CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

Monday, December 7, 1998

6:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Spartan 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 6:34 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 Councilmembers Hansen and Lee, who arrived shortly thereafter.

Councilmember Hansen arrived at 6:37 p.m.

3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS

Robert Deis, City Manager, noted the departure of Lynn Devoir, the City’s first Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director. She will become the Executive Director of the Washington Recreation and Park Association. Mr. Deis commended Ms. Devoir for creating one of the best recreation programs for a city of Shoreline’s size, including increasing pool attendance. He also noted her actions to privatize parks maintenance services, which will save the City over a million dollars in the next five years. Mayor Jepsen then presented Ms. Devoir with a plaque in recognition of her dedication to the City of Shoreline.

Councilmember Lee arrived at 6:42 p.m.

Mr. Deis distributed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Richmond Beach Library. Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, noted a public hearing on the DEIS on December 8 and the expiration of the comment period on January 4, 1999.

Mr. Deis concluded that the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is considering an action to support the pursuit of the Olympics in the Puget Sound area. He noted questions of whether the PSRC has any standing to take the action and of whether the Olympic Committee would recognize such an action. The PSRC has contacted Mayor Jepsen about Shoreline’s position. Mr. Deis felt it is hard to ignore that the Seattle City Council voted not to pursue the Olympics.

Mayor Jepsen said a vote will come up on this issue in a week or two. He stated his view that there are more important issues for PSRC to consider and his inclination to recognize Seattle’s "no" vote.

Councilmember Hansen commented that this is well beyond Shoreline’s capacity to do anything about and should be treated as such. Councilmember King concurred.

Councilmember Gustafson noted Shoreline’s contribution to the Goodwill Games. He said it was a tremendous experience for the Shoreline community. Therefore, he supported pursuit of the Olympic Games, as did Councilmember Lee.

Councilmember Ransom agreed with Councilmember Hansen that Shoreline does not have much to offer, even though having the Olympics in the area might be a good thing. He said King County and the City of Seattle should be the leads in such an endeavor.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery did not support seeking out the Olympics.

4. COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmember Gustafson reported on the dedication of the new lighting at Twin Ponds Park, noting it resulted from citizen support.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery noted Sound Transit meetings.

Mayor Jepsen and Councilmembers King and Ransom noted their attendance at the National League of Cities Conference.

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS

(a) Richard Matthews, 930 NW 165^th Street, supported the Shoreview Park improvement plan and Council’s decision to locate the ball field at Site 2. He said Council’s actions will preserve habitat by reducing the scope of the original King County project, moving the ball field to accommodate habitat, and allocating more than $300,000 to improve it.

(b) Enid Hoehne, 2020 NW 195^th Street, said she purchased a condominium near Richmond Beach Saltwater Park because the park offered a level, safe walking trail. She expressed dissatisfaction about the mediation process with the owners of the property neighboring the trail.

(c) Jim Cox, 1605 NW 192^nd Street, spoke on behalf of the police neighborhood center volunteers, saying he is working on a project to provide safe rides home on New Year’s Eve. He said the possibility of using City vehicles to provide these rides is being investigated, and he wished to ensure there is no opposition from Council to this idea.

(d) Ed Stay, 17015 15^th Avenue NW, affirmed the Council’s decision to locate the ball field at Site 2 in Shoreview Park. He emphasized his interest in the Boeing Creek watershed. Noting a critical need for fields and a lack of viable sites for new fields, he asserted that the environment is compatible with siting the ball field at Site 2.

(e) Mike Jacobs, Richmond Little League (RLL), thanked the Council for its decision on Shoreview Park. He reiterated that there is a shortage of fields, and he said many little league players will use this field. He commented that RLL is committed to raising and contributing $25,000 to support the project. He stressed that $300,000 in mitigation will insure that the development is friendly to the habitat.

Mr. Jacobs called for supporters of Site 2 to raise their hands. Estimating the audience at 200 people, Councilmember Ransom counted approximately 150 people with their hands raised.

(f) Evan Stoll, speaking on behalf of the Hillwood Soccer Club, supported the Council decision to locate the little league field in Shoreview Park at Site 2.

(g) Aaron Mack, 204 NW 177^th Street, reiterated the shortage of baseball fields, particularly those with 60-foot diamonds. He supported Site 2.

(h) Greg LeClair, 17241 13^th Street NW, acknowledged the difficulty of selecting the site for the little league field. He asserted the need for a high-quality venue. He said thousands of young people will use the little league field, and it will be a major asset to the community for years to come.

(i) Tom McCormick, 19814 Dayton Place N, asserted the importance of a strong recreation program—including an adequate number of play fields—to the community. As both a parent and a coach, he supported the decision to develop a field at Shoreview Park. He said more fields mean that more children can play baseball.

RECESS

At 7:20 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared a five-minute recess. At 7:25 p.m., the meeting reconvened.

6. WORKSHOP ITEMS

(a) Richmond Beach Saltwater Park Trail Mitigation Recommendation

Mr. Deis introduced Kristoff Bauer, Assistant to the City Manager, and Marty Stump, who prepared the architectural drawings for the lowering of the trail. In response to Councilmember King, Mr. Deis distributed Mr. Stump’s full report to the City on the Richmond Beach Saltwater Park Trail. The report sets out a long-term, multi-year vision for the bluff.

Mr. Deis reviewed the history of the trail issue, including the formation of a committee to make a recommendation to Council regarding improvements to the trail to resolve concerns of adjoining property owners while preserving the trail for public use. He said that the committee reached consensus on many things, but not on the issue of lowering the trail. Two votes were taken at the committee meeting on June 14, 1998. The first vote was seven to five against lowering the trail. The second vote was six to five, with one abstention, for lowering the trail. After the final report was received from the landscape architect, the adjoining property owners offered to contribute $20,000 to the cost of lowering the trail. The committee convened again on October 14 to clarify all the issues.

Mr. Deis addressed the outstanding concerns about lowering the trail. He said that the geotechnical engineering report indicated no environmental impacts from lowering the trail. He also pointed out that without vegetation maintenance, the view from the trail will eventually be lost. So the recommendation includes tree trimming and the clearing of blackberry bushes and Scotch broom. He explained that in any public project some funds are spent to benefit the neighbors directly impacted by the project. He said lowering the trail does not set a precedent regarding the use of public funds. He asserted that many improvement projects have both public and private benefits. As in this case, where the property owners are offering to contribute, sharing private and public dollars according to some formula of public and private benefit is nothing new. Mr. Deis concluded that the King County Executive increased the amount of money for the City when the parks transfer was negotiated to address the unresolved trail issue. So the funds were dedicated to this project.

After Mr. Deis described the recommendations outlined in the staff report on page 4, he pointed out that encroachment has arisen as an issue for four or five property lines. He said encroachment is an issue the City inherited from King County and there has been almost no monitoring of right-of-way. As a general rule, people will be moved back to their property lines as soon as the trail issue is resolved.

Mr. Deis then referred to the schematics in the Council packet on pages 16 and 18. He emphasized that tonight’s discussion deals with the mid-section of the trail only. The two ends were included in the drawings as a part of a possible long-range master plan.

Mr. Bauer explained the two votes taken on the lowering of the trail. The first vote was on whether there was general support for lowering the trail. This vote was seven to five against lowering the trail. The second vote, taken on the same night, was whether there was agreement on lowering the trail in accordance with the plan presented at the meeting. This vote was six to five, with one abstention, in favor of lowering the trail. Mr. Deis added that this vote is consistent with the idea that people will support lowering the trail if they can see more public benefit to doing so.

Clarifying for Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Stump explained the difference between the Phase 1 planting, which will happen as part of the initial project, and the long-term recommendations. The initial planting will be a double row of plantings, no more than three and a half feet in height. He said the plantings will not be of a size or scale that will allow undesirable uses to occur or to provide hiding places for those with malicious intent.

Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.

(a) Bill Lerch, 18545 17^th Avenue NW (home #5), said lowering the trail addresses the committee’s problem statement by providing public enjoyment, safety and view and by providing mitigation to the homeowners. He noted that the trail would be more level and easier to travel. He asserted that the principle of mitigating damages resulting from public works projects is well established. He was confident that the City can reach an agreement with the homeowners to contribute funds toward the lowering of the trail.

