CITY
OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia,
Grace, Gustafson, and Ransom
ABSENT: none
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor
Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll
call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were
present.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE
AGENDAS
§Steve Burkett, City Manager, reported on the
installation of additional park equipment at
Jill Marilley,
City Engineer, responded to comments made last week by Mrs. De Bernal regarding
storm drainage work done near her home.
She stated that the City is continuing to work with Mrs. De Bernal to
fully resolve her concerns.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Gustafson reported on his attendance at
the Chamber of Commerce meeting and on its election process.
Mayor Hansen reported on the grand reopening of Sam’s
Club at 130th and
Councilmember Ransom commented on the very high turnout
for the Chamber of Commerce election and the closeness of several of the
races.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Janet
Way, Shoreline, commented favorably on the 10th Avenue NE drainage
project and felt it might have the potential to be developed as a “SEA street”
in the future.
6. ACTION
ITEM
(a)
Mr.
Burkett noted that Public Works has put together several options for proceeding
with the North City/15th Avenue Project.
Councilmember
Grace suggested that following the staff report and public comment, the Council
try to narrow down the alternatives as much as possible.
Paul
Haines, Public Works Director, described the three options presented by staff
and compared these to the currently proposed design. Option #1 retains the same curb line and
includes four lanes through the business district. Option #2 has four lanes but removes the
bulb-outs. Option #3 has no bulb-outs
and minimal frontage improvements and removes the amenities. Each option has a different schedule for
potential construction, with Option #1 occurring the earliest (January 2005),
and Options #2 and #3 occurring in February and April respectively. He noted that construction costs range from
$5.5 - $5.8 million, and Seattle City Light will reimburse the City
approximately $2 million for utility undergrounding.
Councilmember
Fimia proposed a fourth option based on the comments
heard from all stakeholders. It
includes four lanes from
Mr.
Haines said staff viewed Option #4 as Option #2 for the business district with
the additional costs associated with sidewalk construction. He said the estimate for sidewalks is
$743,000 (3,700 linear feet at $200 per foot).
He noted that drainage and right-of-way issues account for the
higher-than-average estimate of $200 per linear foot.
He
provided additional estimated costs for other elements included in Option #4.
Responding to Councilmember Fimia, Mr. Haines
clarified that Option #4 assumes six-foot sidewalk widths plus four-foot
amenity zones.
Councilmember
Ransom noted that some community members did not feel sidewalks were necessary
in front of
Mayor
Hansen called for public comment.
(a)
Gary East,
(b)
(c)
Alan Sharrah, Director of Operations for
Frank Lumber, expressed support for the community meeting and urged the Council
to attend. He stressed the importance of
Councilmember attendance, explaining that one of the original objections to the
project was that decision-makers did not receive public input, and that “the
flow of information was not complete.”
He requested a copy of the matrix of options, noting that the public is
generally not aware of all the details of the various alternatives.
Responding
to Councilmember Grace, Mr. Haines said that all options could utilize the
potential savings of utilizing existing signal systems in the current
locations. It was noted that the
estimated savings on any option could be added to get a range of potential
savings for each option. Councilmember
Grace wondered if the estimates for Option #4 included design costs. Mr. Haines said the estimates were
construction costs only, but design costs could be estimated at 15-20%
depending on the scope.
Councilmember
Fimia spoke in favor of Option #4, noting that it
represents the views of both proponents and opponents. She calculated that sidewalks could be
constructed the full length of
Responding
to Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Haines clarified that the
$9 million figure that some have attributed to the
Councilmember
Fimia reiterated her belief that the project could be
expanded beyond the
Responding
to Mayor Hansen, Mr. Haines clarified that the Seattle City Light funding for
underground utilities entered the project in late 2003. Based on past figures, Mayor Hansen surmised
that the estimated construction costs have remained fairly stable for the past
four years.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen noted that subtracting the obligated
funds for the design and ROW acquisition, the signal improvements, neighborhood
mitigation, and SCL contribution, the construction project costs roughly $4
million. He expressed a preference for
the current design or Option #1. He said
although he is not able to attend the community meeting, he is anxious to hear
the results.
Mayor
Hansen supported the meeting, although he is not able to attend due to a prior
commitment. He agreed that the Council
should listen to the public and not participate in the discussion.
