CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Monday, October 11, 1999
7:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Councilmembers Gustafson, Hansen, King, Lee and Ransom
ABSENT: None
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exception of Councilmember Ransom, who arrived shortly thereafter.
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
Robert Deis, City Manager, reported that the King County Council voted today to transfer lead status and $683,000 to the City of Shoreline for the Interurban Trail.
Councilmember Gustafson recognized Mayor Jepsen for the persistence of his efforts to facilitate development of the Interurban Trail.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Dick Nicholson, Chair, Council of Neighborhoods, presented and explained the request of the Council of Neighborhoods that City Council establish a line item called "historical preservation" for the City’s 2000 budget.
Ken Howe, 745 N 184th Street, discussed reasons for the request for City funding for historical preservation and distributed an inventory he had prepared of historic homes.
Mayor Jepsen said he will carefully review the minutes of the Council of Neighborhoods meeting in order to understand the significance of the request for a line item in the City budget for historical preservation.
Mr. Howe mentioned that the King County Landmarks and Heritage Program offers grants.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Ros Bird, Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Arts Council Director, noted the proclamation of October as National Arts and Humanities Month and mentioned related events. She expressed concern about the possible implications of the passage of Initiative 695.
(b) Victoria Stiles, Shoreline Historical Museum Director, noted National Arts and Humanities Month, and she reported on recent and upcoming exhibits at the museum. She also mentioned grant funds the museum has received.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Lee moved approval of the agenda. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, and the agenda was approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Deputy Mayor Montgomery moved to approve the consent calendar. Council-member Hansen seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, and the following items were adopted:
Minutes of Workshop of September 20, 1999
Minutes of Dinner Meeting of September 27, 1999
Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 27, 1999Approval of expenses and payroll as of September 30, 1999 in the amount of $ 541,719.73
(a) Discussion of (1) Initiative 695 Impacts; (2) the 2000 Budget Process; and (3) options for dealing with I-695 if it passes
Mr. Deis reviewed the staff report. To illustrate the relatively modest amount of current City expenditures, Mr. Deis noted that ten other cities of similar size in the region spend an average of $4,600 per acre annually on park maintenance, whereas Shoreline spends $2,300 per acre annually. The average police staffing of those ten cities is 2.05 officers per thousand residents; whereas, police staffing in Shoreline is currently 1.06 officers per thousand.
Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.
(1) Kathy Halliburton, 18315 Wallingford Avenue N, proposed that the City reduce or restructure neighborhood mini-grant funding, rather than eliminate it, if I-695 passes and expenditure reductions become necessary. Likewise, she suggested job sharing as an alternative to the elimination of staff positions.
(2) Richard Ruther, 17747 Second Place NE, opposed the elimination of arts and culture services from the City budget.
Mayor Jepsen explained that the expenditure reductions in Attachment A are potential responses to the reduction in revenue that would result from passage of I-695, not proposals for immediate Council action.
Councilmember King highlighted that the City receives only nine percent of property tax revenues. She asked whether staff had considered the implementation of a Business and Occupations (B&O) tax. Finance Director Joe Meneghini responded that previous staff research showed that a B&O tax would not provide sufficient revenue to replace the amount the City would lose if I-695 passes.
Councilmember King commented that some people promote gambling taxes as an alternative for increasing City revenues. She noted the expense of special elections. She said the passage of I-695 could adversely effect bond ratings, resulting in further expenses. She expressed her hope that citizens will carefully consider the ramifications of I-695.
Noting that Council will hold a public hearing on I-695 at its meeting on October 25, Mr. Deis suggested that Council decide at that time whether to take a position on the measure.
Councilmember Hansen asserted his opposition to City reliance on gambling taxes, stating he will not vote for any budget that includes gambling tax revenues among those supporting City operations. He acknowledged that he advocated "no new taxes" in his campaign for Council. He went on to explain his belief that the City must be fiscally sound. He said Council should consider revenues to stabilize the long-term City budget regardless of whether I-695 passes. He pointed out that almost all cities of the size of Shoreline have adopted utility taxes. He said he would be in favor of investigating the adoption of utility taxes. He opposed the adoption of a B&O tax.
Councilmember Ransom also opposed the adoption of a B&O tax at this time. Noting the two phases of Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) revenues, he said the State is more likely to replace Phase I funds. However, he asserted that such replacement could take as long as two years.
Councilmember Ransom commented that he is not in favor of I-695. City Attorney Ian Sievers stated that Councilmember comments on a ballot measure are not appropriate at this time because they could be seen as a use of public facilities. He advised that comments regarding I-695 will be appropriate at the open forum during the Council meeting on October 25.
Councilmember Ransom said a utility tax is a reasonable means to replace the MVET revenues the City will lose if I-695 passes. However, he noted that many people would consider Council adoption of a utility tax now to be "an end run around the (November) election." For this reason, he advocated that Council wait until after the vote on I-695 to consider adopting a utility tax.
Noting comments of State legislators and Association of Washington Cities (AWC) staff at a recent AWC legislative conference, Mr. Deis said the State is not likely to "backfill" the revenues that would be lost if I-695 passes.
Deputy Mayor Montgomery agreed with Councilmember Hansen’s comments. She said she opposed new taxes during her campaign for City Council. However, she asserted that funding for City services is very limited and that the City needs more revenues.
Councilmember Lee recommended that staff bring forward an ordinance to levy utility taxes contingent upon passage of I-695. She advocated the formation of a citizen committee to consider the City’s current financial situation and long-term fiscal stability.
In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Deis and Mr. Meneghini explained the implementation of a low-income tax credit as a means of easing the impact of utility taxes on low-income residents.
Councilmember Gustafson said the City cannot afford to lose the revenues that it is projected to lose if I-695 passes. He supported the establishment of a citizen committee to consider the needs and funding of the City. He asserted that Shoreline citizens must be involved in, and have the opportunity to vote on, any tax increases. He said he would vote against utility taxes for that reason.
Mayor Jepsen supported the proposal for staff to bring forward an ordinance to levy utility taxes, and for Council to hold a public hearing about it, on October 25. He said if I-695 passes and Council delays implementation of utility taxes to accommodate a citizen-involvement process and a public vote, the City could lose up to $1.9 million in revenues. He opposed the use of reserve funds to cover this shortfall. He pointed out that passage of I-695 will cause a $600,000 revenue shortfall in 2001 even if Council adopts utility taxes. He expressed doubt that the State legislature will replace revenues that cities lose as a result of the passage of I-695.
Mr. Deis asked whether Councilmembers supported the proposal to make utility taxes contingent upon passage of I-695. Councilmembers King and Gustafson supported contingency with subsequent consideration by a citizen committee.
Councilmember Hansen asserted the virtues of representative democracy. Emphasizing his concern about the long-term stability of the City’s finances, he said a contingency is not necessary. He commented that the omission of a contingency clause preserves citizens’ influence on the outcome of I-695.
Councilmember Ransom asserted that Council is considering utility taxes within the context of I-695, not as part of a discussion of the long-term stability of the City’s finances. He supported contingency. He recommended that Council subsequently consider, or convene a "blue ribbon" committee of financial experts to consider and recommend, alternatives to address the long-term financial stability of the City.
Mayor Jepsen reiterated comments he made earlier in the year to the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce about the capital improvement needs in Shoreline. He regretted that the need to address the ramifications of I-695 has limited Council’s ability to solicit community input. He expressed provisional support for omitting a contingency clause.
Deputy Mayor Montgomery clarified that she did not support contingency. She expressed concern about the expense in staff resources of a citizen committee.
Councilmember Lee reiterated her support for contingency.
Councilmember Hansen noted his belief that I-695 represents voter dissatisfaction with State government rather than with local governments. He asserted that many of the consequences of the initiative were not intended by its supporters.
9. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT: None
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 9:01 p.m., Mayor Jepsen announced that the Council would recess into Executive Session for 20 minutes to discuss one item of current litigation and one item of potential litigation.
At 9:25 p.m., Mayor Jepsen announced that the Executive Session would be extended for another ten minutes.
At 9:35 p.m., the Executive Session concluded, and the regular meeting reconvened.
11. ADJOURNMENT
At 9:36 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.
____________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk