CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 19, 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, with the exception of Councilmember Gustafson, who arrived shortly thereafter.
(a) Commendation of James Alan Salon
Mayor Hansen presented a commendation to Keith McGlashan and Matthew Fox, owners of James Alan Salon. The James Alan Salon received state and national recognition for its innovative business practices and for its support of community service on the part of its employees. Mr. Fox thanked the City for the commendation and commented on their commitment to their employees and the Shoreline community.
(b) Report by Senator Darlene Fairley
Senator Fairly reported that the past legislative session was more relaxed than previous sessions, and relatively uneventful. She said the legislature tried to take the approach of “doing no harm.” She noted that the major issues included the primary election and the number of initiatives that will appear on the ballot this fall. She pointed out that she was able to block a water utility bill that would have adversely affected cities. She provided a handout explaining all the different grant funding that is available from the state and how to apply for it. She estimated the state deficit to be nearly $500 million next year, but due to unpaid cost-of-living adjustments, pensions, and other demands it would probably be considered 1.5 billion.
Responding to Councilmember Chang regarding the “streamlining” tax measure, Senator Fairley said that the legislature is not willing to act on this until the cities have figured out for themselves what legislation they would support.
Mayor Hansen explained that the primary point of contention is the fact that some cities stand to lose millions in sales tax revenues, where others stand to gain substantially.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen inquired about the status of legislation allowing cities to contract with other jurisdictions for municipal court services. Senator Fairley said the legislature was not necessarily against the bill, but it seemed to have gotten “lost in the shuffle.” She felt confident that the bill would be successful next year due to the longer session.
Regarding the streamlining tax, Councilmember Ransom wondered if cities would be open to the possibility of sharing sales tax revenues. Senator Fairley felt that whatever agreement is reached, it would have to be developed by a neutral organization such as the Association of Washington Cities.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS
§Steve Burkett, City Manager, commented
that Shoreline is dealing with some of the same issues the state is dealing
with in terms of projected budget deficits and increasing costs.
Senator Fairly noted that the state expanded the property tax exemption for senior citizens, although it does have a cumulatively negative effect on cities over time.
Mayor Hansen expressed support for tax relief for seniors, noting that many of them are being taxed out of their homes because of their fixed incomes.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Deputy Mayor Jepsen reported on past and future Sister Cities Association meetings. He also noted that the Seashore Transportation Forum would be held in Shoreline this month.
Mayor Hansen commented on the ribbon-cutting ceremony held on Saturday for the first segment of the Interurban Trail. He also commented on the luncheon at the Shoreline Historical Museum in honor of Judge James Ronald.
Councilmember Ransom stated that the two items of new business regarding Aurora Property Access and Forward Shoreline should be moved to next week’s agenda in light of the items to be discussed this evening.
Mayor Hansen announced that in addition to this amendment to the agenda, Council would recess into executive session around 8:30 p.m.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, expressed her support for Ginger Botham and Michael Broili for the Planning Commission. She said she attended the candidates interviews, and Ms. Botham and Mr. Broili seemed to have those qualities needed by Shoreline at this moment. On another topic, she pointed out that there are both political and legal issues relating to the Fircrest property. She explained that the Friends of Fircrest have legally challenged the decision to “downsize” Fircrest, which was made by a conference committee of the legislature.
(b) Janet Way, Shoreline, announced that “Up Thornton Creek,” a film produced by local filmmaker Peter Vogt, would be shown at the Seattle Film Festival this year. She urged the community to see the film and learn more about the value of salmon in urban streams.
(c) John Sims, owner of Frank Lumber, expressed opposition to the North City project, noting that the Council is not exercising common sense regarding this project. He said the North City Business Association (NCBA) does not speak for the merchants in North City, and that the City has been listening to it too much. He produced a petition signed by several North City business owners who object to the North City Comprehensive Plan and the downsizing of 15th Avenue NE from four to three lanes. He urged the Council not to accept NCBA opinions as fact.
(d) Alan Sharrah, Director of Operations at Frank Lumber, doubted whether the company could continue its current level of business under the North City plan. He said Frank Lumber has been a good company to work for and a good neighbor in the community for 56 years, but he worries about how the North City Project will affect his employees and their families. He said the company intends to utilize zoning variances and other measures it has used in the past in order to grow and expand in the future.
(e) Patty Crawford, Shoreline, said none of the work that Aegis is doing on its south site is in compliance with City code. She said the clearing and grading work going on in the critical areas buffer is subject to the procedures and standards outlined in the Critical Areas Overlay District chapter of the Development Code, but this is not being followed. She questioned the permitting of the new playground equipment at Twin Ponds Park. She said the purpose of buffers is to protect the integrity, functions and values of resources in critical areas, but buffer rules are being violated.
(f) Tim Crawford, Shoreline, said the Council has been inconsistent because it allows a company like Aegis a Critical Areas Special Use Permit but will not allow left turn access for businesses on Aurora Avenue. He said the Council is very prejudicial about whom it helps and whom it doesn’t. He said the City Attorney is a “liar” because he denied that there is a buffer averaging lawsuit for the south Aegis site, which was filed in November of 2002.
Councilmember Grace objected to Mr. Crawford’s comments, which he found to be slanderous and impertinent. Mayor Hansen asked Mr. Crawford to step down.
(g) Jean Christensen, Lynnwood, reiterated the concern she raised at previous Council meetings that the City has cut off access to her business on Ronald Place. She said despite many business cards and contact names she received, nobody has helped her with the problem. She said it seems that Shoreline doesn’t want her business, and that the only way for drivers to access her business is by breaking the law. She urged the Council to do something to help her.
Councilmember Ransom asked for clarification about the specific problem regarding access from the south. Ms. Christensen clarified that Ronald Place cannot be accessed from N 175th Street because the intersection is frequently blocked and parked cars obstruct the entrance.
(h) George Choi, Seattle, explained that he received a letter from the City Manager denying his request for left turn access into his proposed development on Aurora Avenue. He described the scope of the multi-million dollar project and said the project would not be possible without left turn access because customers and residents need access when traveling northbound on Aurora Avenue. He asked the Council to advise him what to do, noting his reluctance to inform his investors of the City’s decision.
Councilmember Fimia asked for details about the total project cost and the square footage. Mr. Choi responded that the project would cover nearly 75,000 square feet and include commercial, retail, and residential development, as well as underground parking.
Councilmember Ransom noted that this development, along with other Aurora businesses, is scheduled for discussion at next week’s Council meeting.
Mr. Burkett noted that staff has met with Ms. Christensen several times regarding her parking and access problem. Councilmember Ransom and Mayor Hansen felt there should be additional study of the specific problem.
6. ACTION ITEM
(a) Planning Commission Appointments
Councilmember Gustafson said that although he missed the interviews last week, he has listened to the tapes. He felt that continuity on the Commission is the overriding concern, and with two new appointments already made, he felt the need to reappoint the two current Commissioners. He moved to reappoint David Harris and Carol Doering for another term on the Planning Commission. Deputy Mayor Jepsen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom supported Michael Broili for one of the positions. He also felt Ginger Botham deserved consideration. He said that David Harris made a good presentation and attempted to address the concerns raised during his first interview. He said he would vote against any motion that included reappointment of Carol Doering because of the inappropriateness of her comments regarding the Council.
Councilmember Grace commented that all the candidates were well-qualified but he was persuaded by the value that the experienced incumbents would bring to the job. He noted that by reading the Planning Commission minutes, he viewed both Mr. Harris and Ms. Doering as productive members of the group.
Councilmember Fimia thanked the Council for conducting a second round of interviews. She felt that these two individuals have shown a lack of sensitivity to public input. She said she was “stunned” by Commissioner Doering’s charges that her place of employment somehow effected Councilmember Fimia’s rating. Councilmember Fimia said it was unfortunate that the candidates had gotten a copy of the rating sheet from the first interview. She also questioned the appropriateness of Ms. Doering’s comments to the Council.
Councilmember Chang emphasized the importance of being a “representational democracy” and said the Council has a duty to ensure that the Planning Commission represents the community – in age, sex, geographic distribution, and income. He said the southern part of the City has no representation, with the exception of the Highlands. He expressed support for appointing Christian Eggen and Ginger Botham as more representational candidates.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen said it was a difficult choice, noting that he voted against appointing commissioners one at a time because he wished to know the overall representational picture.
Mayor Hansen agreed that all the candidates were well-qualified and mentioned Mr. Broili as a strong candidate. However, he supported reappointment of the incumbents in order to maintain continuity.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 4-3, with Councilmembers Chang, Fimia and Ransom dissenting. Mayor Hansen confirmed the reappointment to the Planning Commission of David Harris and Carol Doering for four-year terms ending March 31, 2008.
7. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) 2004 Citizen Satisfaction Survey
Robert Olander, Deputy City Manager, introduced Ron Vine, Vice President of ETC Associates, who was contracted to conduct a customer satisfaction survey. The survey was conducted to assess citizen satisfaction with City services and to help determine priorities for the community as part of the City’s ongoing strategic planning process.
Mr. Vine reported the results of the survey as contained in the 2004 Direction Finder Survey Draft Findings Report. He explained the methodology of the survey and reviewed the various categories about which people were questioned: 1) quality of police services; 2) parks and recreation; 3) overall quality of customer services; 4) effectiveness of communication with the public; 5) stormwater runoff/management system; 6) maintenance of City streets; 7) enforcement of City codes and ordinances; and 8) flow of traffic and congestion. Major findings of the report include the following:
· Quality of Services and Facilities. Quality of police services (81%) is the service that the highest percentage of respondents who had an opinion were either very or somewhat satisfied with. Other services that received high satisfaction ratings include: parks and recreation (79%); overall quality of customer service (66%); and effectiveness of communication with the public (63%).
· Public Safety. Overall quality of local police protection (79%) is the public safety service that the highest percentage of respondents who had an opinion were either very or somewhat satisfied with. Other services that received high satisfaction ratings include: the City’s efforts to prevent crime (69%); and the Shoreline District Court (64%).
· City Maintenance. Overall cleanliness of City streets/public areas (64%) is the City maintenance service that the highest percentage of respondents who had an opinion were either very or somewhat satisfied with. Other services that received high satisfaction ratings include: adequacy of street lighting on arterial streets (60%); and maintenance of City streets in your neighborhood (57%).
· Code Enforcement. Enforcing sign regulations (43%) is the code enforcement category that the highest percentage of respondents who had an opinion were either very or somewhat satisfied with.
· Quality of Customer Service. Fifty-three percent (53%) of those surveys rated the quality of customer service provided by City employees as either excellent (16%) or good (37%). Nineteen percent (19%) of respondents rated customer service as average, 2% rated it as below average, and 1% rated it as poor. Twenty-five percent (25%) indicated “don’t know.”
· Utilization of Customer Service. Thirty-three percent (33%) of respondents have contacted the City with a question, problem or complaint during the past year. Seventy-five percent (75%) of those who have contacted the City indicated that it was either very easy or somewhat easy to contact the person they needed to reach.
· City Communication. Quality of the City’s newsletter, Currents, (71%) is the aspect of city communication that the highest percentage of respondents who had an opinion were either very or somewhat satisfied with. Other aspects that received high satisfaction ratings include: availability of information about City programs and services (66%); and City efforts to keep residents informed (66%).
· Direction of the City of Shoreline. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of respondents think that the City of Shoreline in general is moving in the right direction. Seventeen percent (17%) of respondents do not think the City is moving in the right direction, and 25% indicated “don’t know.”
· Shoreline as a place to live, work, and raise children. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of respondents who had an opinion rated Shoreline as either an excellent (35%) or good (52%) place to live, and 86% rated Shoreline as either an excellent (35%) or good (51%) place to raise children.
· Level of Safety in Shoreline. Ninety-one percent (91%) of respondents who had an opinion indicated feeling very safe (47%) or safe (44%) in their neighborhood during the day, and 79% indicated feeling either very safe (20%) or safe (59%) in Shoreline overall.
· Condition of Neighborhood. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of respondents rated the overall condition of their neighborhood as either excellent (17%) or good (42%). Thirty-four percent (34%) of respondents rate the neighborhood as average, 5% rated it below average, 1% rated it as poor, and 1% indicated “don’t know.”
· Transportation. Availability of public transportation (64%) is the aspect of transportation that the highest percentage of respondents who had an opinion were either very or somewhat satisfied with. Other aspects that received high satisfaction ratings include: availability of sidewalks on major streets (48%); and availability of sidewalks near schools (47%).
· Overall Value of Services Received from City Taxes. Thirty-five percent (35%) of respondents rated the overall value they receive from City taxes as either excellent (4%) or good (31%). Forty percent (40%) of respondents rated the value they receive as average, 9% rated it as below average, 3% rated it as poor, and 13% indicated “don’t know.”
Other findings:
· 24% of respondents have used the City’s Web site during the past 12 months.
· 40% of respondents who have cable television have watched Channel 21 during the past week.
· 78% of respondents have received information about City issues, services, and events through the City newsletter Currents.
· 64% of respondents feel that the condition of their neighborhood is staying about the same.
· 42% of respondents thing the City of Shoreline is “business friendly.”
Continuing, Mr. Vine explained that the report breaks down results by demographic groupings, including gender, household size, work location, retired, renting versus owning residences, household income, and length of residence. He explained that the prioritization of City services showed flow of traffic and congestion, maintenance of City streets, and City stormwater runoff/management as the items that should receive the most emphasis over the next two years. From a satisfaction standpoint, the top issues are prioritized as follows: 1) traffic flow/congestion; 2) code enforcement; 3) streets/facilities maintenance; 4) stormwater quality; 5) effectiveness of City communication; 6) customer Service; 7) parks and recreation; 8) police and fire.
Councilmember Fimia asked if the report demonstrates a correlation between location of residence and satisfaction with City services.
Mr. Vine said the report breaks down the data by geographic areas as well as by household size, income, gender, and so forth.
Councilmember Gustafson wondered if there was any further analysis on traffic flow and congestion, noting his belief that many people are more frustrated with the I-5 corridor than city streets.
Mr. Vine said the report did not break down the data further, although that question could be answered through a follow-up focus group on traffic congestion.
Responding to Councilmember Fimia, Mr. Vine clarified that the rating for City services was based on all respondents, not just those who indicated they contacted the City. He explained that this is because all respondents receive City services in some form or another, regardless of whether they have contacted the City. Councilmember Fimia expressed interest in getting survey results based on those who have contacted the City.
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 8:50 p.m., Mayor Hansen announced that the Council would recess into executive session for 50 minutes to discuss litigation and real estate acquisition. At 9:45 p.m., Mayor Hansen returned to the meeting and announced that the executive session would continue for another half hour and that the meeting would be extended until 11:00 p.m. The other two discussion items on the agenda, the Comprehensive Plan and Master Plans Update and the Capital Improvement Plan Quarterly Update, would be deferred.
At 10:28 p.m. the executive session concluded and the meeting reconvened.
10. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, said that the Council needs to be aware of two issues when considering redevelopment of the Fircrest site: asbestos and water. She warned that the barracks in the north and south ends of the campus still contain asbestos. She wondered if the City could initiate abatement proceedings or remove them since they are an “attractive nuisance” and a fire hazard. She also pointed out that any plans to redevelop the site should consider the stream running through the campus.
(b) Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, urged the Council to find better ways to provide direct services to the most needy through human services funding. She said the food distribution problem within Shoreline is a problem of access, which can be attributed to lack of transportation and language barriers. She suggested that the Council consider the Fircrest site as a permanent food bank location. She felt that current funding for food bank services does not adequately address the need in Shoreline.
11. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:38 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Sharon Mattioli, City Clerk