Councilmember
Gustafson expressed support for the original design or Option #1. He described the many benefits the project
would provide, including improved safety, beautification, conformity with the
economic development strategy, and upgraded infrastructure. He pointed out that many cities are making
lane reductions to respond to traffic safety concerns. He said doing the project now would save
taxpayer money by consolidating utility projects.
Councilmember
Ransom asked several questions about the estimated cost for sidewalks in the
Councilmember
Ransom concluded that the estimated cost differences between all five options
is only about $400,000, and the additional sidewalks and amenities in Option #4
could add another $1 million. He expressed
support for Option #2, noting that he was not impressed with the curb bulb-outs
in the City of
Councilmember
Grace supported either Option #1 or Option #2.
He felt that Option #3 removes too many significant elements of the
project, and Option #4 would be too costly because redesigning the project
would mean it could not be bid in 2005.
He pointed out that the lane configuration was the main element of
contention.
Councilmember
Chang felt it is misleading to describe the $2 million in SCL funding as
revenue, since Shoreline ratepayers will ultimately end up paying for the undergrounding portion of the project. He said he would like to hear what the public
has to say about the options before making a final decision. He requested more information about Option #4, and asked
Mr. Burkett to clarify the decision deadline.
Mr.
Burkett said the Council would have to make a decision by November 22 if the
goal is to construct the project under favorable circumstances in 2005.
Mr.
Haines pointed out that the utility companies are anxious to move forward on
their own improvements. The water
district and sewer district need to build additional capacity to accommodate
the needs of expanding businesses. He
said they will proceed on their own if the project is not underway soon. He commented on the prolonged inconvenience
and traffic congestion if the projects are not consolidated.
Councilmember
Chang noted the likelihood that electricity and water rates would increase as a
result of the
Mr.
Burkett suggested that the community meeting mentioned by the speakers take
place on Wednesday evening, rather than Thursday, so that more Councilmembers could attend.
Councilmember
Fimia protested that two-day notice for such an
important meeting is inadequate. She
felt that gathering community input should be a Council-driven process.
Mayor
Hansen felt the City should not discourage those who want to voluntarily
contact stakeholders and conduct a meeting.
Councilmember
Fimia requested more accurate information for Option
#4. She felt that staff has had the past
three months to devise a modest alternative, but all that has come back are the
same options. She said money is not the
major issue for her, but it is important that people get the most for their
money.
Mayor
Hansen supported the current design, or Option #1 or #2. He noted there appears to be the most support
for Option #2, and that four Councilmembers support
Option #1.
Councilmember
Ransom noted that restriping
Councilmember
Fimia noted that one of the original objections to
the project was the proposal to use funding from the road overlay program and
the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program.
She asked Councilmember Grace if he still had this objection. Councilmember Grace said he still has that
objection but is hopeful that potential cost savings will make that funding
unnecessary.
Mr.
Haines noted that the estimates include contingency money that might not be
used, which could be used to displace money set aside from street overlays and
the NTSP. He said Option #3 is really a
“bare bones” project that shows the true cost of what it takes to build
sidewalks, curbs and drainage systems, and traffic signals. The
Councilmember
Ransom asked how long the construction would affect businesses. Mr. Haines responded that the contract has a
240-day performance period, and this includes undergrounding.
There
was Council concurrence to bring this item back next week and discuss the input
from the community meeting.
7. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a)
Interurban Tail – Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing 60% Design Update
Kirk
McKinley, Project Manager, reviewed the alternatives analysis done for the
Interurban Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing between
Continuing,
Mr. McKinley described the base designs, various additive elements, and their
associated costs. The base design for
the bridges would include the structural elements that will enable the City to
add structural elements that can support upgraded missile barriers or an arch
in the future. Instead of a missile
barrier for the
He
explained that the art jury continues to consider designs on the missile
barrier and end panels, and that 90% design completion is expected by next
week. He emphasized that staff is
striving to stay within the construction schedule and budget, and staff expects
the project to be built when the first mile of
Bill
Clements, a member of the Art Jury and the Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services Board, emphasized that the City is bearing only 14% of the total cost
of the project. He urged the Council to
consider upgrading the missile barrier for the
Mayor
Hansen called for public comment.
(a)
(b)
Ros Bird,
(c) Richard
Johnsen, Shoreline, appreciated the efforts to date
on this project, but felt the Council should reconsider a single bridge concept
such as the Cottingham proposal. He felt a single diagonal bridge would be
more appropriate than two bridges so close together. He felt the form liner artwork should be more
reflective of elements in the original wetland environment. He wondered how high the bulkhead at
Responding
to
Councilmember
Grace asked if Alternative #2 included lighting, either in the base budget or
as an additive element. Kris Overleese, Capital Projects Manager, said the
Councilmember
Fimia expressed concern about the magnitude of the
project and the fact that the City seems to have “champagne tastes on a beer
budget.” She felt that aside from a
small portion of new sidewalk, the bridges do not have good access from the
adjacent neighborhoods and businesses.
She felt the bridges would not be fully utilized without such access. She expressed support for a more modest
design, noting the lack of funding for higher City priorities such as more
sidewalks. She noted that the City could
have pursued grants that were applied to other projects.
Councilmember
Chang asked about the possibility of acquiring more grant funding for the
project. Mr. McKinley said staff
continues to look for grants, and potential cost savings in the Aurora Roads
Fund could provide flexibility to pursue additive options.
Mayor
Hansen commented on the possibility of receiving up to $2 million in federal
funding through Senator Murray or Congressman Inslee.
Councilmember
Gustafson expressed support for the project, noting that it achieves the
long-range vision for the City.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen said one of the reasons the City
incorporated was to produce high quality projects. He thanked those involved in helping
establish the vision and felt the project is moving in the right direction.
Councilmember
Chang commented on the importance of having adequate lighting on the
bridges.
(c)
Discussion of Proposed 2005 Budget
Mr.
Burkett noted that the Finance Director was out of town for a family emergency.
Councilmember
Ransom asked what was included in the $750,000 line item for parks master
plans. He also inquired about the
possibility of acquiring additional park space next to
Dick
Deal, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, outlined the
expenditures for three parks master plans in the current 2005-2010 CIP:
Richmond Beach Saltwater Park ($166,000); Ronald Bog ($72,000); and Cromwell
Park ($455,000). He explained the $1.5
million placeholder for potential acquisition of parkland next to
Councilmember
Ransom asked about the timeline for the grant process and whether the area identified
near
Councilmember
Chang commented on the possibility of increasing City revenues through expanded
use of parks facilities. He felt the
City should reach out to the community more and advertise the great facilities
available in Shoreline. Mr. Deal
commented on the growing pattern of use in parks facilities. He was confident that usage would continue to
grow following the completion of the Spartan Gym Phase 2 improvements next
year.
Councilmember
Ransom requested performance data on parks and facilities before the Council
vote on the budget next week. He felt
that the data could be used to compare Shoreline’s performance with other
jurisdictions. He noted that generally,
adult recreation programs are not only self-supporting, but they help subsidize
other programs such as special recreation, seniors, and the teen program, which
are not self-sustaining. He said a 1996
study found that it cost $7,000 per acre to maintain ball fields, but the fees
for field use did not come close to recovering the actual cost. He felt the public should be aware that the
City heavily subsidizes many programs.
He said he is interested in knowing what the field cost figures are
today.
Mr.
Deal said he could provide performance data and statistics on parks usage, but
this data would not include a comparison to other jurisdictions. He explained the challenge of trying to make
an accurate comparison with other cities when each has a different emphasis and
philosophy. He noted the 2005 budget
proposal to raise field rates incrementally, and to let the public know it can
expect future increases.
Councilmember
Fimia commented on the lack of performance data for
2004 in several areas. Mr. Deal said
staff is still gathering the information for 2004, so it will not be available
until 2005.
Mr.
Burkett then outlined the major changes to the Planning and Development
Services budget for 2005, which include the elimination of the Development
Services Fund (DSF) and the proposal for a new capital projects planner. This new position, which would work with
business and property owners along the Aurora Corridor, would have no net
budget increase because it would be funded by the Aurora Corridor project. Eliminating the DSF would eliminate transfers
from the operating budget that have taken place in the past.
Councilmember
Fimia wondered why it seems the budget does not
reflect the Council goal of increased code enforcement, noting that Council
approved that goal over nine months ago.
She felt the changes could have been made in time to include in the 2005
budget. She also wondered why the budget
for building and inspection did not necessarily reflect a proportional decrease
in activity.
Tim
Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, said staff expects to
present alternatives for enhancing/strengthening the code enforcement program
in early 2005.
He
outlined department changes to improve customer service, which include moving
some technical staff from building and inspections into the permit services
team. He said the same thing has
occurred in planning resources so that more resources are shifted to direct
customer service.
Responding
to Councilmember Grace, Mr. Stewart explained that a one-time allocation for
consultant services for the Comprehensive Plan in 2004 accounts for the
$244,000 reduction in “Other Services and Charges.”
Councilmember
Ransom asked about the cost recovery rates for planning and permitting. He recalled that the department used to have
an 80% recovery rate on permits.
Mr.
Stewart explained that the City recovers 100% of the direct costs for plan
review and building permits, but not on land-use permits, which are very
labor-intensive. He said the fees for
land use permits are nowhere near the recovery level, and generally do not cover the customer service costs. He indicated that the recovery rate has not
decreased.
Responding
to Councilmember Chang, Mr. Stewart said staff is optimistic there will be
increased development activity in 2005 as the Aurora Corridor project moves
forward, but recently there has been a slight decrease in permit activity. He commented on the volatile nature of permit
activity, noting that staff monitors it on a monthly basis.
Referring
to page 374 of the proposed budget, Councilmember Fimia
asked for an explanation of the 65% increase in the line item for travel. Patty Rader, Senior Budget Analyst,
explained that it is not a 65% increase, but the result of merging travel
expenditures contained in the Development Services Fund and the General
Fund.
Mr.
Burkett then outlined the proposed changes to the Public Works budget. He said in general, the department is
shifting away from contracting for services with the County in favor of adding
new staff. The 2005 budget proposes a
new position of associate traffic engineer, which staff believes will increase
productivity and better respond to the City goal related to neighborhood streets. The budget includes an overall increase of
$82,000 in lease costs and $35,000 for the Pavement Management Study. The department made a reduction of $80,000 by
recalculating its overhead charges to the Street Fund and Storm Water
Fund. The 2005 budget also includes a
new cost of $340,000 for debt service on the $4.1 million in outstanding loans
for storm drainage projects.
Responding
to Mayor Hansen, Mr. Burkett affirmed that the City would begin repaying the
Public Works Trust Fund loans starting in 2005.
He clarified that the loan proceeds are recorded in the Surface Water
Management fund, but the actual funds are invested until the project progresses
to the point where the City must pay for the construction. This is permitted under the Public Works
Trust Fund loan program.
Responding
to Councilmember Grace, Ms. Rader clarified that the 2005 reduction in Street
Operation and Pavement Resurfacing is due to a large carryover in the 2004
budget for the pavement management program.
The major reduction in the Public Facility and Vehicle Maintenance &
Operations is due to the distribution of those costs to the actual programs
within other department budgets.
Councilmember Grace wondered
where the costs for maintaining new facilities is
reflected in the 2005 budget. Mr.
Burkett explained that the future operating costs of new capital improvement
projects are included in the City’s six-year Capital Improvement Plan.
Councilmember Fimia supported the reduction in consulting fees, but
expressed continued concern about the budget reduction in the NTSP. She asserted that if there is sufficient
demand for the program, then it makes sense to allocate more money to it. She expressed concern that there are 42
active residential areas and only two projects completed in 2003. She wondered if there were updated statistics
for the program.
Mr. Haines explained that
the reduction in the NTSP is not a true reduction in the program because 2004
included a carryover from 2003. He said
the number of completed projects is not due to a lack of effort, but to the
nature of the overall program, which is neighborhood-driven. He explained that neighborhoods have an
extensive responsibility to move their projects forward, and there is a certain
amount of delay associated with that effort.
He said the City is working on ways to help the neighborhoods become
more effective and proactive. He
clarified that the NTSP looks at “spot needs” as opposed to the needs of an
entire neighborhood.
Mr. Burkett said the City
would provide additional statistics, but anecdotally he knows the program is
much more effective than it used to be.
He noted the pedestrian crossing flags that are currently in use on 8th
Avenue NW.
Mayor Hansen surmised that
there really has not been a reduction in the NTSP. Referring to page 270 of the proposed budget,
Mr. Burkett noted that NTSP funding has increased each year since 2002.
Councilmember Fimia commented on the continued unmet need, noting that
Shoreline has “30 years of catching up to do.”
She pointed out that other jurisdictions have started building medians
instead of full traffic circles in order to calm traffic at entrances to
residential streets. Acknowledging the
proposal to hire an associate traffic engineer, she wished to ensure that there
are also adequate capital resources to fill the need.
At 9:59 p.m. Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to extend the meeting until 11:30 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Councilmember Fimia spoke in support of more capital funding for
sidewalks, noting there are 26 arterial miles in Shoreline without walkways or
sidewalks. She said citizen surveys have
identified sidewalks as a high priority, and the Bond Advisory Committee
estimated a need for $4-6 million for sidewalk construction, particularly near
elementary schools. She supported
increasing the budget for sidewalk construction by $1 million annually.
Mr. Burkett provided an
overview of the 2005 portion of the six-year Capital Improvement Plan and its
associated projects.
Mr. Haines explained that
approximately 58% of arterial roads lack traditional concrete sidewalks, and a far higher percentage of residential
streets also lack sidewalks.
Councilmember Fimia felt the Council should have a future discussion on
City priorities related to sidewalk construction, both on arterial streets and
residential streets.
She said a related issue
involves the debate about whether to remove street trees to build
sidewalks.
Mr. Haines said the Council
would have an opportunity early next year to discuss sidewalk priorities as a
part of the Transportation Master Plan.
He outlined the current plan to build sidewalks in Shoreline, both as
stand-alone projects and as parts of other capital facilities projects such as
the Aurora Corridor and Interurban Trail.
He estimated that development would build a half-mile of new sidewalks
annually as a mitigation requirement.
Councilmember Gustafson
asked if the City still has the “in lieu of” fund to build sidewalks in high
priority areas. Mr. Haines responded
affirmatively, but said the relatively small balance in the fund reflects the
lack of residential development in Shoreline.
Councilmember Gustafson felt
it might be a good time for the Bond Advisory Committee (BAC) to revisit the
issue of sidewalks. Mayor Hansen noted
the past BAC recommendation that the timing was not right for a bond issue on
sidewalk construction. Mr. Burkett noted
that staff had planned to reconvene the BAC in the next few months in response
to Council’s recent request.
Mayor Hansen said the point
of the BAC is to get the community “on board” to sell these projects, otherwise
they will not pass.
Councilmember Fimia noted that the CIP ties up money for projects that
have not been identified as high citizen priorities. She felt bonds should be used for amenities
rather than essential items such as sidewalks, traffic congestion mitigation,
road maintenance, and surface water management.
She said the public has already expressed its priorities through the
citizen surveys.
Councilmember Chang proposed
that $1 million be set aside in the General Fund for sidewalk construction
starting in 2005, since it will take time for the BAC to prepare a bond
issue.
Mr. Burkett noted that
Councilmember Fimia made the same proposal
earlier. He said potential funding
options include reducing other capital projects, general fund reserves, or a
long-term approach using bonds.
Councilmember Fimia noted that sidewalk funding could come from reductions
in the parks master plans, Aurora Avenue pedestrian bridge, and 15th
Avenue NE. She said surveys indicate
that the public is mostly satisfied with parks facilities.
Mayor Hansen expressed
interest in exploring the City of Auburn’s SOS (Save Our Streets) legislation,
which allocates a portion of property taxes collected to a roads fund. He felt this could provide a dedicated
revenue source for specific capital projects such as sidewalks. Mr. Burkett said staff would provide
information on the Auburn legislation.
Councilmember Fimia distributed proposed budget amendments on behalf of
herself and Councilmembers Chang and Ransom related
to human services funding and sidewalk construction.
Continuing the staff report,
Mr. Burkett noted that the proposed 2005 budget includes a 2% market adjustment
in the salary schedule and that some job classifications are proposed for
change. He briefly discussed interfund transfers, reserves, and the creation of a
Facilities Maintenance Fund. He then outlined
the proposal to implement a utility tax on the surface water fee that would
generate approximately $150,000 in annual revenue.
Councilmember Grace
requested more information on human service needs in order to make an informed
decision about the proposal by Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, and Ransom to increase funding by $100,000.
Mayor Hansen called for
public comment.
(a)
Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, expressed concern about
the projected use of reserves in the 2005 budget. She said although the reserve balance exceeds
the minimum amount adopted by Council, reserves should only be used for
essential services, such as sidewalks.
She noted that reserve funds are allocated to the City Hall project,
despite the fact that citizens did not rate the City Hall project a high
priority. She pointed out that the
current budget projection for 2004 is $65.5 million, but the 2004 projected
budget was only $51 million. She
wondered if the $77.4 million budget for 2005 would increase in a similar
way. Referring to a City chart, she
noted that Kent and Auburn are the only two cities that have higher property
tax rates than Shoreline. She commented
on the likelihood that Shoreline residents’ property tax rate would increase if
the City passes an SOS bill.
(b) Janet Way,
Shoreline, commented on the cost shifting between surface water, roads, and
parks, noting she does not want to see parks considered as “dumping grounds”
for storm water runoff. She said if
parks are used for runoff, the City must ensure there is no discharge of runoff
into wetlands. She concurred that people
are most interested in issues such as neighborhood traffic safety, sidewalks,
and parking. She said she would like the
City to pay for the light in the Paramount Park parking lot, which she has been
funding for years. She also expressed
concern about a homeless camp that has been established in Paramount Park.
(c) Richard Johnsen, Shoreline, pointed out that many neighborhoods
located on arterial streets, such as Meridian Park, are not part of the
NTSP. He suggested that the program be
modified to include arterial streets because some neighborhoods are being
neglected. He said he has asked the City
several times to stripe the lanes on Meridian Avenue and to enforce the speed
limit, but to no avail. He expressed
support for the proposal to broadcast Planning Commission, PRCS Board, and
Library Board meetings on Channel 21.
Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Johnsen
said he would like Meridian Avenue to delineated by travel lanes and parking
lanes, as was originally intended.
Councilmember Fimia asked if the NTSP includes arterial streets. Mr. Haines clarified that arterials are not
part of the NTSP since they traditionally have been eligible for grants and
other funding that neighborhood streets cannot achieve. He said the NTSP is
specifically reserved for non-arterial roadways.
Councilmember Fimia wished to ensure that the NTSP addresses neighborhood
traffic as a whole and doesn’t just move the problem from one neighborhood to
the next. She felt the NTSP should also
include arterials.
Mr. Haines said that
arterials do not lend themselves to calming in the same way neighborhood
streets do, so the solutions are generally more comprehensive and more
expensive. He said the Planning Commission
is likely to provide a recommendation about Meridian Avenue, and that the
Transportation Master Plan would be a good opportunity to establish policy
guidance.
Councilmember Fimia said if arterials are excluded and treated
differently when there are speeding/traffic issues, there is a greater chance
of ending up with a major project that can cause problems. She emphasized the need to find a middle
ground between neighborhood calming solutions and major capital projects.
Deputy Mayor Jespen said the chart Ms. Ryu
referred to describes the total property tax rate,
which can be misleading when you consider all the various taxing districts in
Shoreline. He clarified that the City
only receives about 10% of the total property tax collected. Given the City’s efforts to enhance public
participation in City government, he found it unusual that none of the meetings
of these junior taxing districts are broadcast in Shoreline. He proposed adding $75,000 to professional
services to cover the cost of videotaping their public meetings. He clarified that participation by the
various districts would be voluntary.
He felt this proposal would allow the community to see all of its elected
officials and facilitate better understanding about taxes in Shoreline.
Councilmember Ransom
supported the proposal, but felt that the school district should pay for its
own videotaping services.
Councilmember Gustafson
expressed support for the general concept, but felt that the City should
discuss it first with the agencies to see if they would be interested. He said he would like the City to pursue more
partnering opportunities, but felt they could be accomplished without expending
so much money.
Councilmember Fimia felt the proposal could be part of a larger process
in which a committee could analyze many different options and make
recommendations on funding priorities.
Councilmember Chang
supported having a dialogue with the various districts before making such a
proposal. He felt the City could also
pursue other options that may be less costly and possibly more effective. He agreed that voters should be educated
about how their tax dollars are spent.
Councilmember Grace said the
City could move forward with videotaping the Planning Commission and other City
boards because those are City functions. However, it is up to the districts to
decide whether they want to broadcast their meetings, and some must do that in
consultation with their stakeholders. He
felt it would be worthwhile to have some level of funding so the City could
explore possibilities for enhancing existing services, perhaps $25,000. He suggested that other jurisdictions might
decide to videotape their meetings as a result.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen noted that the fire district and school district
have looked into videotaping meetings and decided against it. He argued that since the special taxing
districts spend a high percentage of the property tax paid by Shoreline
residents, the City should facilitate showing the citizens how this money is
spent. He argued that the City has a
total budget of $77 million, while these districts spend $112 million without
providing the general public with easy access to their decision-making
process. He said if it is not worth the
cost to provide this additional service, then it might not be worthwhile for
the City Council to broadcast its meetings.
Councilmember Gustafson
proposed that the Council appropriate $10,000 to $15,000 as a placeholder to
pursue this opportunity.
Councilmember Ransom
explained the proposal to appropriate an additional $100,000 to the human
services funding. This includes
allocating the $33,000 of unmet needs identified by the Human Services Advisory
Committee, $25,000 for dental services, and allowing the committee to make
recommendations on the remaining funds.
He identified certain budget items, such as professional services, staff
dues, subscriptions, and food and travel that could be reduced to make this
additional funding available. He pointed
out that Shoreline only spends $3.90 per capita on human services, whereas
Kirkland spends $8.11 and Bellevue spends $15.
He favored a $2 increase in the per capita support to human services.
Mayor Hansen expressed
concern about the potential transfer of responsibility for human services from
the County to the City, and on the unlimited amount of need for such
services.
Councilmember Grace asked
for clarification of the proposal to allocate $25,000 for dental services. He wondered how they would be provided and
how to ensure that Shoreline citizens would benefit from it.
Councilmember Gustafson
emphasized the importance of human services funding, but agreed that the County
should assume more responsibility. He
felt the City should work with its legislators to enhance human services funding.
Councilmember Ransom
explained that the Human Services Advisory Committee could provide a
recommendation on who provides the services, which could be contracted with
King County Public Health.
Councilmember Fimia commended staff for the report on unmet human service
needs, noting that dental care is the greatest unmet health need in
Shoreline. She outlined her largely
unsuccessful efforts on the King County Council to try to allocate more money
for human services. She agreed that
while some services are a regional responsibility, the City could provide more
funding for local needs through modest reductions in non-essential items such
as consultants, dues, registration and training, food and travel, and
subscriptions. She felt the Human
Services Advisory Committee could consider various uses for the additional
funding, including housing, a potential health clinic, a permanent food bank,
and domestic violence.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen said he could support $33,000 in additional funding,
since the need and service providers have been identified.
Councilmember Ransom
proposed a budget amendment to reduce the gambling tax by 2% from 11% to 9% for
one year. He said this would have no
impact on the operating budget and probably no impact on the existing capital
budget because the overall revenues are increasing from $2.5 million in 2003 to
$3,350,000 in 2004. He argued that
casinos are some of Shoreline’s biggest employers and the biggest source of
revenue. Owners have indicated that the
11% tax has become an increasing burden and risks putting them out of
business. He pointed out that after
expenses and payment to the City and State, casinos are left with only 7% of
their revenues to pay back their investors and income tax. He felt the City should do something to
ensure that they remain in the community and keep people employed since casinos
have paid Shoreline a rich benefit of $2.5-$3.35 million annually. He also mentioned the possibility that the
Aurora Corridor project could have an adverse impact on casino revenue.
Mayor Hansen conceded that
some jurisdictions have lower gambling tax rates, but some have higher rates,
and yet some are considering raising the tax rate. He did not support a decrease in the gambling
tax rate.
Councilmember Ransom noted
that the state legislature passed a maximum gambling tax reduction from 20% to
10% four times, but the Governor would not sign it into law. He reiterated that the City owes the casinos
some consideration since they are major taxpayers in Shoreline.
Mr. Burkett concluded that
these proposals would be voted upon next week.
8. ADJOURNMENT
At 11:30 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting
adjourned.
_________________________