,000 budget surplus
without adding any new revenue or any enhanced services sources for 2006. In April, she stated the City estimated there
would be about a $235,000 budget surplus.
Since April, the sales tax trends appear stronger and the utility tax
trend is increasing. She reviewed expenditure
projections and revenue projections for the budget. Specifically, she outlined that General Fund
operating revenues are expected to increase by 4.6%. The largest source, property taxes, she said
would increase by 1.8%. Sales tax
revenue based on the projections would increase 1.5%. She stated the gambling tax revenues would
drop by 2% and the Community Development Block Grant Program could drop by
5%. As it stands right now the
projection for the end of 2005 is that reserves will equal 35% of General Fund
revenues. There will be a drop reflected
in the reserves, but that is based on taking $4 million dollars out of reserves
and allocating it to the City Hall project.
She concluded that the City remains in good financial position, that
reserves continue to meet or exceed required levels, and that the 2006 Budget
will meet Council financial policies and goals.
Staff will produce a balanced budget for the Council’s consideration on
October 17th.
Upon call of the Mayor,
there was no one wishing to provide public comments.
Mayor Hansen advised the
City to be cautious in predicting increases in investment income because he
felt interest rates would either stay the same or decrease.
Ms. Tarry agreed and said
based on the investment policies established by the Council, the City invested
in some two year investment vehicles that have better interest rates than the
State Investment Pool. Therefore, there
should be increases.
Councilmember Chang
questioned whether there were any initiatives on the ballot that would affect
the 2006 budget.
Ms. Tarry responded that
Initiative 912, the new gas tax, would affect the 2006 budget because the City
anticipates monies from the gas tax.
Councilmember Ransom
inquired if a fire district levy increase to $1.50 per thousand assesses value
would affect the City’s ability to raise the property tax levy.
Ms. Tarry stated a fire
district levy would not directly impact the City’s ability to levy taxes, but
the real issue is how much property taxes are taxpayers willing to pay.
She added that the only way
property taxes are raised is by proposing a levy lid lift on the ballot and
having the voters approve it.
Mr. Burkett calculated that
a levy lid lift to $1.60 represents a total of $6.5 million dollars in revenue.
Councilmember Ransom commented
that the budget per capita numbers look very stable. If the information is accurate, it seems the
City has grown more than what is reflected in the numbers.
Ms. Tarry explained the
information was in cost and dollars so inflation information is included with
it. This was done to “level the playing
field” and make it an “apples-to-apples” comparison. The City has also eliminated large, one-time
expenditures and interfund operating transfers.
She said when preparing the budget the focus is on the operating budget
and ways to keep costs down. By doing
this, she concluded, City staff has learned how to do more with the same or
less.
Councilmember Ransom
questioned the 17% rate increase in utility tax as represented in the projected
revenues. Ms. Tarry replied that the 17%
did not represent a rate increase. The
rates have held steady. This represents
an increase of funds collected over what was projected. Cellular phone usage has increased, but the
only increases were on natural gas rates.
Councilmember Fimia stated
she does not want to see the cost per capita reduced, but wants to see a
reduction in overhead costs. Statistics
show 19% of the City living in poverty, and there are a growing number of
residents on fixed incomes. She noted
that incremental increases in utility taxes greatly affect low and fixed income
people. She asked for more detailed
information on the police contract, and asked the reason for the contract
increase. She also asked for 10-year
projections for the City’s general reserves.
She asked staff to examine
Ms. Tarry responded that the
City does have a low-income/seniors exemption program for utility tax through
Councilmember Fimia asked if
the threshold for the exemption could be reported to the Council. She assumed it would be low and most people
would not qualify for the program. She
concluded that $4 million dollars comes from the public in utility taxes.
Councilmember Grace said it
is important to look at comparable employers on a regular basis and keep
salaries competitive. The Small Business
Impact Program and the Green Street Tree Initiative are of interest to the
Council and will be reviewed. Finally,
he asked about the revenues in the City Service Fund.
Councilmember Gustafson
thanked Ms. Tarry for the thoroughness of her report.
Mayor Hansen expressed
concern that the 10-year projection would not be meaningful and would include
too many assumptions. He stated he did
not want to see a lot of information after year six of the report.
Ms. Tarry concurred that a 10-year
projection would simply extend current assumptions.
Mr. Burkett added the goal
of the City staff is to keep the reserves between 15 – 20 percent, including
adjusting to changing economic situations.
The revenues the City receives have a direct correlation with the level
of service the residents receive. The
largest increase in the $7 million dollar police contract is in health care
costs. Overall, City staff is fortunate
to be able to recommend a balanced budget with some enhancements, as opposed to
significant reductions.
Councilmember Fimia noted
that the property tax lid reduced the City budget, not Initiative 695.
Mr. Burkett responded that
the property tax lid reduced the rate of growth in property tax revenues.
Ms. Tarry concluded the City
lost the sales tax equalization which was funded by the $3.5 million in motor
vehicle excise taxes.
8. ADJOURNMENT
At
/S/