CITY OF SHORELINE

 

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

 

Monday, March 15, 2004                                                             Shoreline Conference Center

6:30 p.m.                                                                                                      Mt. Rainier Room

 

 

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 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Hansen, who presided.

 

2.         FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

 

Mayor Hansen led the flag salute.  Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the exception of Councilmember Fimia, who arrived shortly thereafter.

 

3.         CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS

 

§Robert Olander, Deputy City Manager, introduced Bernard Seager, the new Management Analyst in the City Manager’s Office.

 

Police Chief Denise Turner reported on various police department activities over the weekend, including a “shots fired” incident with a robbery suspect and an automobile accident injuring two Shoreline officers.  She commented on the cooperation that Shoreline has received from other public safety agencies in investigating the rash of robberies that have occurred in the City in 2004.  Responding to Council comments, she noted that the City’s government access channel has a bulletin describing the suspect.  She explained that while the robberies have similar circumstances, there is no proof they are related. 

 

4.         COUNCIL REPORTS

 

Councilmembers reported on their activities at the National League of Cities Conference.

Councilmember Ransom discussed his membership on the steering committee for Human Development.  The major issues facing the Human Development Committee include mental health and insurance coverage for mental health counselors, “No Child Left Behind,” and immigration.  He noted that many school districts, including the Shoreline School District, are concerned they may be listed as “failing” because of the onerous requirements of the No Child Left Behind initiative.  In Shoreline, this concern is based on the fact that special education students will not be at grade level, which causes the district to be listed as failing.  He also commented on other topics, including immigration, affordable housing, and economic development.  

 

Councilmember Grace commented favorably on the conference and the information he received relating to governance, public participation, budgets, and leadership.  He felt the conference was very worthwhile and that information learned should be shared and discussed.

 

Councilmember Gustafson felt the meetings between Councilmembers and Washington’s elected officials on transportation and homeland security were particularly valuable.  He noted he spent most of his time with the Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Steering Committee.  

 

Councilmember Chang emphasized the importance of lobbying Washington’s elected officials, even during an economic downturn, so that Shoreline can be positioned to receive federal funding when the economy improves.  He felt the trip was effective and a good learning experience.

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen commented on his involvement on the Community and Economic Development Steering Committee and the Homelessness Taskforce.  He suggested that the Council include a discussion of the homeless at its upcoming retreat.  He noted that a Shoreline Enterprise editorial highlighted the progress Shoreline has made since incorporation. 

 

Mayor Hansen commented favorably on the NLC conference, noting that Washington’s elected representatives were very encouraging about Shoreline’s transportation projects.  He was optimistic the trip would result in federal funding for the City’s projects.  

 

5.         PUBLIC COMMENT 

 

            (a)        Janet Way, Shoreline, commented on the death of Shoreline resident and activist Janeen Cook.  She described Ms. Cook’s various contributions to the City and noted that a tree would be planted in her honor at Paramount Park.  On another topic, she urged the Council to defend Fircrest School and use its influence to retain this valuable institution.

 

Mayor Hansen provided a brief statement on Ms. Cook’s volunteer efforts and contributions to the Shoreline community. 

 

(b)               Bob Barta, Shoreline, noted that the continued growth at Shoreline Community College (SCC) is making it difficult for the Council to achieve its goal of keeping neighborhoods healthy and vibrant.  He provided information on traffic revisions developed by the SCC Community Task Force, noting his preference for option A.  He described the efforts by the neighborhood and the City to address the increasing problem of college students parking on neighborhood streets.  He asked the City to continue to help the neighborhood deal with the parking problem.  

 

            (c)        Laurence Yaffe, Shoreline, said that City staff represented recent changes to the City’s Development Code in a dishonest and inappropriate way.  He said the substantive changes were mischaracterized as clarifications of the existing code, and that the process was unethical, unprofessional, and unacceptable.   He said the Casper development in Richmond Beach violates provisions of the Development Code, including the prohibition against building on steep slopes.  He said there are systemic problems in the planning department and that corrective actions are needed.  He urged the Council to look into the problem and fix it, noting that he sent a letter to Council expressing these concerns.

 

            (d)        Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, commented on the “Healing Garden” at the Fircrest School, noting that the Council could implement similar projects in Shoreline without spending large amounts of City money.  She questioned the need to spend part of the Interurban Trail design funding just to implement $30,000 for the 1% for Arts component, noting that people are willing to volunteer their efforts for worthwhile projects like the Healing Garden.  She disputed the description of the federal and state funds that Fircrest receives as “free money,” clarifying that it is really taxpayer money.  She asked Council to be creative and consider ways to keep Fircrest School in the region.

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen suggested that the full Council read Mr. Yaffe’s letter before responding to his comments.  He described the efforts to put additional restrictions on parking in the Highland Terrace neighborhood, noting that some neighborhoods are being polled about permit parking. 

 

Mr. Olander reminded Council that Shoreline Community College is still in the process of working on its long-range master plan.   He noted that the plan would be presented to the Planning Commission and Council for review. 

 

Councilmember Ransom said although the Casper development seems to be an unusual situation, the Council does not have a direct role in that particular land use decision.

 

City Attorney Ian Sievers concurred, noting that the Hearing Examiner decides that particular permit upon staff’s recommendation.  He explained the outstanding issues that must be resolved before the Hearing Examiner will hold a hearing on the permit application. 

 

Councilmember Fimia asked people to provide information about how Janeen Cook touched their lives so she could include it in a recognition to be presented to her family.  She asked that the issue of the future of Fircrest be discussed at the Council Retreat.  She asked if there has been an inventory of changes to the Development Code, or a formal comparison of the old code to the new code. 

 

Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, reported that the Planning Commission has reviewed the Development Code definition of “reasonable use” and is looking at an amendment to it. 

 

Mr. Olander clarified that the Planning Commission is dealing with the definition of reasonable use and not a comprehensive inventory of code changes in the last few years.

 

Councilmember Grace asked that agenda item 6(d) be taken first so that he could participate on the discussion before he had to leave the meeting.  There was Council consensus to amend the agenda to do so.

 

6.         WORKSHOP ITEMS

 

            (d)        Process for Public Input

 

Councilmember Grace outlined the proposed process for soliciting public input on this issue.  Council discussed the scheduling of the meetings to solicit public input and agreed to meet on March 29, April 1 and April 10.  The March 29 meeting will be in the Mt. Rainier Room.  The suggestion was made to contact the Bethel Lutheran Church for an eastside venue.

 

After discussion of having a part of a workshop agenda devoted to taking public comment on Council process, the majority of Council wished to focus on gathering information outside of the regular Council meetings.

 

Responding to Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmember Grace said the participants will be asked to focus on the questions outlined in the draft proposal in the Council packet.  Deputy Mayor Jepsen said he would like to see the final version of the material distributed.  He suggested changing the issue statement to “Some members of the community have raised concerns about the process for public input into City Council decision-making and the Council is interested in encouraging additional residents to participate.”

 

Councilmember Gustafson commented on how many of the recommendations from the Citizens Advisory Task Force of several years ago have been implemented.  He wished to ensure that this item be included on the Council of Neighborhoods agenda for April. 

 

Councilmember Grace said he would work with staff to revise the information to be distributed to the public.  Deputy Mayor Jepsen offered to assist.  This will then be sent to the full Council for review before it is finalized.

 

There was Council consensus to distribute a calendar with these three dates and allow Councilmembers to sign up to attend one or more meetings.  The City Clerk noted that these will be noticed as special meetings; therefore, more than three Councilmembers will be able to attend if they wish. 

 

Councilmember Grace left the Council table at 7:50 p.m.

 

Mr. Olander asked the Council to amend the agenda again to discuss Item 6(b) next to accommodate representatives from the district court in the audience.

 

(b)        Approval of Interlocal Agreement with King

County for Court Services

 

Mr. Sievers introduced Tricia Crozier, Chief Administrative Officer for the King County District Court System and Wesley St. Clair, the Chief Presiding Judge for District Court.  Also in the audience were Judge Smith and Judge Chapman, who serve at the Shoreline District Court.  

 

Judge Smith commended the Shorewood High School mock trial participants and their long-time coach for their excellent showing this year’s in the competition.  He also acknowledged all the contributions that Judge Chapman makes to the Shoreline community. 

 

Mr. Sievers reviewed the terms of the proposed interlocal agreement with King County to provide district court services through the end of 2006.  He explained that in response to King County's position that it was subsidizing municipal court costs, the compensation in the new contract increases the initial compensation from 75 percent to 86 percent of Court revenue, and this estimate is reconciled each year with actual case costs.  The agreement also discusses a District Court master planning process to formulate long-term policy for new negotiations with the cities served by District Court prior to the end of the two-year contract.   The reduction in court revenue will be included in the 2005 budget.  He concluded by saying the agreement will allow Council enough time to consider a different course if it decides not to contract with King County for future court services.  

 

Judge St. Clair described the innovations made at the district courts in order to provide better access and impartial, expeditious justice.  He said despite severe budget restrictions, the court has implemented several new programs, including mental health court, relicensing court, payment plans, and enhanced internet presence.   The court is also in the process of implementing an electronic court record retrieval system that will greatly assist law enforcement.  He concluded by expressing his intent to address and improve any service issues that may arise.  Ms. Crozier distributed copies of the court’s web page. 

 

There was Council consensus to bring the interlocal agreement forward for approval on April 12.

 

Councilmember Ransom commented on the very poor phone service now provided by the court and said he waited one hour to get a live person.  This reflects low customer service standards, as does the long wait times for walk-ins.  He gave a description of a person having to wait for 3-1/2 hours to get a simple name change that under normal circumstances should have taken ten minutes.  He characterized the current process as cold, impersonal, and indifferent.  He was particularly concerned that there is no place for customers to register complaints. 

 

Councilmember Ransom pointed out the issue of customer service will be an item of consideration in whether to create our own municipal court or one in combination with Lake Forest Park and Kenmore.  He concluded that the reputation of the judges and their accessibility is extremely good.

 

Judge St. Clair explained that court staffing has been cut by thirty percent in two years.   In response to these budget cuts, the court has been forced to focus only on its mandated duties.  He also noted that Washington State is “dead last” in the country in the amount of funding provided by the state to local courts.  He explained that he is trying to come up with solutions in a resource-scarce environment. 

 

Ms. Crozier said she would relay Councilmember Ransom’s concerns at the next management review committee meeting.

 

Mr. Olander commented that the County’s development of an operational master plan for district court services should allow the system to address these issues. 

 

Mayor Hansen suggested that citizens contact the City Attorney with complaints, which he can then bring to the committee working with King County on court matters.

 

Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Councilmember Ransom said the customer service issue is a factor in deciding whether or not to pursue a plan to provide court services with other jurisdictions.

 

Councilmember Fimia said the erosion of funding at King County for essential services is an ongoing problem.  She said there is no reason why court funding should be cut while less vital programs continue to be funded.  She suggested that the Council attend King County Executive and Council forums to address the issue. 

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen expressed support for the agreement but encouraged the management review committee to work closely with the district courts to ensure that the system runs efficiently.  He related a personal experience he had with jury duty to illustrate basic communication problems in the court system. 

 

Councilmember Chang asked how 20 other cities in King County are able to fund their own municipal courts.  Mr. Olander stated that fees and fines do not completely support court services, and the General Fund must usually subsidize some of the costs.

 

Councilmember Ransom said a County study found that people were not showing up for their court dates, which resulted in increased jail time.  He pointed out that City volunteers started making reminder phone calls, which greatly reduced Shoreline’s jail costs.  He said fees are down because people are keeping their appointments.

 

Mayor Hansen thanked thanked staff and guests for their report. 

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen surprised Mayor Hansen with a cake to celebrate his birthday.

 

RECESS

 

At 8:30 p.m. Mayor Hansen declared a ten minute recess.  The meeting reconvened at 8:38 p.m.

 

(a)                Governmental Accounting Standards Board

Statement No. 34:  Basic Financial Statements

and Management’s Discussion and Analysis for

State and Local Governments (GASB 34)

 

Finance Director Debbie Tarry introduced Financial Operations Manager Al Juarez, who reviewed the staff report.  Mr. Juarez explained that in June 1999 the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), which sets “generally accepted accounting principles” (financial reporting rules) for all state and local governments, established a new framework for the financial reports of state and local governments.  It represents the biggest single change in the history of governmental accounting.  Known as Statement No. 34, it represents a fundamental revision of the current financial reporting model in place since 1979.

 

Continuing, Mr. Juarez said the most compelling reason to conform to GASB 34 is to receive a “clean audit opinion,” the lack of which could adversely impact the City’s bond rating, increase interest costs, and possibly prohibit the City from selling bonds or obtaining grant funding.

 

Mr. Juarez explained that the new reporting model seeks to improve operational accountability by highlighting the big picture that was sometimes lost in the detail of fund accounting.  Some key specific changes in this regard are:

 

·        Introduction of government wide financial statements.

·        Expanded focus for governmental activities.  In the past, financial reporting for tax-supported activities focused solely on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources.  Governmental activities are now accounted for in the same way as business type activities in the new government wide financial statements. 

·        Presentation of cost data for both governmental and business type activities. 

·        Narrative overview and analysis.

 

The new governmental financial reporting model also seeks to improve fiscal accountability in several important ways:

 

·        Shift in focus to major individual funds.

·        Shift in focus to individual fund budgets.  (The new model eliminates aggregated budget presentations [e.g., totals for all budgeted special revenue funds] in favor of comparisons for the general fund and each individual major fund.)

·        Inclusion of data from the original budget.

·        Infrastructure reporting.  The new reporting model requires governments to report infrastructure assets on the face of the financial statements.

 

Concluding, Mr. Juarez said the City would implement GASB 34 for the past fiscal year.  Due to the complications associated with the retroactive reporting of infrastructure assets, the mandatory deadline for this component of the new reporting model has been set for December 31, 2007. 

 

Mr. Olander noted that once new financial statements come out, staff would be happy to help Council interpret them. 

 

Mayor Hansen asked if the financial statement would include the cost of City infrastructure.  Mr. Juarez said the goal is to provide as much of that in the 2003 financial statement as possible.

 

Councilmember Chang was glad the City did not have to spend money on consultants in order to implement this framework. 

 

Councilmember Ransom asked if GASB 34 means that the fall budget report would be in a different format this year.  Ms. Tarry said the budget document will be the same, but the most significant change will be a comparison of the original budget to the final budget.

 

(b)               Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan – Goals,

Objectives and Strategies

 

DeniseTurner, Shoreline Police Chief and Emergency Operations Manager, introduced Heidi Kandathil and Rebecca Spinks of the University of Washington Institute for Hazard Mitigation.  The City contracted with this group for hazard mitigation analysis to prepare Shoreline’s Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP).  The draft plan has been available for public review and will be adopted in April.  She emphasized that local governments are required to have hazard mitigation plans approved and adopted by November 1, 2004 in order to receive relief funding and hazard mitigation grants.

 

Ms. Spinks provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining the goals, objectives, and potential mitigation strategies of the HMP.  The plan identifies 28 mitigation strategies.  The top ten strategies include the following:

 

1.      Creation of a full time position in the City of Shoreline for an Emergency Management Coordinator.

2.      Creation of a community wide comprehensive education program to educate the public about hazards and hazard mitigation.

3.      Creation and maintenance of a partnership with utility providers to ensure that the utility infrastructure serving Shoreline is retrofitted or built to standards that make them less vulnerable in a hazard event including critical infrastructure protection.

4.      Creation and maintenance of a partnership with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to ensure that the I-5 overpasses located in Shoreline are retrofitted to current seismic standards within a reasonable time frame.

5.      Implementation of non-structural retrofitting in city facilities and provide incentives for non-structural retrofitting for privately owned structures throughout the city.

6.      Identification of critical community facilities and infrastructure that are without back up power generators.

7.      Identification and assessment of critical and essential city infrastructure and facilities.

8.      Ensuring that the public is informed of the necessity of maintaining a 3-day supply of food and water, along with basic first aid and medical supplies.

9.      Providing incentives for voluntary structural retrofitting of older structures on vulnerable soils.

10.  Improving/expanding storm water drainage, dams, detention and retention system capabilities.

 

Chief Turner emphasized that the list of strategies has been prioritized according to adopted criteria, and the City is not obligated to implement all of them.  The focus will be on the top ten or so strategies.  This is a five-year plan, and part of the process is to do a cost-benefit analysis for each strategy.  Staff will seek funding options for implementation of the strategies from Hazard Mitigation Planning Grants (HMPG) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants (PDMG) from FEMA. 

 

Mayor Hansen noted that the Shoreline Water District went through an identical hazard mitigation planning process.  He pointed out that if the HMP is not adopted, the City would not be eligible for FEMA grant funding.

 

Councilmember Ransom noted that the Emergency Management Council does not have representation from elected officials.  He felt that at least one elected official should sit on the committee as a representative of the public.  Mr. Olander responded that in Council-Manager forms of government, the elected officials set policy and the staff acts to administer it.  The Emergency Management Council administers the policies in the Emergency Management Plan.

 

Responding to Councilmember Fimia, Chief Turner said that the strategies were prioritized through a “dot” exercise, which applied the criteria in the plan.

 

Councilmember Fimia felt the City should try to implement as many strategies as possible and not just those for which grant funding is available.  She felt these items, which address public safety issues, are of a higher priority than some programs currently being funded.  She added that citizens would be willing to volunteer to implement some of the ideas in the plan. 

 

Chief Turner noted that there are about 75 to 80 Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) volunteers in the City.  She said that block watch neighbors and the Council of Neighborhoods could also help implement this initiative. 

 

Councilmember Fimia wondered if there are designated shelters or other locations in Shoreline where people can go to get supplies.  Chief Turner said although the Emergency Operations Plan identifies evacuation routes and shelters, people should be prepared to take care of themselves for the first 72 hours after a disaster strikes.  She reiterated that the plan is still in its infancy, and the new emergency management coordinator will develop a cost-benefit analysis for each priority.

 

Councilmember Gustafson commented that the City is much more prepared for an emergency now than it was just a few years ago. 

 

Councilmember Chang suggested that the Planning Commission should review this plan so it can use the hazard information when it is making land use recommendations.

 

There was consensus to bring this forward for adoption.  Councilmember Fimia said she might suggest amendments to the plan.  Councilmember Ransom reiterated his desire to have an elected official on the Emergency Management Council. 

 

7.         CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

 

            (a)        Bob Phelps, Shoreline, responded to questions raised by Councilmembers Fimia and Ransom about the emergency management plan.  He said the current plan requires the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department to determine the locations of public shelters.  He said that right now people would not know where to go in a disaster.

 

            (b)        Laurence Yaffe, Shoreline, followed up on his earlier comments about decision-making by planning department staff.  He gave further examples of what he considered violations of the code in regard to the Casper permit.  He felt the City should have issued an Environmental Determination of Significance, since the home is proposed on steep slopes and requires relocation of a Class II stream.  He said that granting of a reasonable use permit involves judgments by staff.  He felt how these are made should be reviewed and restructured.

 

            (c)        Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, supported the hazard mitigation plan.  She said many of the 28 recommended strategies are science-based decisions.  The land use recommendations made by the Planning Commission should be consistent with these.  On another topic, she suggested that the City Council rules of procedure be posted on the City’s web page, particularly for reference in the upcoming public forums.

 

            (d)        Janet Way, Shoreline, felt that mitigation strategies should be prioritized by their ability to prevent disasters from occurring.  She also concurred with the previous speaker’s comments.  She said the Planning Commission should be asked to reexamine the criteria for a Reasonable Use Special Use permit in order to prevent its misuse.  She said Mr. Casper created his own problems and should not be allowed to use a Reasonable Use permit to remedy them.

 

Councilmember Gustafson noted that Councilmember Chang’s son, Andrew, had just been elected Senior Class President.

 

8.         EXECUTIVE SESSION

 

At 9:42 p.m., Mayor Hansen announced that Council would recess into executive session for forty minutes to discuss litigation.  To accommodate the length of the executive session, Councilmember Gustafson moved to extend the meeting to 10:22 p.m.  Councilmember Chang seconded the motion, which carried 5-0 (Councilmember Fimia stepped away from the Council table).  At 10:21 p.m., the executive session concluded and the workshop reconvened.

 

9.         ADJOURNMENT

 

At  10:22 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.

 

 

 

_________________________

Sharon Mattioli, City Clerk