(b) Sally Swantz, 18605 17^th Avenue NW, advised the Council that the homeowners can no longer live with the current trail situation and requested Council acknowledgement that action is essential. She said the staff proposal needs further development because it addresses only the mid-section of the trail. Stating that the contribution of funds by homeowners is contingent upon the benefits of the improvements and that the benefits are contingent upon the design, she said that the homeowners cannot make a commitment until specifics are available.

(c) Jane Kinyoun, 18433 17^th Avenue NW (home #13), expressed disappoint-ment at the personalization of this issue and objected to being categorized as "the insensitive rich." She noted misconceptions in the staff report. She said only those living adjacent to the park know how the trail impacts safety, privacy and views. She gave an example of her statement. She concluded that further development, including benches at the viewpoint or a meadow trail, will worsen, rather than mitigate, the impact of the trail on her quality of life.

(d) Nina Walsh, 18455 17^th Avenue NW, discussed the inappropriate behavior that occurs in the park. She thanked the Council for its efforts to resolve the situation, but asked that these efforts continue in order to address the houses at the ends of the trail.

(e) Ron Knowles, 18633 17^th Avenue NW, said the homes on the bluff were built before the trail was constructed. He asserted that the owners of the 15 homes should not be condemned for requesting the restoration of the quality of life that they previously enjoyed. He commented that the proposal creates a more pleasant environment for both homeowners and trail users.

(f) Carolyn Ballo, 18633 17^th Avenue NW (home #7), represented Parks and Neighbors. She distributed information to clarify statements made about this issue. Speaking for herself, she supported the committee’s problem statement, which she felt the recommendation addresses. She advised that her family will contribute to the cost of moving soil to lower the trail. She advocated mitigation for the other homes as well.

(g) Everett Cassel, 18815 17^th Avenue NW (home #3), a resident since 1947, urged Council to mitigate the impacts of the trail on his neighbors.

(h) Margaret Carlson, 20137 21^st Avenue NW, commented that it is almost impossible to look into the houses neighboring the trail. Besides, people use the trail to look at the view. She asserted that the public can look into houses along public streets more easily than into those along the trail. She suggested the installation of a six-foot-high chain link fence, instead of lowering the trail.

(i) George Carlson, 20137 21^st Avenue NW, opposed the expenditure of public dollars to protect homeowners neighboring the bluff trail. He asserted that the homeowners can install fences for privacy and safety.

(j) Stig Mansson, 20143 21^st Avenue NW, opposed the assertion that lowering the trail will improve it. He reiterated that people use the trail to look at the view, not to look into the neighboring homes. He said the view cannot be improved.

(k) Amely Wurmbrand supported the staff recommendation. She said those who oppose mitigation along the trail have a different attitude about mitigation when the issue effects them more directly. After distributing copies, she quoted from a letter that the president of the Friends of the Richmond Beach Bluff Trail submitted to the City requesting buffering and protection of quality of life with regard to a neighborhood short plat.

(l) Craig Rosenburg, 1574 NW 190^th Street (home #1), supported the staff recommendation, but he asked that the City consider lowering the trail in front of all of the homes, including homes #1 and #2, and retaining the Scotch broom buffer. He said he would be willing to help pay for these changes.

(m) James E. McManigal, 836 N Richmond Beach Road, said most people like the trail the way it is, and he did not support changes.

(n) James Swantz, 18605 17^th Avenue NW, advocated mitigation for the homes adjoining the ends of the trail as well. He said vandalism, dogs running into homeowners’ yards, and model airplanes buzzing homes present enforcement and potential litigation costs far outweighing the costs of mitigation. He pointed out that the County acknowledged these costs by giving the City money for mitigation.

(o) Al Wagar, 17076 10^th Avenue NW, spoke as a trail user and as a member of the mediation committee. He said the recommendation will never satisfy everyone, but he supported lowering the trail to protect the privacy of the homeowners. He emphasized the need for vegetation maintenance. He reiterated that the County gave the City funds to solve the problem, and he urged moving forward.

(p) Jim Cox, 16045 NW 192^nd Street, said the vast majority of residents do not care what happens to the trail. He commented that the recommended approach is reasonable and is funded by King County. Noting that the homeowners are willing to share in the expenses, he felt it was logical that the project benefits the homeowners more than the general public because the homeowners live with the problem all the time. He asserted that Council will never find a plan that everyone supports.

(q) Dan Tolfree, 17747 14^th Avenue NW, was a member of the mediation committee. Although the mediation process was lengthy and frustrating, he supported the recommendation. He commented that, as a user of the trail, he does not want to see the neighboring houses and that trail users will benefit as much as the homeowners from the proposal, which directs vision toward Puget Sound and the mountains.

(r) Bob Baxter, 2102 NW 199^th Street, attributed the problem with the mediation process to the lack of a plan for anything other than lowering the trail. He said there was never a proposal to leave the trail in place and mitigate impacts with landscaping or in other ways. He said the park originally had many more benches and picnic shelters, but the homeowners prevailed on King County to take everything away and leave only the trail. He said crime occurs no more frequently on the trail than anywhere else in Shoreline and erosion is not at all an issue. He supported the plan except for the proposal to lower the trail.

(s) Sue Williams, 504 NW 201^st Street, asked that, no matter what the decision, the trail remain wheelchair accessible. She said the City should make more of its trails wheelchair accessible.

(t) Nancy Rust, 18747 Richfield Road, said the park and trail are community assets. She acknowledged that such assets can pose problems to neighbors. She supported the mitigation of impacts of public works projects on residents. Saying that providing such mitigation sets a good precedent, she mentioned upcoming projects in Richmond Beach (e.g., the commuter rail station and the wastewater treatment plant) that will require mitigation.

(u) Jim Kinyoun, 18433 17^th Avenue NW (home #13), commented on the history of King County promises of mitigation. He noted that people use the park after it is closed. He advised that lowering the trail will, generally, enhance privacy and views. However, he said it will worsen the problem at the end of the trail.

(v) Norm Lindjord, 1525 NW 195^th Street, supported lowering the trail because it will provide access for everyone to a beautiful view. He emphasized that the County provided funds to lower the trail and that the homeowners have offered to help. He supported the use of mediation. He felt the outcome of this process is a good one.

(w) Viola Gay, 1744 NW 192^nd Street, said the Police Chief stated at a meeting that a berm and more vegetation would make the job of police enforcement more difficult and Chief Rahr advocated a wide open space. Ms. Gay said the County mitigation money was for building the stairs and addressing beach erosion. Noting public activities around her own house, she said "we all have to live with what’s out there."

(x) Bill Grazay, 2508 NW 195^th Street, supported leaving the trail where it is. He quoted from a letter in the Shoreline Enterprise which questioned why the residents of the bluff feel they are entitled to more protection than other residents.

(y) Pierre Lorenz, 2303 NW 192^nd Place, commented that the trail is a wonderful inspiration and that it will be spoiled if it is lowered.

(z) Charlotte Erickson, 2122 NW 190^th Street, noted that many people walk up and down in front of her house which overlooks the park. She advocated compromise.

(aa) Charles McKinley, 2021 NW 195^th Street, said he has been using the park since 1936. He asserted that there are better ways to spend money to upgrade the park than those recommended by staff.

Councilmember Hansen asked Patty Hale, an at-large representative on the mediation committee, if the facts in the staff report had been presented fairly and accurately. Ms. Hale said they had been.

Councilmember King wished to ensure that the plan will, at some point, address the issue of people cutting through the laurel hedge at home #14 to get to the trail.

Councilmember Ransom pointed out that there had been a trail along the north end of the park, as well as parking along the top. He said the parking was eliminated and the trail was lowered a few feet after complaints by neighbors about invasions of privacy. He noted that other mitigations were also provided.

Continuing, Councilmember Ransom recalled discussions with King County and meetings of the Council Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Committee in 1995. At that time, Jim Howard, a landscape architect, prepared drawings and recommendations on how to mitigate the bluff trail situation. Councilmember Ransom noted the similarity between those previous recommendations and the new recommendation. He emphasized the number of public meetings held on this matter. He stressed that neither Council nor any Council committee has ever considered closing the trail. He said most of the funding that resulted from the negotiations in which he and Councilmember King participated with former King County Executive Gary Locke was intended for mitigation, with a small amount intended for stairways and other erosion issues.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Stump explained that the double row of hedge-like plantings in the first phase of trail improvements will be six to eight feet wide. He explained that the plantings will be spaced triangularly, three to three and a half feet on center and that the combination of earth shaping and plantings will be more effective than plantings alone at preventing people from trespassing on private properties.

Councilmember Ransom asked why the City is not addressing the ends of the trail at this time and how much it would cost to do so. Mr. Deis said staff did not recommend to lower the ends of the trail because the mediation committee decided, as a group, against it. He noted that the plantings will continue along the full length of the trail. He advised that the City will not install the buffer until staff has resolved the issue of private property encroaching on public property.

Councilmember Ransom recalled the opinions of Interim City Attorneys that the length of time the public property had been in adverse possession would be a factor in resolving the encroachment issue. Mr. Bauer advised that it is not possible to adversely possess public property.

Mayor Jepsen questioned the recommendation’s approach to lowering the trail. He asserted that the issue is one of visual separation, not of whether to lower the trail a certain number of feet. He described the topography of the trail. He said the issue is how to achieve the screening necessary to address the privacy concerns and the preservation of views for both the homeowners and the public. He indicated that the elevation of the trail is important only in relation to this issue of visual separation. Mr. Stump described the surveying and photography he performed in preparing the trail design. He commented that his analysis of the resulting cross sections showed that a combination of lowering the trail an average of three and a half feet, forming a berm and planting on top of the berm would screen essentially all of a six-foot-tall trail user from sight from the neighboring homes.

Mayor Jepsen advocated that the City define the problem in terms of the height of the proposed visual obstruction and the distance between the obstruction and the trail, and that the City then determine the solution to the problem at the different points along the trail. Mr. Bauer said this speaks to why the mediation committee did not recommend to lower the trail at either end. He explained that the distance between the proposed berm and the trail is so great at either end of the trail that the height of the berm and the depth of the trail would have to be extreme to create the desired visual screening. Mr. Deis noted that this would create an unpleasant "tunnel effect" for trail users.

In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stump said the plantings recommended for the top of the berm would be low and spreading in nature so as not to exceed three feet in height. He estimated the combined height of the berm and plantings at four feet. He acknowledged that each of the neighboring properties has a different physical relationship to the trail.

Councilmember Lee asked how the proposed lowering would affect the levelness of the trail. Mr. Stump explained the proposal to create a gradual transition from the trailhead to the lowest spot on the trail. He said the trail would remain level from that point until it rejoins the existing grade (near house #9 or #10). Councilmember Lee asserted that the overall levelness of the trail is important. Councilmember Gustafson agreed.

Councilmember Lee asked how the proposal addresses the committee’s problem statement. Mr. Stump reiterated that the distance between the trail and the park boundary at either end of the trail makes visual screening problematic—lowering the trail and creating an adjacent berm will not provide a visual screen in these areas. He explained the long-term plan for more substantive shrub buffers in these areas.

In response to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Bauer estimated the cost of the plantings and irrigation in the second phase of trail improvements at $75,000. In response to another question, he clarified that the $47,544 cost of clarifying the park boundary includes planting, irrigation and boundary markers.

In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Shoreline Police Chief Sue Rahr explained her perspective on the proposed plantings. She said a balance is necessary between the creation of an effective barrier at the park boundary and the use of plants that will not hide suspects from police. She commented that the proposed contouring and planting will create a barrier without creating a place for people to hide. She indicated that the proposed recommendation will help to keep troublemakers from trespassing onto private property.

Responding to Councilmember Gustafson’s question, Mr. Bauer said the $20,000 offered by the property owners does not cover the cost of creating the berm and lowering the trail; however, it more than covers the marginal cost of the difference between berming alone and berming in combination with lowering the trail.

Councilmember Gustafson expressed concern about the ends of the trail. He stated his assumption that the master plan will be an ongoing effort to address these remaining issues. He asked about the future funding for vegetation maintenance, since it is important for the public using the trail to have a view of the Sound. He suggested the homeowners might be willing to assist in that process. Mr. Deis responded that views will be maintained by vegetation management. He did not support the use of private funds for this purpose. Noting the shortage of public funds, Councilmember Gustafson said this might be considered in the future.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery supported the recommendations. She expressed her opinion that what the homeowners have experienced because the County did not provide mitigation to begin with is unconscionable.

Ms. Hale, a previous speaker, explained why the mediation committee made no recommendation regarding the small informal meadow at the head of the trail. She said Mr. Stump recommended the realignment of that section of the trail to help visually screen the houses from the trail. The committee originally supported this proposal. However, a tour of the site showed that realignment and regrading would not make any difference on the view of trail from house #2. Therefore, the committee did not support the realignment. There was no consensus about the size of the loop at the south end. Ms. Hale concluded that Mr. Stump’s report was not adopted by the mediation committee as the park master plan.

Noting the 12- to 15-foot separation between the trail and the edge of the bluff, Council-member King questioned the concern about erosion. Mr. Stump acknowledged that this well-drained, granular soil is not subject to landslide. However, he said it is subject to erosion when adjacent grass or vegetation is worn away by people going off the trail. He advised that the report contains specific recommendations about hydroseeding and measures during construction to prevent erosion.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom’s question about the cost and timing for the Phase 2 planting, Mr. Bauer explained that the architect’s report is one vision for the trail, but it may not be the final vision. He said the City is likely to create a master plan for the park. At that time, the City will determine whether the architect’s recommendation is still appropriate, and, if so, when it should go forward. Mr. Deis noted needs in other parks. He said the proposals in Phase 2 will compete with those needs.

Responding again to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Stump said the surface of the trail will remain the same as it is now: crushed rock at a full five feet in width. It will meet the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

MEETING EXTENSION

At 9:55 p.m., Councilmember King moved to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

Councilmember Lee said the plan addresses the problem statement with which the committee started; however, she expressed concern about the homes neighboring the beginning and end of the trail. While she did not wish to leave these homes unaddressed, she said it is not an option to lower the beginning and end of the trail. Therefore, she supported the recommendation.

Councilmember Gustafson concurred that this is a good plan at this point, and he appreciated the offer of the homeowners to share some of the cost. He emphasized the need to continue to look at a master plan.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery also agreed with Councilmember Lee’s comments, supporting a start to the process and then continued work to improve it.

Mayor Jepsen stated that in addition to the recommendation on page 12 of the Council packet, the City should offer the option of a fence. The homeowners could decline such a fence if they so chose. He reiterated his desire to see the City approach the lowering of the trail from a line-of-sight problem-solving technique versus having a target of lowering the trail by a fixed measurement. He recommended this approach and then making sure the trail is ADA accessible.

Councilmember King supported the recommendation but was concerned about working with homeowners on encroachment. She advised it should be done as tactfully as possible.

Councilmember Hansen concluded the recommendation is a win-win situation for all involved.

Councilmember Ransom wholeheartedly supported the staff recommendation. He agreed with Mayor Jepsen regarding the line-of-sight issue.

Mr. Deis said staff will bring a proposed approach to the encroachment issue to Council for review prior to implementation. He noted that the City’s approach will set a precedent. He said he would consult with Mr. Stump to evaluate the potential of a line-of-sight approach to the lowering of the trail. He said staff would return to Council to review any substantive change in the plan.

(b) Debby’s Drift on Inn Gambling Tax Proposal

Joe Meneghini, Finance Director, reviewed the staff report.

Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.

(1) Mark Mitchell, Debby’s Drift on Inn, 16708 Aurora Avenue N, contested the dollar figures in the staff report. He said his establishment did not make $806,000 last quarter. He disputed the claim that Debby’s Drift on Inn was "the State’s most profitable mini-casino" for third quarter 1998. He noted other casinos with larger net incomes. He asserted that the table on page 21 of the Council packet is misleading. He commented that the average card room tax rate would decrease from 12.15 percent to 7.8 percent if Edmonds (which does not have any gambling establishments) and Burien were deleted and if Wenatchee, Whatcom County and Pierce County (with card room tax rates of one, zero and five percent, respectively) were added. He said the pull tab tax rate of five percent of gross receipts amounts to 60 percent of the profits.

Mr. Meneghini advised that the financial information that staff included in its report came from the net income report that Debby’s Drift on Inn submitted to the State. He noted that the Washington State Gambling Commission compares the profitability of mini-casinos based on their net incomes versus expenses.

Mayor Jepsen asserted the appropriateness of the other cities cited in the table on page 21 of the Council packet. He resisted the addition of Whatcom County and Pierce County. He said Shoreline does not compete for customers with those areas.

Councilmember Ransom advised that Everett has the largest gambling income of any city in Washington State. He said Everett reduced its gambling tax rates as an incentive to existing businesses to grow and to new businesses to locate in its area. He noted that Everett has maintained the amount of its gambling tax revenues in spite of lowering its rates as a result of the growth in number and size of gambling establishments there. He asserted that if a retailer were capable of generating the $750,000 in annual tax revenues that Debby’s Drift on Inn is projected to generate, the City would provide tax advantages to that retailer. He pointed out that the number of non-profit fundraising gambling establishments in Washington has decreased by 75; whereas, the number of for-profit gambling establishments will increase to 300 by June of 1999. He asserted that gambling tax rates have an impact on where such establishments will locate and on where people wishing to gamble will spend their money. He advocated that Council reconsider and lower its gambling tax rates in order to keep a major taxpayer in Shoreline. He recommended Shoreline follow Everett’s win-win lead on taxation.

Councilmember Hansen opposed capping anyone’s tax rate under any circumstances. He expressed his willingness to consider arguments concerning gambling tax rates. He favored the status quo for the time being.

Councilmember King, Mayor Jepsen and Deputy Mayor Montgomery also favored the status quo.

Councilmember Gustafson questioned the impact on revenues at Debby’s Drift on Inn of the increase in the maximum bet from $25 to $100. Mr. Mitchell said the increase will not take effect until December 11.

Councilmember Gustafson supported the status quo. He suggested that Council revisit the matter in one year.

Councilmember Lee supported the status quo. She expressed her interest in learning why Federal Way has proposed to increase its card room tax rate from 11 to 20 percent.

(c) Ordinance No. 187 Granting Seattle City Light a Franchise to Operate an Electric Utility

Mr. Deis reviewed the staff report.

Mayor Jepsen noted that the proposed ordinance does not address Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT). He said most governmental agencies have agreements with each other on this issue. He mentioned his frustration that Section 12.1 still refers to "non-motorized transportation." Mr. Bauer said the spirit of this section is that Seattle City Light is willing to consider any City request.

Mr. Bauer noted that a negotiation session subsequent to the compilation of the Council packet resulted in minor changes to simplify the language of the proposed franchise agreement, and he distributed a revised Ordinance No. 187.

Councilmember Ransom requested that staff provide further clarification of the status of the Interurban Trail in its presentation of the proposed franchise at the next regular Council meeting. Mr. Deis said the City has expressed its interest to King County in taking on the project to develop the Interurban Trail.

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Virginia Botham, 16334 Linden Avenue N, noted that Councilmembers who are unable to view large exhibits in the Council office at City Hall in advance of the next regular meeting must make a specific request to staff to make them available at the meeting. In addition, she advised that the copy of the Council packet at the library for tonight’s workshop differs from the actual Council packet for tonight’s workshop.

Mr. Deis said staff will investigate this discrepancy.

(b) Walt Hagen, 711 N 193^rd Street, said he would support whatever the City does to improve the bluff trail at Richmond Beach Saltwater Park for the public, but he opposed making the privacy of the residents adjoining the trail a priority for changes. Continuing, he asserted that the City is not being forthright with citizens in its representation of the proposed franchise agreement with Seattle City Light. He suggested that the City has negotiated a four-percent rate increase to enable Seattle City Light to pass through tax revenues to the City’s general fund.

Mayor Jepsen clarified that the City has negotiated a four-percent limit to any differential that Seattle City Light might apply to rates of customers residing outside Seattle. He noted that without the proposed agreement, Seattle City Light could apply virtually any rate differential.

8. ADJOURNMENT

At 10:35 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.

_______________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk