CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 5, 2004 Shoreline Conference Center
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.
(a) Proclamation of Volunteer Week
Mayor Hansen proclaimed the week of April 25 as Volunteer Week in Shoreline and recognized the many contributions that volunteers make to the Shoreline community. Leona Obstler, Shoreline Police Department, and police storefront volunteers John Monroe, Sally Granger, and Hill Williams accepted the proclamation and thanked the City for this recognition.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS
§Steve Burkett, City Manager, noted that
next week’s short agenda will include adoption of the Hazard Mitigation
Plan. He also announced the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the south section
of the Interurban Trail on Saturday, April 17.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Grace reported on the turnout at the community forums and thanked staff for their efforts in setting up the venues.
Councilmember Gustafson briefly reported on a Brightwater forum held in Kenmore.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen reported that the Puget Sound Regional Council approved a change in grant status for the Aurora Corridor Project, which means the City can begin using the grant funding. He also mentioned that the Suburban Cities Association chose him as its representative on the King County Economic Development Council.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Ginger Botham, Shoreline, invited interested parties to attend two open houses hosted by the traffic subcommittee of the Shoreline Community College Master Plan Task Force.
(b) Gretchen Atkinson, President, North City Business Association, expressed support for the North City Project and encouraged the Council to move forward on it as quickly and economically as possible.
(c) Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, questioned whether North City property owners were adequately involved in planning for the North City project. She pointed out that ten percent of the properties face eminent domain action, and that many owners still have concerns about traffic and business access. She asserted that the project would increase neighborhood traffic. She also noted that owners who have already granted easements would not be compensated. She said the Council should reflect on whether the people of Shoreline were well served by this process.
(d) John Sims, owner of Frank Lumber, stated that the North City Business Association does not represent all North City businesses, and that most businesses do not favor the North City Project. He said that although the City wants only a small, two-foot easement that fronts his property, the long-term goal is to take another twenty feet behind his property. He asserted that Shoreline favors apartments and mixed use developments over some types of businesses. He urged the Council to defer voting on tonight’s action item and instead meet with business owners instead to find out their concerns. He said tonight’s proposed action would hurt long-time North City businesses.
(e) Laura Vicary, West Seattle, owner of Hotwire Online Coffeehouse, expressed support for the North City Project, noting that it was what attracted her to start a business there. She said the majority of merchants are in full support of the project, which will improve safety and enhance the visual impact of the corridor. She felt the project would attract many of the consumers who shop in adjacent jurisdictions. She said the long-term gain of the project would exceed any short-term loss that some might suffer.
(f) Gary East, owner of the building in which the Hotwire Coffeehouse is located, confirmed that he used the North City project to attract his current tenant to locate in North City. He discussed the history of his property and the extensive planning and “charrette” process involved in designing the North City project. He said that athough some people will lose a small amount of space, the benefits of the project more than compensate for any losses. He noted that granting an easement to the City makes the City responsible for maintaining that easement. He said he offered free legal service to neighbors to help draft and revise easements, but only one accepted his offer. He noted that property owners have been aware of this project for a long time.
(g) Ros Bird, Shoreline, thanked the Council for its generous support of the Showmobile, which will debut at the Shoreline Arts Festival on June 26. She expressed excitement about the 1% for Art budget for the Interurban Trail Pedestrian Bridge Project, noting that the City is lucky to have artist Vicky Scurry on this project. Regarding sister cities funding, she encouraged the Council to approve an expenditure policy that will allow Shoreline to nurture a successful and worthwhile relationship with its sister city, Boryeong Korea.
6. ACTION ITEMS
(a) Ordinance No. 351 providing for the use of
eminent domain to acquire certain real
property at 17505, 17517, 17541, 17563, 17721,
17727, 17750 and 17763 15th Avenue NE
Mr. Burkett explained the recommendation to exercise eminent domain to acquire right-of-way in order to complete construction of the North City Project. He noted that four properties along 15th Avenue NE have refused to grant easements to the City, and that the City can exercise eminent domain in order to acquire portions of these properties for underground utilities and increased sidewalk widths. He emphasized that the power of eminent domain requires judicious use, but this option will provide for construction of the North City Project this year. He said due to the low impact to properties and the number of property owners who have already granted easements, staff believes it is preferable to pursue eminent domain rather than redesign around the properties, which would result in an irregular road configuration and higher costs.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, explained the reason for the revised ordinance distributed this evening, noting that certain easements have been received since the Council packet was produced. He explained the eminent domain process and the reason it is being recommended in this situation. He said neither the actual fair market value of the properties in question, nor the litigation costs, are significant, although there would be appraisal costs if it proceeds to trial. He explained the three issues involved in condemnation cases: 1) public use; 2) necessity; and 3) fair market value. He said even in the worst-case scenario, the timeline for condemnation should allow for construction in 2004, given the expedited scheduling that condemnation cases receive.
Jan Knudsen, Economic Development Coordinator, provided background and the status of the specific properties in the ordinance. She also described the advantages and disadvantages of redesigning the project versus exercising eminent domain. She concluded that redesigning the project would be more costly, time consuming, and result in an inconsistent design. The City would also risk losing substantial funding from Seattle City Light for undergrounding utilities.
Mr. Burkett reiterated that eminent domain is appropriate in this case in order to prevent stoppage, delay, and increased costs. He noted that the impacts to property owners are minimal, and the City’s investment of over $6 million to improve this district will greatly benefit the properties.
Councilmember Ransom felt strongly that eminent domain should be a last resort. He said it should only be exercised after mediation efforts are made with property owners. He called attention to the inequity that would result if only some property owners are compensated for their easements. He also wondered what particular objections the Peking House Restaurant had, since restaurant parking would not be affected in the same way as Frank Lumber.
Ms. Knudson said the Peking House asked the City to repave its parking lot in return for signing the easement, but the City was not comfortable doing this due to the high costs and the fact that repaving was not offered to other property owners. She clarified that the electrical design requires that underground vaults be placed at Frank Lumber and North City Cleaners.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to pass Ordinance No. 351 as presented this evening. Councilmember Grace seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom moved to amend the ordinance to require that a mediation process be gone through with the property owners before eminent domain is exercised. Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom emphasized that mediation is a last-step measure before exercising eminent domain because it is good for the City’s image and public relations.
Councilmember Gustafson asked about the timeframe and costs associated with mediation.
Mr. Sievers felt mediation as a prerequisite to eminent domain could delay the project because the City would not receive a court date until the case is filed in superior court. He noted that mediation could occur concurrently with the eminent domain process. He also noted that mediation works best for complex issues, not for property appraisals, which can be fairly objective. He said most objections to granting easements are based on objections to the project itself, not how much owners will receive for the property.
Councilmember Ransom noted that the state mediation services have always been very accommodating in terms of scheduling. He felt without mediation, people could perceive the City as arrogantly pushing this project forward. He said mediation could also set a good precedent for other projects such as the Aurora Corridor.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen pointed out that the City can negotiate with property owners up to the last minute, and that staff will continue to work with property owners so that eminent domain is a last resort.
Councilmember Grace agreed that mediation is a valuable tool to help resolve conflicts, and it should occur concurrently with the ordinance in order to prevent the loss of funding due to delay. Councilmember Gustafson concurred.
Councilmember Chang noted that he is personally opposed to eminent domain, which is very stressful on property owners. Responding to Councilmember Chang, Ms. Knudson noted that redesign would likely delay the project several months, and that construction would not begin until 2005, which puts the funding at risk. Councilmember Chang asked about the staff effort to work with property owners.
Ms. Knudson responded that staff has been working individually and collectively with property owners since late 2001. She noted that staff has been in contact with the manager of Frank Lumber on several occasions, at open houses and at the store itself. She said Ms. Atkinson has been in contact as well.
Councilmember Ransom felt the Council should hear Mr. Sims’ views on mediation before taking a vote on the amendment, but Councilmember Grace was not comfortable having Mr. Sims or any other property owner testify since they have not had sufficient time to consider the proposal.
A vote was taken on the motion, which failed 2-5, with Councilmembers Ransom and Fimia voting in the affirmative.
Councilmember Fimia said she could not support the ordinance because voting for it is a vote for the entire project. She said she opposes a project that proposes spending $6 million for increased population density and reduced traffic capacity. She said the project does not fit her definition of a livable community, and that there are not sufficient benefits compared to the costs. She said eminent domain should be a last resort that is reserved for major public benefits.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen expressed support for the ordinance and for the project in general.
Councilmember Ransom did not support the ordinance due to traffic concerns and the project costs. He said the lack of bus turnouts will interrupt traffic flow, and drivers would use neighborhood streets to bypass slow-moving traffic on 15th Avenue NE. He also noted that the project cost has grown from $1 million to over $6 million.
Councilmember Gustafson said this project was a major issue when he was elected to the Council. He pointed out that the City went through an extensive public process for the project, and most business owners support it. He felt the improvements would yield many benefits to the community, including beautification, safety, and higher property values.
Councilmember Chang opposed the ordinance. He also expressed opposition to the project itself, noting that people are concerned about reduced capacity on a major traffic corridor.
Mayor Hansen expressed support for the project, noting that it would increase everyone’s property values, and the City would eventually collect more tax revenue because of it. He said the North City Business District got this project because it was willing to accept density that would have been assigned to other business districts. He noted that North City has given up some things in order to get this project. He supported using eminent domain in this case, although passing the ordinance does not preclude formal mediation if property owners desire.
Councilmember Fimia agreed with increasing density in the area, but she opposed decreasing traffic capacity there. She asked how the plan provides for trips in and out of North City.
Ms. Knudson explained that a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement was prepared for this project. This went beyond a basic policy level analysis. She said the analysis shows that the actual capacity of the road is not reduced because left turn lanes would be made into center turn lanes, which allows for increased movement through the travel lanes. She noted that the maximum daily number for trips in North City is 19,000.
Councilmember Fimia wondered why two-way left turn lanes are being used in North City but not on Aurora Avenue. She also wondered if a traffic impact analysis had been done for 10th Avenue NE. Ms. Knudson clarified that North City and Aurora Avenue have completely different traffic volumes and turning movements. She further explained that the long-term scenario anticipates fewer driveway curbs along 15th Avenue because access would be provided via an alley system behind businesses.
Mr. Burkett noted that traffic volumes, design issues, and mitigation measures have already been debated as part of approval of the project. He said although not everyone agreed, the project has moved forward in the Capital Improvement Plan.
Councilmember Grace wished to direct staff to pursue a more formal mediation process concurrently with the eminent domain process.
Mr. Burkett said the ordinance states that the City can acquire right-of-way by negotiation or condemnation, which means that mediation is included. He said staff would pursue mediation, although property owners must voluntarily participate.
A vote was taken on the motion to pass Ordinance No. 351 providing for the use of eminent domain to acquire certain real property at 17505, 17517, 17541, 17563, 17721, 17727, 17750 and 17763 15th Avenue NE, which carried 4-3, with Councilmembers Chang, Fimia and Ransom dissenting.
(b) Motion to appoint three Planning Commissioners
for four-year terms ending March 31, 2008
Councilmember Fimia reported that the subcommittee, composed of herself, Deputy Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Chang, had been unable to reach agreement on a recommendation of three individuals to appoint to the Planning Commission. She said she and Councilmember Chang had recommended Virginia Botham, Christian Eggen, and Chakorn Phisuthikul. In addition to these three names, they offered three more individuals, Jerome Cronk, Michael Broili, and Mark Deutsch, for interviews by a committee-of-the-whole. She said their choices were based on broad selection criteria, including interest in environmental affairs, planning, land use, residential/commercial development experience, diversity, and location/length of residency on Shoreline. She noted that consistency is built into the appointment process, since Planning Commissioners serve staggered terms.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen maintained his strong support of reappointing David Harris and Carol Doering. He also offered the names of Michael Broili and Chakorn Phisuthikul. He said while geography and diversity are important, there are many other important qualifications that should be considered when appointing commissioners. He noted that his top two choices (Harris and Doering) were the other subcommittee members’ last choices.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to reappoint Carol Doering and David Harris to the Planning Commission. Deputy Mayor Jepsen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom expressed grave concern about the Council not taking the subcommittee recommendation without conducting interviews. He said interviews would tell the Council much more about the candidates than resumes would.
Councilmember Gustafson reaffirmed his support of Commissioners Harris and Doering because they are known quantities and have experience on the Planning Commission. He felt the Council should start by appointing them and then deciding on a third selection.
Councilmember Chang felt the selection should also be based on geography, noting there are no Commissioners living in neighborhoods south of Shoreline’s centerline. He said Shoreline needs representation from the south, the eastside, and lower-income neighborhoods. He said that while he admires the service of Commissioners Harris and Doering, he would like to see that all areas of Shoreline are represented on the Planning Commission.
Mr. Burkett stressed the importance of having a quorum of Commissioners at the next Planning Commission meeting, since there is scheduled business.
Councilmember Grace said he went through the Planning Commission record, which suggests that the two incumbents have been providing professional, even-handed participation. However, he also respected the basis for the other recommendations. He proposed appointing one person that everyone agreed on, and then limiting interviews to the two incumbents and the two top picks of the subcommittee majority.
Mayor Hansen felt it was imperative that at least two people be appointed tonight.
Councilmember Fimia felt that if Council intends to override the subcommittee recommendation, it should appoint Chakorn Phisuthukul and then interview at least four more candidates.
After further discussion, Councilmember Fimia moved a substitute motion to appoint Chakorn Phisuthikul to the Planning Commission and interview David Harris, Carol Doering, Virginia Botham, Christian Eggen, and Michael Broili. Councilmember Chang seconded the motion, which carried 4-3, with Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.
Mayor Hansen confirmed the appointment of Chakorn Phisuthikul to the Planning Commission for a term ending March 31, 2008.
7. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) Proposed amendments to the Sister Cities Policy
Scott Passey, staff liaison to the Shoreline Sister Cities Association, and Julie Modrezjewski, Assistant City Manager, outlined the recommendation to amend the Sister Cities Policy to include expenditure guidelines for the $10,000 allocation to Sister Cities that was approved in the 2004 budget process. He outlined what sister city activities the City can legally fund, as well as the following proposed changes to the Sister City Policy:
He concluded by saying that the Council’s decision to fund the sister city program would still be valid even without an expenditure policy. However, the recommended changes would clarify the Council’s intent and provide an extra level of assurance that City funds are spent appropriately.
Councilmember Ransom said the recommendation is similar to what he had in mind for sister cities expenditures. He reiterated his prior support for assisting the City Sister Cities Association (SCA), since it is still a small and weak organization. He said it is unlikely that it would be able to raise a significant amount of funding initially.
Councilmember Fimia expressed support for the program, although she recommended adding language to reflect the intent that City funds should be based on funds or in-kind contributions raised by the SCA. She also suggested language prohibiting Council solicitation of individuals for sister cities activities.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen concurred, but said the SCA was created specifically to fund, organize, and move the sister city relationship along. He said it was never intended to have Council or staff solicit private contributions. He said if the SCA is weak, then there should be no sister city relationships. He felt there should be as many sister city relationships as the SCA is able to support. He opposed using City funds to pay for Council travel as a rule, but said one-time appropriations could be approved as needed. He noted that Councilmembers could pay their own travel expenses, or have them covered by the SCA.
Mr. Burkett noted that other cities have adopted rules requiring their councils to approve any sister city expenditures in advance.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen felt the appropriate philosophy is that City funding should be used to host visiting delegations in Shoreline, since the City of Boryeong paid Shoreline’s delegates’ expenses.
Councilmember Gustafson noted his continued opposition to funding the sister city program, saying there are higher priorities in the City. He said if the Council approves an expenditure policy, it should not fund Council travel, but perhaps one delegate approved by the Council.
Mayor Hansen noted that he would never solicit private individuals or businesses on behalf of the Sister Cities Association.
Responding to Ms. Modrzejewski, Deputy Mayor Jepsen clarified that funds should be used to support visiting delegations when they visit Shoreline, not for Council travel abroad.
Councilmember Chang emphasized that visiting a sister city is a tremendous personal sacrifice of time, energy, and money. He pointed out that traveling to Korea requires a minimum commitment of three days. He felt Councilmembers would not be able to travel if they must pay all their expenses. He also felt it would be insulting to send only one Council delegate to a sister city. He felt all Councilmembers should have an opportunity to visit sister cities in the future.
Mayor Hansen noted that he paid his own way on the last trip to Korea, and would be happy to do so again. He felt the City should not underwrite the costs for Councilmembers’ travel.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen said he is not suggesting that Councilmembers pay their own travel costs, noting that the SCA is there to fundraising and underwrite such expenses. He pointed out that City funds were not used to send a delegation of nearly 20 people to Korea last year.
Responding to Councilmember Grace, Mr. Passey clarified that cities generally fund Councilmembers’ travel expenses.
Councilmember Chang clarified that Federal Way delegates pay their own way when visiting a sister city, and sister city delegates pay their own way when visiting Federal Way. However, cities like Federal Way and Bellevue have large corporations that make contributions to fund such activities, but Shoreline does not.
Councilmember Fimia wished to amend the recommendation to strike “all” from travel expenses. She also wished to include the intent that City funding is contingent on substantial financial and in-kind contributions by businesses and non-profit organizations, in addition to the SCA. She also reiterated her concern about Council solicitation, asking that language be added prohibiting Council solicitation on behalf of the SCA.
Councilmember Ransom said the real question is whether to adopt a Bellevue or Federal Way model. He noted that Shoreline does not have the broad business and corporate support Bellevue does, and that Federal Way substantially funded its sister cities program until it was up and running. He felt the City should fund the program until it can be self-sustaining. He supported the recommendation as written, noting that it would be a “loss of face” to Boryeong if Shoreline’s program does not meet minimum standards. He also said it would be a hardship on some to pay their own travel expenses.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen reiterated that the SCA could fund Council travel if it chooses to do so.
Mr. Burkett agreed with Councilmember Fimia’s recommendations, noting that the program should be supported only if there is strong financial support for it in the community. He said from an investment standpoint, the sister cities program is a low priority for using City funds. He felt the SCA should fund those items the City cannot or should not fund. He said there should be a partnership and balance between the City and the SCA.
Mayor Hansen was comfortable with the language in the resolution since it does not mandate that the City pay for travel expenses. He noted that the word “may” is discretionary.
Councilmember Fimia suggested contacting Bill Stafford of Seattle’s Trade Development Alliance to discuss Seattle’s approach to sister city funding at a future dinner meeting.
Councilmember Chang thanked past and present staff for their work on this proposal.
Mr. Burkett noted that staff would return with revisions based on Council input, but would proceed with the understanding that the proposed guidelines would be used to support the May visit of Boryeong’s delegation.
(b) Human Services Update
Rob Beem, Human Services Manager, updated the Council on past human service accomplishments and future goals and strategies. He explained that the City had played the role of catalyst to achieve 15 desired human service outcomes using funding, leadership, and planning. His presentation included the following points:
· In 2003 the City funded 19 direct service programs with a combined value of $272,000 that provided service to over 16,000 Shoreline residents. In addition to direct funding with City revenues Shoreline works to improve the strength of the services system through partnerships and alliances with others.
· The City’s strongest partnerships are with the Shoreline Public Schools, the Northshore Shoreline Public Health and Safety Network, and United Way of King County. Through these partnerships, Shoreline agencies have received an additional $70,000.
· Through this leadership our local agencies are stronger and Shoreline plays a prominent role in local and regional decision-making.
· In the coming year the City will allocate direct services funding for the 2005-2007 cycle. This process will proceed in the same fashion as in the past with a citizens committee developing recommendations for the City Council to consider in the fall of 2004.
· Through the work of an Ad Hoc Human Services Advisory Committee and staff, the City is refining strategies aimed at strengthening the financial condition of local service providers and addressing emerging issues of substance abuse and securing a permanent presence in Shoreline for a Food Bank/Emergency Services Center.
He concluded his remarks by saying that Shoreline provides more human services than it did when it first incorporated, and more than doubled the number of agencies in the community.
Councilmember Ransom asked if state and federal reductions in human service funding is affecting Shoreline’s ability to provide services. Mr. Beem explained that the state has shifted its focus to serve a greater proportion of Medicaid recipients, which means more people in Shoreline must rely on private agencies and fundraising to access certain services.
Councilmember Fimia discussed benchmarking outcomes and emphasized the important role that public transit plays in access to human services. She felt there is a direct link between transportation and the ability to access human services. She said access to transit is a “great equalizer” for youth and low-income earners that will enable them to access jobs and medical care. She asked to discuss this issue at the Council Retreat.
Mr. Burkett felt that transportation issues are best addressed on a regional level, since it is a key responsibility of King County.
Councilmember Grace asked about the future of federal funding allocations, and what the current projections are based upon.
Mr. Beem said the projections are based on current level of resources, since the direction from Council has been to maintain a constant level of funding.
At 9:55 p.m. Councilmember Fimia moved to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Councilmember Grace wondered what trends in human services would give the Council some direction on allocating funding.
Mr. Beem explained that funding is provided broadly over a wide range of services in order to attract additional contributions. He said the goal is to attract activity across all outcome areas. He noted that a majority of funding is provided to the Senior Center and the Center for Human Services.
Mayor Hansen suggested that staff investigate the City of Kent’s in-house home repair program, rather than using King County as Shoreline does.
Councilmember Ransom emphasized the need for increased access to dental services. Mr. Beem concurred, noting that there are programs where private entities partner with other cities to provide indigent dental services.
Councilmember Chang asked what problems there were with food distribution in the City. Mr. Beem said the main problem is that although there is food stored in warehouses, there is no permanent, full-time food distribution facility in Shoreline. He said the City is working with Hopelink to help address that problem.
Councilmember Ransom wondered if Shoreline Community Care could be used for food distribution. Mayor Hansen noted that there are numerous private food banks provided in the City.
Councilmember Fimia suggested the use of the Fircrest facility to provide certain types of medical services. She felt that human services funding and allocations requires a more in-depth discussion so that Council can give direction to the citizens committee that recommends the allocations of the Community Development Block Grant funds.
(c) Customer Response Team 2003 Annual Report
LaDonna Smith, Customer Response Team Supervisor, and Ms. Modrzejewski updated the Council on the Customer Response Team’s (CRT) progress and accomplishments for 2003, noting that CRT responded to more than 18,900 customer requests. They said this update serves to confirm how well CRT is achieving program objectives and the Council and citizens’ vision. The top five service requests for the 2001-2003 period include: 1) sign repair/replacement and request for new signs, 2) road repairs, 3) litter/debris calls, 4) drainage requests, and 5) tree service. More than two-thirds of requests for 2001-2003 were received by telephone, and there was an increase in 24-7 on-call requests. For the past five years, CRT has sent out survey letters in order to improve service delivery. Despite the trend of increasing requests for services, survey results indicate a 98% excellent service rating. The Customer Response Team looks at service delivery using a broad customer focus. The goal is to create, manage, and share information with departments to simplify service delivery, reduce duplication, and improve the level and speed of service to customers.
Continuing, Ms. Smith explained the benefits that CRT implementation has had on the Shoreline community, adding that the data collected has supported the development of the Surface Water Program, Code Enforcement Program, Street Overlay Program, and the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program. It has also provided information for damage recovery and insurance claim processing and recoveries.
At 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Ransom moved to extend the meeting to 10:45 p.m. Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Councilmember Fimia invited CRT to make recommendations to the Council in order to reduce future service calls or improve service delivery.
Councilmember Ransom wondered if the City could be losing some of the data because calls may be routed to other departments. Ms. Smith clarified that CRT does not receive some calls that come in relating to Public Works work orders, although everything gets captured in the City’s computer system. She explained that CRT manages the customer service module, and Public Works manages the work order module.
Mr. Burkett said the purpose of the tracking system is to solve problems, anticipate problems, and ultimately reduce the number of problems in the City.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen encouraged the use of 546-1700 as the main customer service contact number. He expressed concern that some information would not be tracked in the Hansen system if people circumvent CRT.
Ms. Modrzejewski pointed out that there are other systems in place to track service requests, for example, the City Clerk’s system for tracking public disclosure requests.
She emphasized the need to focus on service requests that generate workload and not routine requests for information. She hoped that the Hansen analysis would help the City be more strategic in using the City’s technology.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen stressed the need for one central location where people can go for information in order to provide consistency.
Councilmember Gustafson spoke highly of the CRT’s customer service and ability to gather and analyze data on service requests.
8. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Janet Way, Shoreline, said Fircrest School is a good example of a place that offers valuable services that are often overlooked in studies. She said it would be useful to see how Fircrest and the Shoreline School District would fit into the analysis of service delivery. She felt there is a gap in the City between services offered and real needs. She also inquired about what services are offered to people who speak different languages.
(b) Richard Johnsen, Shoreline, asked that Council continue to hold community forums in May and June, and that they be broadcast on Channel 21. Regarding sister cities funding, he asked the Council to consider the ideas presented by staff, and to consider the practices of other cities. He pointed out that other cities have had to fund sister city activities initially. He suggested that in addition to discussing sister cities with Bill Stafford of the Trade Development Alliance, the Council should also consider inviting Alma Plancich of the Ethnic Heritage Council.
At 10:40 p.m. Councilmember Ransom moved to extend the meeting ten minutes. Councilmember Grace seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
(c) Vance McElmurray, Shoreline, described the difficulties the City has caused him as he has tried to expand his home. He said although he began remodeling without a permit, the City has made the process more difficult than it needs to be. He said the plans he has submitted are reasonable, but the City continues to reject them. He said the City’s practice does not follow the spirit of the development regulations. He said he would like to see the “experiment” of Shoreline abolished because it does not provide citizens with anything of value.
Councilmember Ransom asked that discussion of business properties in the first one-half mile of the Aurora project be added to the agenda of April 19. Councilmembers Fimia and Chang supported the request.
Councilmember Fimia asked that discussion of the City’s role in Forward Shoreline also be added to the agenda of April 19th. Councilmember Ransom supported this request.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:48 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Sharon Mattioli, City Clerk