Shoreline City Council Business Meeting April 23, 2012

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Shoreline City Council Business Meeting April 23, 2012

By Devon Vose Rickabaugh

The Council voted unanimously to adopt the City Council’s Goals and Workplan for 2012-2014. The goals include strengthening Shoreline’s economic base; improving Shoreline’s utility, transportation and environmental infrastructure; preparing for two light rail stations; enhancing openness and opportunities for community engagement. 

Councilmember Winstead wanted emphasis placed on investigating multimodal strategies for moving people to the light rail such as bus or streetcar to avoid passengers parking in surrounding neighborhoods where citizens have complained in the past. City manager Underwood said that 2 years out is not too early to look at strategies and funding for light rail even though we don’t know where the final stations will be located.

Manager of the Shoreline Water District Diane Pottinger objected to a proposed ordinance which could impose a tax on the district. She said this could impose a “substantial expense increase” on the district and may not be legal. The proposed ordinance says “the Washington Court clarified the issue to allow taxing of utility operations such as water and sewer” and “credit for franchise fees against the proposed 6% utility tax would result in no net increase.” 

City Attorney Ian Sievers said that during the 2008 it was discovered that the Water District had not followed the franchise definition of “gross income” using only gross water sales, not including late fees in figuring their 6% tax to the city. The City accepted less money from the District then, but the ordinance will clarify the City’s taxes and franchise fees for the future. The ordinance will be voted on at a future meeting.



1 comments:

Anonymous,  April 25, 2012 at 8:07 AM  

It was discovered in 2008 and it is now 2012, glad to see that the city acts proactively.

A couple of meetings ago the city discovered that the school district had not been billed for surface water but now the school district does not want to pay $120,000 a year even though the State Auditor notes that they must pay.

Let's see, in the past the city council has relied upon the city attorney's advice and lost the email metadata decision, the Crista decision, the Twin Ponds critical areas decision, the fire hydrants decision, whenever the city pushes the envelope on the law based on Ian's legal opinion they lose.

Post a Comment

We encourage the thoughtful sharing of information and ideas. We expect comments to be civil and respectful, with no personal attacks or offensive language. We reserve the right to delete any comment.

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP