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
Steve
Burkett, City Manager, reported that the Comprehensive Plan 2004 Update and the
master plans for Transportation, Surface Water and Parks, Recreation and Open
Space were distributed this evening and will be discussed on December 6.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: none
Councilmember Gustafson reported that the WRIA 8 draft
report has been published with a Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. He distributed an executive summary to
Councilmembers and provided the locations and schedule for public meetings to
be held in December. He urged the public
to provide comments on the draft.
Councilmembers Chang and Fimia reported on their
attendance at a HUD seminar regarding various HUD programs available in
Shoreline. Councilmember Fimia noted
that the meeting was in response to a request from Councilmember Chang.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Mark
Mitchell, Shoreline, commented that local casinos are paying the City at least
three times what they make in annual income.
He noted that many casinos have gone broke, and that several cities have
lower gambling taxes than Shoreline. He
urged the City to approve a 2% reduction in gambling taxes for a year so that
local casinos can avoid bankruptcy. He
noted that his casino, Club Hollywood, is an $11 million investment in
Shoreline.
(b) William
Hubbell, Shoreline, also urged the Council to reduce the gambling tax by 2%,
noting that local casinos make many contributions of time, labor, and money to
the community. He said the partnership
between the City and casinos “needs an overhaul,” and the City should consider
all options for keeping local casinos viable.
He said local casinos help build the tax base, provide jobs, and support
City needs.
(c) Tim
Iszley,
(d) Larry
Wheaton, Shoreline, said Goldie’s casino employs 160 people and paid the City
$800,000, despite its net profit of less than $200,000. He felt the Aurora Corridor project would
have a detrimental effect on business.
He urged the Council to consider implementing a 2% gambling tax
reduction for 1-2 years.
(e)
Henk Kunnen, Shoreline, expressed support for a four-lane configuration
on
(f)
Harley O’Neil, Shoreline, commented on the urgency of completing the
(g)
Barbara Lacy, Shoreline, noted that the next speaker, Barbara Guthrie,
has voluntarily taken samples of the water in
(h)
Barbara Guthrie, Shoreline, read a letter from the ELNA board to the City requesting the City’s
financial support of the Lake Stewardship Program. She provided background on the KCLS program
and explained that the county would begin offering the program as a contract
service. She said she would be willing
to continue volunteering her services in the future. She pointed out that
(i)
(j)
Chuck Leone, Shoreline, opposed the
Mr.
Burkett said staff is evaluating the
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Gustafson
moved approval of the agenda.
Councilmember Grace seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon motion by Councilmember Gustafson,
seconded by Councilmember Grace and carried 6-1, with Deputy Mayor Jepsen
dissenting, the following consent calendar items were approved:
Minutes of Workshop Meeting of
Minutes of Regular Meeting of
Minutes of Special Meeting of
Minutes of Special Meeting of
Minutes of Dinner Meeting of
Minutes of Regular Meeting of
Approval of expenses and payroll for the period ending
Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the
Interlocal Agreement for jail services with
8. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a)
Ordinance No. 365
levying the general taxes for the City of Shoreline in King County for the
fiscal year commencing January 1, 2005, on all property both real and personal,
in said City which is subject to taxation for the purpose of paying sufficient revenue
to conduct City business for the ensuing year as required by law
Debbie Tarry, Finance
Director, briefly reviewed the background on establishing the property tax
rate. The proposal is to increase the
property tax rate by 1%.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to pass Ordinance No.
365. Councilmember Grace seconded the
motion.
Responding to Councilmember
Ransom, Ms. Tarry affirmed that an increase of more than 1% in the property tax
rate would require a vote of the people.
Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Ms. Tarry explained that the
current inflation rate is higher than 1%.
Councilmember Ransom asked
Ms. Tarry to explain the relationship between the property tax rate, assessed
valuation, and the portion of the tax the City collects in order to understand
why even though the rate is going down, their own assessed valuation may go up
on their individual homes.
Ms. Tarry explained that the
total property tax a Shoreline property owner pays goes to many jurisdictions;
the City of
Councilmember Ransom wondered
if a 1% increase would apply to school districts, which receive 60-66% of the
property tax collected. Ms. Tarry said
the school district rate is established by local elections. Mayor Hansen clarified that the school
district establishes a levy amount, which is then divided by the assessed
valuation to determine the rate.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen pointed
out that the owner of a median-valued home in Shoreline paid approximately $350
to the City last year (roughly 10% of the total property tax bill). A 5% projected increase in assessed valuation
for 2005 means the same owner will likely pay about $353 in 2005.
Councilmember Gustafson said
despite the fact that a 1% increase is not keeping up with inflation, he would
not support the motion because he feels property taxes should only be increased
by a vote of the people.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried
6-1, with Councilmember Gustafson dissenting and Ordinance No. 365 setting the
property tax levy for 2005 was passed.
(b)
Ordinance No. 367
establishing a utility tax on the City Stormwater Utility, and amending Shoreline
Municipal Code 3.32.020
Ms. Tarry explained that
Ordinance No. 367 expands the definition of sewage operation to include
operation of a surface water utility and establishes a 6% surface water utility
tax. She explained that 41 other cities in
Mayor Hansen called for
public comment.
(a) Janet
Way, Shoreline, said most people don’t realize they pay for surface water
management, and it is the City’s responsibility to help neighborhoods solve
surface water problems. She said all
surface water eventually ends up in creeks and waterways, so the City should
spend surface water funds wisely and in ways that protect the environment. She urged the City to pursue surface water
improvements such as natural drainage, sustainable drainage, and SEA Streets.
She also urged citizens to study the draft surface water master plan coming
before the Council in the next few months.
Councilmember Ransom moved to pass Ordinance No.
367. Councilmember Grace seconded the
motion.
Councilmember Fimia opposed
Ordinance No. 367, expressing her fundamental policy concern about levying
taxes on utility fees. She felt the City
could get an additional $150,000 from other sources without imposing this kind
of “ back door tax.” She said the tax is
so incremental that people are not really aware of it, but it is significant. She felt the tax could have a significant impact
on commercial businesses and larger residential areas. She wondered if there were any limitations on
how much the City could charge, and why the preference is for a utility tax
rather than a rate increase.
Mr. Burkett said the Council
is limited to what is approved through the fee ordinance. He noted that Council could determine any
future fees/rates as part of the master plan discussions starting in
December. He explained that revenue
generated from the utility tax is available for general use, but the utility
fee is restricted to the surface water program.
He said this is one source of revenue available to cities to provide
general services.
Mayor Hansen stated that
although he does not generally support a “tax on taxes,” he is a pragmatist who
realizes the City requires a certain amount of taxes with which to operate the
City. He said he would support the
measure.
Councilmember Ransom said
this tax is part of the overall effort to make surface water management a
self-supporting enterprise fund, as are the other utilities. He supported the motion because the majority
of cities raise revenue in this way and surface water issues are a real problem
in Shoreline.
Councilmember Gustafson
concurred with Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Ransom, noting that the tax puts
Shoreline in line with the majority of
Councilmember Fimia clarified
that the utility tax would be applied to the General Fund, not to specific
surface water projects.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 5-2,
with Councilmembers Chang and Fimia dissenting; and Ordinance No. 367 imposing
a surface water utility tax was passed.
(c)
Ordinance No. 366
adopting the annual budget of the City of
Ms. Tarry noted that this
ordinance reflects the 2005 budget as proposed by staff, which includes the
2005 salary schedule and fee schedule.
Mayor Hansen called for
public comment.
(a) Cindy
Ryu, Shoreline, expressed concern about the expenditure of reserve funds in the
2005 budget and urged the Council to consider maintaining the current reserve
balance. She noted that the property tax
and surface water tax will only increase 2005 revenues by $263,449, which does
not equal even one-tenth of the reserves being reduced. She urged the Council to proceed wisely and
consider what is really important for the citizens of Shoreline.
Councilmember Grace moved to pass Ordinance No.
366. Councilmember Gustafson seconded
the motion.
Councilmember Ransom moved that the Human
Services budget be increased by $33,039 to restore the cuts made to social
service programs and to fund Community Health, Volunteer Transportation and
Child Care resources as recommended by the Human Services Committee. Councilmember Chang seconded the motion.
Councilmember Grace moved a substitute motion to
change the amount from $33,039 to $62,113.
Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.
Councilmember Grace stated
that he wished to fully fund the total amount requested by all the agencies. He
said $62,113 is the difference between what the Ad Hoc Human Services Committee
submitted and what they approved, which represents about a $30,000 increase for
fiscal year 2005.
Councilmember Fimia wished to
clarify whether this amount would fund Community Health, Volunteer Transportation
and Child Care Resources.
Rob Beem, Human Services
Manager, explained that the $62,113 represents the amount necessary to fully
fund each of the requests for agencies that were recommended for funding by the
committee, as well as the inclusion of three new programs. The $33,039 figure is the committee’s
recommendation that restores funding for all agencies recommended for funding
at their current year level.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia, Councilmember Grace clarified that Community Health, Volunteer
Transportation, and Child Care Services are not included in this amount because
the committee did not recommend them for funding.
Councilmember Fimia
maintained that the committee’s guidance was to restore the 10% reductions and
fund Community Health and Volunteer Transportation if funds became
available. She noted that staff
recommended funding for Child Care Services.
Mayor Hansen stated that he
would support restoring funding in 2005 for those agencies that were
recommended for a 10% reduction.
Councilmember Gustafson
expressed concern about using reserves to fund these programs. He supported no more than the amount it would
take to restore funding to agencies that received a reduction. He felt the committee could make additional
recommendations at a later time if it determines there are legitimate human
service needs.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen commented
that many federal, state, and county human service programs have suffered
significant budget cuts, and these would likely “trickle down” to the City. He did not feel the City could afford to
restore funding to all programs. He said
he could support $33,039 but was undecided about $62,113.
Councilmember Grace clarified
that anything above $33,039 would be allocated based on the committee’s further
recommendations.
Councilmember Ransom
supported Councilmember Grace’s motion, although he had originally wished to
allocate an additional $100,000. He
reminded the Council that the per capita support for human services in
Shoreline is only $3.92, which is very low compared to other cities. He said the $62,113 increase would only bring
Shoreline up to $5 per capita, which is still much lower than most cities.
Councilmember Fimia
reiterated that the ad hoc committee did not recommend funding at the levels
Councilmember Grace suggested, but it did recommend Community Health and
Volunteer Transportation if additional funding could be found. She said with the addition of Child Care
Services, these three programs would only require an additional $15,000. She felt the funding could be made available
through modest reductions to non-essential budget items, such as dues and
subscriptions, registration and training, and food and travel.
Councilmember Gustafson
reiterated his view that the Council should wait and see what its final budget
figures are before allocating more funding.
He felt it was premature to provide funding without really knowing the
actual need.
Mayor Hansen agreed with
Councilmember Grace that the ad hoc committee should decide the distribution of
whatever amount is approved.
Councilmember Chang commented
on the ongoing human service needs in Shoreline and on the importance of
“investing in humanity.” He emphasized
that Shoreline spends much less on human services than other jurisdictions. He said it is time to share with those in
need. He supported Councilmember Fimia’s
proposal to allocate an additional $15,000 to the $62,113, which would still
only bring Shoreline up to $6 per capita.
Responding to Councilmember
Grace, Mr. Beem stated that he felt the ad hoc committee could be reconvened to
consider additional allocations.
Councilmember Grace felt the committee should decide how any additional
funding is distributed.
After further discussion, Councilmember
Fimia moved to amend the substitute motion to add an additional $15,000
(raising the total allocation to $77,113) with direction that the Ad Hoc Human
Services Committee consider funding for Community Health, Volunteer
Transportation and Child Care Resources.
Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion. A vote was taken on the amendment, which
failed 3-4, with Councilmembers Chang, Fimia and Ransom voting in the
affirmative.
A vote was taken on the substitute motion to
allocate an additional $62,113 to the Human Services budget, which carried 5-2,
with Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.
Councilmember Fimia moved that Neighborhood
Block Watch signs and any
(e)
Motion to appoint a
Planning Commissioner for a term to expire on
Councilmember Grace reported
that the subcommittee comprised of himself, Mayor Hansen and Councilmember
Gustafson met on November 18 and interviewed 8 applicants for the Planning
Commission vacancy created by Commissioner Doering’s resignation. He said the subcommittee unanimously
recommends Michael Broili to fill the vacancy.
Upon motion by Councilmember Grace, seconded by
Councilmember Ransom and unanimously carried, Michael Broili was appointed to fill
an unexpired term on the Planning Commission.
Staff then presented an
amended version of Ordinance No. 366 to reflect the changes approved by
Council. It was noted that $72,000 was
taken from the fund balance to cover the additional expenditures.
A vote was taken on the motion to approve
Ordinance No. 366 as amended, which carried 6-1, with Councilmember Fimia
dissenting, and the 2005 budget was approved.
(d)
Direction on the North
City Project
Mr. Burkett provided a brief
introduction, noting that a majority of the Council seems to approve the
alternatives identified as Option 1 and Option 2.
Mayor Hansen called for
public comment.
(a)
Stan Terry, Shoreline,
said the opposition is trying to depict the North City project as wasteful and
unnecessary, but nothing could be further from the truth. He said North City is an economic development
project that will fulfill the needs of businesses, residents, commuters, and
pedestrians. He expressed support for
the original three-lane configuration, noting that Option 1 spends the same
amount of money for something a bit less.
He said the biggest complaint he hears is the difficulty of accessing 15th
Avenue NE from residential streets. He
commented on the pedestrian fatality that occurred at the intersection of NE
172nd and 15th Avenue NE.
He felt the installation of a stoplight at NE 172nd would
improve access for motorists and provide increased safety for pedestrians.
(b)
(c)
Gregg Paisley,
(d)
Gary East, North City
property owner, thanked all those who participated in last week’s forum on the
North City Project. He said although
there was much debate and disagreement, the project has a tremendous amount of
support in its original configuration.
He said he could employ the tactics of the opposition to encourage
support for the project, but he prefers that the Council consider all the work
that was done in arriving at the original design configuration for the
project.
(e)
Cindy Ryu, Shoreline,
pointed out that the North City project is funded entirely by the City, whereas
the City’s Capital Improvement Program is funded mostly from grants. She said despite the $2 million contribution
from Seattle City Light, ultimately the ratepayers of Shoreline would be paying
for the project. She felt that a properly
noticed community meeting should be held because the vast majority of
stakeholders neither heard about last week’s forum nor were they able to
attend. She felt the business and
property owners would appreciate hearing from those who are underwriting the
cost of the project. She urged the
Council to spend more time gathering public input and exploring more options,
such as Councilmember Fimia’s proposal.
(f)
Richard Johnsen,
Shoreline, generally supported the design features of the North City project,
but felt a three-lane configuration would create problems for motorists trying
to access 15th Avenue from neighborhood streets. He also expressed concern about the
transition from four lanes to three lanes at NE 180th Street and at
NE 172nd Street. He said it
is difficult for motorists to suddenly merge into a three-lane
configuration. He encouraged the Council
to approve a plan that creates a more even traffic flow.
(g)
Alan Sharrah, Director
of Operations for Frank Lumber, said he attended last week’s forum and noticed
the frustration from people on both sides, despite the overall consensus that
improvements are needed. He said nobody
is opposed to improving North City, but the three-lane configuration “is
choking the business district” by channeling hundreds of cars out of the
business district daily. He said the
project lacks adequate sidewalks and that neighborhood traffic has
increased. He urged the Council to
address the concerns of all stakeholders to achieve a “win-win” situation.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At
_________________________