CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, August 24, 2015 Conference Room 303 - Shoreline City Hall
5:45 p.m. 17500 Midvale Avenue North
PRESENT:
Mayor Winstead, Deputy Mayor Eggen, Councilmembers
McGlashan, Hall, McConnell, Salomon, and Roberts
ABSENT: None
STAFF: Debbie Tarry, City Manager; John Norris, Assistant City Manager; Rob Beem, Community Services Manager; and Bonita Roznos, Deputy City Clerk
GUESTS: Beratta Gomillion, Executive Director, Center for Human Services; Kevin Osborne, Hopelink Shoreline Center Manager; Judy Faast, Hopelink Director of Education and Employment; and Bob Lohmeyer, Director, Shoreline/LFP Senior Center
At 5:50 p.m., the meeting was called to order by Mayor Winstead.
Mayor Winstead thanked the City’s quality of life partners for providing needed services to Shoreline residents.
Bob Lohmeyer, Director, Shoreline/LFP Senior Center, presented the Center’s demographics, services, budget, and trends. He said the Center serves 3,300 to 3,370 seniors annually; 50% are Shoreline residents; 77% are female; 60-74 is the average age range; and they are in the low to very low income range. He reviewed services that are available at the Center and pointed out that class offerings have changed from socialization and recreation to health and wellness. He shared that revenue is received from contributions, dues, and fees; special events; sales and goods; and local government and senior services. He also stated the Center contributes 63% to the budget and the City of Shoreline contributes 37%. He said the budget has been stable for the last three years and, in some cases, yielded a surplus. He explained that United Way is reducing support to the Center, and as a result, he is anticipating a $25,000 budget shortfall.
Councilmembers asked why United Way is reducing funding. Mr. Lohmeyer explained that the majority of support United Way receives comes from the technology industry and that they are directing priorities elsewhere.
Beratta Gomillion, Executive Director, Center for Human Services, shared that they provide behavioral health and family support services to low to very low income clients. She said 60% of their clients are age 21 and younger and 69% are non-Caucasian. She provided a description of their Intake Therapy Program, Substance Abuse Program, Early Learning Services, Youth Services, and the Wrap-Around Program. She shared that academic and intervention strategies used at Ballinger Homes are resulting in a high rate of high school graduates. She said high staff turnover, loss of funding, inadvertent consequences of the Affordable Care Act, and the $100,000-200,000 budget deficit are challenges the Center is facing. She communicated her goal to integrate behavioral health with education and employment programming to equip clients with tools they need to get a job.
Councilmembers asked how the Center remains open given the large deficit. Ms. Gomillion responded that they are currently using reserve funding.
Kevin Osborne, Hopelink Shoreline Center Manager, introduced Judy Faast, Hopelink Director of Education and Employment. He shared that current services provided by Hopelink include family development, housing, emergency food, emergency financial assistance and adult education. He noted that 90% of their clients are from Shoreline. He said their service of providing emergency food bags has seen the largest increase in service this year.
Councilmembers asked what accounted for the large increase in emergency food bags. Mr. Osborne explained that they are receiving clients from Tent City and that more homeless people are coming to Shoreline. He said food bank numbers have increased and he shared that there is a need to provide lunch for children. He said emergency financial assistance is down 23% and explained that it is due to the increase in the cost of utilities. He said that housing support is down 50% and explained paying for storage units and prescriptions have increased. He said the biggest challenge for Human Services is providing affordable housing to low income residents. He shared Hopelink’s goal of bringing one stop shopping to Shoreline Hopelink so that all needed services can be provided to clients in one place.
Ms. Faast talked about the employment program and providing one to one job coaching to clients. She explained the change of focus in the Adult Education Program from basic language skills to English for work skills. She said the GED preparation course was discontinued due to stringent new requirements, and that she anticipates an expansion in the Case Management Program and financial coaching.
Councilmembers asked about affordable housing development preferences, utility bill reductions, and how the City Council can help secure funding for Human Services. Mr. Osborn responded that advocating for Human Services with other agencies would be helpful, and said although they serve Lake Forest Park residents, they do not received funding from the City of Lake Forest Park. Ms. Gomillion said advocating for Human Services with other city agencies and King and Snohomish Counties would be helpful, and continued support of places like Mary’s place that provides showers and beds for the homeless. The quality of life partners agreed that there is an immediate need for any type of affordable housing in the area.
Councilmembers suggested meeting again to continue the discussion.
At 6:51 p.m. the meeting was adjourned.
/S/ Bonita Roznos, Deputy City Clerk
CITY
OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, August 24, 2015 Council Chambers - Shoreline
City Hall
7:00 p.m. 17500
Midvale Avenue North
PRESENT: Mayor Winstead,
Deputy Mayor Eggen, Councilmembers McGlashan, Hall, McConnell, Salomon, and
Roberts
ABSENT: None
1. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m., the meeting was
called to order by Mayor Winstead, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Winstead led the flag
salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
(a) Proclamation of Women's Equality Day
Mayor Winstead read a
proclamation declaring August 26, 2015 as Women’s Equality Day in the City of
Shoreline. Dr. Cheryl Roberts, Shoreline Community College President, and Liz
Vivian, Women’s Funding Alliance Executive Director, accepted the proclamation.
Dr. Roberts commented on the importance of public good, public service, and being
a good citizen. She shared that her parents’ first opportunity to vote was in
1965, and she has voted in every election. She encouraged everyone to vote for
the vitality of the community and nation. Ms. Vivian shared that her
organization advances leadership and economic opportunities for women and girls.
She commented that they are looking toward 2020 and the 100th year
marker of the 19th Amendment. She said their focus will be on narrowing
the wage gap, increasing the number of elected women officials, and supporting more
women on the path to economic self-sufficiency and sustainability. She
announced a new collaboration project with the Seattle Chamber of Commerce and
invited everyone to participate.
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
Debbie Tarry, City Manager,
provided reports and updates on various City meetings, projects and events.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember
Hall reported attending the Association of Washington Cities Board of
Director’s Meeting. He said they discussed the 2015 Legislative Session and
developing strategies for the next session. He noted they will focus on getting
more local officials engaged in developing relationships with legislators to help
ensure that the State continues to provide funding to communities.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Lance Young, Shoreline
resident, Interurban Trail Preservation Society, expressed concern about
Seattle City Light’s (SCL) tree removal proposal on the Interurban Trail. He requested
Council’s assistance to preserve the intent of the SCL Franchise Agreement. He
commented that the Agreement cites the preservation of all trees and now SCL is
proposing to only preserve significant trees. He said SCL is redefining what a
significant tree is and soliciting neighborhood signatures supporting the
removal of trees. He submitted pictures and letters from the neighborhood requesting
that the trees be preserved. He requested that SCL postpone tree removal until the
matter can be resolved.
Patty Pfeifer, Shoreline
resident, commented that SCL’s tree removal plans are in violation of the Letter
of Understanding and the Franchise Agreement. She said the original Agreement
included all trees and now SCL is trying to redefine what a tree is. She
expressed disappointment that City Administration rubber stamped SCL’s
reinterpretation of the Agreement and said the City has a right to hold SCL
accountable to the Agreement. She said SCL is planning to remove the trees in early
September and asked the City to say no to the new tree definition, and/or
postpone tree removal.
Nancy Morris,
Shoreline resident, commented on the destruction of the forest canopy in
Eastern Washington and the need to preserve Shoreline’s trees and tree
canopies. She said SCL should honor the Agreement and preserve the trees on the
Interurban Trail. She advised Council to require SCL to honor the Agreement and
not allow them to cut trees, or that they postpone any action until issues are
resolved. She then read a quote, “Why Trees Matter” by Kim Robins.
Lorn Richey, Shoreline resident, urged Council
to stop SCL from removing trees on the Interurban Trail.
John Osborne, Shoreline
resident, thanked Council for installing signs on the Interurban Trail for bicyclists.
He said the signs should be treated like a new street sign and flags should be
placed on them. He noted that he did not know about the tree issue, but said it
is nice to have a tree canopy.
Nola Maore, Shoreline residents, said she recently became aware
of SCL’s Interurban Trail tree removal plan and said SCL is going back on their
word. She spoke in favor of trees and said that they are needed for clean air
and beauty.
Janet Way,
Shoreline Preservation Society, talked about the preservation of the tree
canopy and the definition of a tree. She asked Council to direct Staff to abide
by the Agreement and request SCL to honor their word.
CJ Hines, Shoreline
resident, talked about clean-up efforts on the Interurban Trail. She said she
participated in the discussions for the Franchise Agreement and commented that the
Tree Board dropped the ball. She said SCL is inappropriately approaching
neighbors requesting they sign a document to have trees removed.
John Norris,
Assistant City Manager, explained that SCL regularly performs vegetation
management, working along feeder (distribution) lines, and that they typically complete
around four areas a year, on a two year vegetation management cycle. He explained
that trees can affect continuity of electrical service and said 14 abutting
property owners received notice of the planned work. He said the work entails pruning,
and removing brush, stems, and undergrowth. He said SCL will also be removing significant
trees as requested by 5 property owners. He commented on collaborating with SCL
on the definition of trees and low lying vegetation and stressed that this is
about the continuity of electrical services. He said the ancillary benefit to
the tree removal is improving safety by reducing the opportunity for illegal
activity.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Deputy Mayor Eggen moved to add a new
Study item 8(a) to discuss vegetation management performed by Seattle City
Light. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Roberts.
Deputy Mayor
Eggen commented on the SCL Agreement and said the broad cutting seems contrary
to the spirit of the agreement they made.
Councilmember
Hall commented on adding items to the Agenda without appropriate public process
and notice. Mayor Winstead concurred asked the City Manager when this item could
be added to the agenda for discussion.
Councilmember
McGlashan stated Council should be directing Staff to hold SCL accountable to
the Franchise Agreement.
Councilmember
Salomon commented that he has concerns over the way the City is interpreting a tree
versus a shrub. He said he would like to discuss the matter this evening.
Ms. Tarry
responded that SCL is planning to perform the work in early September and said
the item can be placed on tonight’s Agenda for discussion or added to next week’s
agenda.
The motion passed unanimously.
The agenda was approved,
as amended, by unanimous consent.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon motion by
Councilmember Roberts, seconded by Councilmember McConnell and unanimously
carried, the following Consent Calendar items were approved:
(a)
Minutes of Business Meeting of July 20,
2015
(b)
Approval of expenses and payroll as of
August 7, 2015 in the amount of $2,966,492.56
|
*Payroll and Benefits: |
||||||
|
Payroll Period |
Payment Date |
EFT
Numbers (EF) |
Payroll Checks (PR) |
Benefit Checks (AP) |
Amount Paid |
|
|
7/5/15-7/18/15 |
7/24/2015 |
61946-62192 |
13954-13984 |
60694-90701 |
$661,149.89 |
|
|
$661,149.89 |
||||||
|
*Wire Transfers: |
||||||
|
Expense Register Dated |
Wire Transfer Number |
|
Amount
Paid |
|||
|
7/28/2015 |
1096 |
$11,707.51 |
||||
|
$11,707.51 |
||||||
|
*Accounts Payable Claims: |
||||||
|
Expense Register Dated |
Check Number (Begin) |
Check Number (End) |
Amount Paid |
|||
|
7/28/2015 |
60645 |
60645 |
$119.97 |
|||
|
7/29/2015 |
60646 |
60656 |
$29,603.46 |
|||
|
7/29/2015 |
60657 |
60676 |
$330,049.85 |
|||
|
7/29/2015 |
60677 |
60693 |
$1,755,155.82 |
|||
|
7/30/2015 |
60702 |
60702 |
$44,534.24 |
|||
|
8/6/2015 |
60703 |
60731 |
$86,560.92 |
|||
|
8/6/2015 |
60732 |
60766 |
$899.78 |
|||
|
8/6/2015 |
60767 |
60802 |
$42,406.32 |
|||
|
8/6/2015 |
60531 |
60531 |
($5,000.00) |
|||
|
8/6/2015 |
60803 |
60803 |
$5,000.00 |
|||
|
8/7/2015 |
60804 |
60804 |
$4,304.80 |
|||
|
$2,293,635.16 |
||||||
8. STUDY ITEMS
(a) Discussion of Seattle City Light (SCL) Vegetation
Management
Ms. Tarry provided
history leading up to the 2012 Letter of Understanding and the 2014 Seattle
City Light Franchise Agreement Vegetation Management Plan. She explained that SCL
was previously exempt from the City’s Tree Regulations and not required to
apply for a permit to cut trees. She said the question on how to define a tree arose
when SCL was preparing to perform vegetation management, and it was discovered
that the definition was not covered in the Franchise Agreement. She explained
that both parties agreed to apply the City’s Significant Tree definition
contained in Municipal Code.
Deputy Mayor
Eggen asked why feeder lines trigger vegetation removal. Mr. Norris responded
that feeder line assets belong to the City of Seattle. He recalled Council’s
previous discussion on vegetation management in the SCL Franchise Agreement and
acknowledged receiving push back from the community regarding tree removal. Sandi
Fukumoto, Seattle City Light, said stems are threating the power lines. The options
are trimming the vegetation now and then having to repeatedly come back to trim,
or completely removing the vegetation.
Councilmember Roberts
thanked the Interurban Trail Society and others for bringing this issue to
Council’s attention. He said language matters and Agreements need to be
specific and precise. He read Shoreline’s Development Code definition of a tree
and said he believes if the contract language says tree, it says tree, and
should be defined according to the Code.
Councilmember Hall
said it is unfortunate that the City did not define significant tree in
the Franchise Agreement, and shared that having tree inventory data would
assist in this matter.
Councilmember Salomon
asked how high the power lines are and commented that he does not understand
why non-significant trees need to be cut. He commented that he does not agree
with the way the City is administratively reading the definition of tree and
that the text of the Agreement needs to be honored. He said he would rather see
the vegetation pruned and commented that SCL has heard from neighbors about
safety concerns.
Councilmember McConnell
said she attended the 2011 meeting, with at least 50 people present, and
recalled that there was satisfaction with the Agreement. She said for residents
to come out again tonight means there must be a problem. She agreed with
Councilmember McGlashan to ask the City to hold SCL accountable to the
Franchise Agreement.
Mr. Norris
presented images of the vegetation in question.
Mayor Winstead
said the definition of trees is important and more clarification in the
Agreement would be helpful. She said she does not favor removal of trees unless
they are a hazard, and also commented on the calls she receives when trees take
out power lines. She shared that her major concern is safety on the trail. She asked
the City Attorney to clarify procedures resulting from a dispute with the Franchise
Agreement. Ms. King responded that the Agreement is valid and the discrepancy is
with the interpretation of the definition of trees. She said Staff will present
Council’s interpretation to SCL.
Brent Schmidt,
Seattle City Light Vegetation Management Manager, explained that the trees in
question have the propensity to get very large and that the best practice in
vegetation management is to address them when they are small. He commented that
SCL has heard from neighbors on safety concerns and as a property
owner SCL has the responsibility of keeping the property maintained.
Deputy Mayor Eggen
asked about the growth rate of trees under the power lines and if a replacement
schedule can be implemented to plant trees that will be allowed to grow before existing
vegetation is removed. Mr. Schmidt responded that the trees can grow 10-15 feet
in a year, and that SCL tries to keep a 10 foot clearance. He said they can
work with property owners regarding the appropriate trees to plant that do not
require trimming every two years.
Councilmember Hall moved to direct staff
to ask Seattle City Light to delay tree and shrub removal to allow time for the
City, SCL and, the affected neighborhood to evaluate options for tree
replacement, defining a tree, and for the purposes of vegetation management in
the Franchise Agreement, with goals to ensure the safety and reliability of the
electrical distribution system, and preservation of tree canopy for benefits to
the community. The motion was seconded by Councilmember McConnell.
Councilmember
Salomon said he will not support the motion and commented that the motion
invalidates what is contained in the Franchise Agreement. He said Staff should
be provided with a clear interpretation.
Ms. King advised that
the Franchise Agreements gives SCL authority to remove vegetation if it poses a
risk.
Councilmember
McGlashan commented on the need for SCL to provide vegetation management and
questioned why SCL is responsible for buffering residential homes from the
Trail. He shared that SCL allowed the City to include a Vegetation Management
Plan in the Franchise Agreement which is not standard practice.
Councilmember
McConnell added that she hopes SCL considers the public comments.
The motion passed, 5-2, with
Councilmembers McGlashan and Salomon voting no.
(b) Discussion and Update of Promote Shoreline
Project
Dan Eernissee,
Economic Development Manager, presented Promote Shoreline goals and said that
PRR was the successful firm awarded the contract. Denise Walz,
Co-President & Principal in Charge, introduced Jen Rash, Senior Account
Manager, and Katherine Schomer, Senior Research
Associate. Ms. Walz provided information about PRR
and said that they are the pioneers in market transformation. She talked about campaign
objectives and strategies, and presented target market segments. Ms. Schomer presented the research plan, reviewed
potential-resident survey questions, and presented key findings and messaging ideas.
She shared that the respondents like what Shoreline has to offer but stated
Shoreline has perception obstacles. She said respondents that viewed Shoreline
as a less favorable place to move believe Shoreline is too expensive, not safe,
lacks culture, and has commuter and traffic issues.
Ms. Rash provided
the following marketing recommendations to promote Shoreline:
·
Focus
on the most interested first and reach them where they already get their
information
·
Focus
on those that could be receptive to Shoreline by debunking myths and generating
positive buzz
·
Continue
elevation and investment in Placemaking
Ms. Walz said the next step in the process is to provide
effective promotional tools and launch the initial marketing campaign.
Councilmembers expressed appreciation
for the techniques used in the survey, suggested leveraging Shoreline Community
College in the marketing plan, and commented that respondents did not value
rent as an encouragement to move to Shoreline but did indicate there was value
in purchasing a home in Shoreline. They commented on hearing from Human
Services providers that as people with more money move in to an area that
the affordable housing stock is upgraded, resulting in lower income
residents being pushed out, and being mindful of these issues.
Councilmembers
asked about the drop in attributes when the survey respondents found out the
place being described was "Shoreline"; how consultants plan to
implement their strategy of developing messages/mediums to debunk
misperceptions and tout achievements; if the messages have been tested; and if the
housing type question was asked separately. They requested data on single
family respondents. Ms. Schomer responded that the
question regarding attributes was unique to this survey and that it is usually
administered to residents in their own city. She said it is good information to
know and will help address the perception problem. Ms. Rash responded that the messages will
be tested in focus groups to find out how effective they are in debunking
misperceptions, and Ms. Walz added that a messaging
hierarchy will be developed. Ms. Schomer responded that
housing was broken out and that it can be further drilled down.
Mr. Eernissee
recounted the goal of helping Aurora Square become a cohesive unit and said
“Shoreline Place” has been selected as the new name. He presented images of the
logo on various signs. He shared that Shoreline Community College (SCC) is a strategic
partner and a participant in the promote Shoreline campaign. He said SCC is having
challenges with poor visibility on Aurora. He proposed placing SCC 50th Year
Celebration banners on Aurora Avenue, from 155th to 165th,
and a ceremonial street name designation of “College Way” on North 160th,
which will all be funded by the College.
Councilmembers
asked about ceremonially changing the name of Aurora Ave to Shoreline Boulevard.
They asked why the SCC banners do not mention “50 Years” and how long they will
be up. Ms. Tarry responded that the intent is to put the banners up prior to
the start of classes and leave them up year round.
(c) Discussion and Update - Code Enforcement
Program
At 9:31 p.m. Mayor
Winstead called for a 5 minute recess, and at 9:35 p.m. she reconvened the
meeting.
Kristie Anderson,
Code Enforcement Officer, introduced Jarrod Lewis, Permit Services Manager, and
Randy Olin, Customer Response Team Supervisor. Ms. Anderson provided a
historical overview of the code enforcement program in Shoreline. Mr. Olin
provided an overview of the code enforcement process and explained how code
violations are handled. Ms. Anderson and Mr. Olin then reviewed sample cases of
code violations and remedies. Mr. Olin reviewed 2014 Service Request violation
data and cited the top five code issues. Ms. Anderson presented data on property
maintenance and chronic nuisance violations. Mr. Lewis reviewed highlights of
the presentation.
Councilmembers
thanked Staff for cleaning up graffiti so quickly. They discussed Councilmember
Hall’s proposal to hold the Community accountable to the Sign Code, and the
merits of a applying a citywide uniform sign intermittency of 10 seconds, and
then contacting people that are in violation.
Councilmember McConnell moved to extend the
meeting 10 minutes. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Roberts, and passed
6-1, with Councilmember McGlashan voting no.
Councilmembers
discussed the appropriate process to address signs in the right-of-way and electronic
sign code compliance issues. They commented that businesses are operating in
violation of City Code and should be notified that they need to comply. They suggested
that those issues be classified as a more urgent code issue and addressed first.
Councilmembers asked
if the City tracks the time it takes to resolve code enforcement
violation issues and how often CRT returns to ensure that a condemned property
remains vacant. Ms. Anderson replied issues are not tracked on an annual basis because
they are variable and based on different circumstances. She said she often checks
that condemned properties remain vacant.
Councilmember Hall moved to direct Staff/CRT
to contact business owners of non-compliant signs and work with them to
get into voluntary compliance with City Code and look at revisiting the
hold time or the sign regulations as a future work plan item. The motion was
seconded by Councilmember McGlashan and passed unanimously.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:10 p.m., Mayor Winstead
declared the meeting adjourned.
/S/ Jessica Simulcik Smith, City Clerk