CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, November 7, 2005 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 at 6:55 p.m.
(a) Proclamation of “Veterans Appreciation Day”
Mayor Hansen read the proclamation. Veterans on hand were U.S. Army Retired Lieutenant Colonel Raymond Coffey, volunteer military liaison to the City of Shoreline and a member of the Vietnam Veterans of America, Shoreline Post. Additional recipients were Commander Christopher Layton from the American Legion Shoreline Post #227.
Mayor Hansen thanked all military personnel past and present for their sacrifices for the cause of peace and freedom and presented the veterans in attendance with a copy of the proclamation.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Steve Burkett, City Manager, thanked the Ridgecrest Neighborhood Association and Parks and Recreation Department for sponsoring the Hamlin Haunt, which drew almost 800 participants. He announced that the North City Project utility undergrounding work is complete, and there are 193 trees at the nursery for planting on the Aurora Corridor project. He noted that Election Day is on November 8th and that City offices would be closed on November 11th for Veteran’s Day. He reminded the Council that the November 14th City Council Meeting will start at 7:00 pm. In conclusion, he stated that City employees raised $26,155 for the United Way, which was the most money per capita raised by the 28 cities who donated in the State of Washington.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS: none
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Bronston Kenney, Shoreline, discussed cottage housing. He felt that the majority of the residents don’t support it and the only reason it is still an active issue is because the Planning Department and Planning Commission want to feel “important”. The Planning Commission members consist of planners from other agencies and at least three who are builders/developers. He quoted Mr. Sands, a member of the Planning Commission, “Density is not a right, zoning is not a right, and it is not something someone should rely upon when they purchase a home. If a developer can meet the requirements, then the “not in my backyard” group should not be able to stop the development.” He felt cottage housing only enriches developers at the expense of homeowners.
(b) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, stated she was upset with the staff proposal to sell a portion of Shoreview Park, which is not part of the Parks Master Plan. Shoreline citizens want open space and do not want any park land sold for private development. It is conceivable for the parking lot to be used for a sports field. She said this must have a public hearing before the final decision is made.
(c) Jane Hinton, Shoreline, Center of Human Services, thanked the Council for funding for those residents in need. The Center is valuable, she said, and the funding the City provides supports their ability to provide information, referral services, and support for the families of Shoreline.
(d) Anselmo Alvares, Commander, Veterans of the Vietnam War, Inc. Shoreline Post, said the proclamation he received is dedicated to the military men and women currently serving, retired, or no longer with us. He thanked the Mayor, the City Council, and the City staff for the proclamation.
(e) Peter Henry, Shoreline, stated that South Woods is important to keep in public ownership. He felt this will be the last opportunity for the Council to save this land and urged them to do so.
(f) Ken Cottingham, Shoreline, felt the Aurora Project could have been done cheaper. He felt the cost of the project should have been $8 - $12 million and in his opinion the cost is approaching $42 million. He distributed a handout to the Council with expenditure calculations and asked for clarification from City staff.
(g) Vicky Westberg, Shoreline, said South Woods is important to maintain. She referred to a Seattle PI article about City forests which said they are “in peril” and that the build environment should be balanced with the values of the natural environment. She concluded that trees do a great job in adding value to the City.
(h) Michael Broili, Shoreline, stated he is a past Parks Board member. He is pleased with the City’s vision to allocate $50,000 from the 2006 budget to conduct a tree inventory and management plan. He agreed with this decision because urban forests are good resources and we need to avoid the “piecemeal approach” to tree management in the City. The promoting, planting, and preservation of trees is important to the City and will help reduce costs and provide a profit stream. He said there are a number of values with well-managed forests including surface water management, improved quality and protection of streams, improved air quality, noise suppression, improved soil stability, and improved water quality. He urged the Council to support the $50,000 line item in the budget.
(i) Colin Sleeper, Shoreline, discussed South Woods. He commented that Forbes magazine had an article on global warming that stated people can pay an organization to plant trees. South Woods, he said, is a second growth forest that has been in existence for 80 years. He said he cares about the planet and the environment and has a passion and wants to save South Woods.
(j) Jackson Kellock, Lake Forest Park, on behalf of the Student Action For the Environment (S.A.F.E.), said the organization is concerned about South Woods and urged the Council to save them by any means possible.
(k) Janet Way, stated she is a member of the South Woods Preservation Group, the Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund, and the Paramount Park Neighborhood Group. She asserted that she would like to incorporate by reference any comments during this period be added for the record as a part of the public hearing concerning the bond issue. She said the purchase of the parking lot was not in the Parks Master Plan. She said there were promises made concerning South Woods in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to spend $3 million for land acquisition. However, the CIP adoption vote a couple of months ago raised that figure to $6 million to purchase the entire property. She urged the Council to follow through with the purchase as they voted to do. The assets from the purchase of South Woods include environmental education, recreation, and air/water quality. She urged the City and the school district to work together to bring environmental education to the community and save South Woods.
(l) Mamie Bolender, Lake Forest Park, reinforced the movement for the City to purchase South Woods. She also referenced the Seattle PI article “City Forests in Peril” and encouraged everyone to read it. The City of Seattle, she said, has realized that its infrastructure is aging and it will cost millions and millions to repair. She said they have realized that they can reverse some of this through ecological measures such as retaining and planting trees. She outlined the economical benefits of trees and urged the Council to purchase South Woods.
(m) Kristine Southwick, Shoreline, stated she grew up near South Woods and is aware of the protection and benefits of trees. She is a member of the Thornton Creek Alliance and the South Woods Preservation Group. She said South Woods used to be larger and it is diminishing and if we don’t do something the youth will not have the nature opportunities she had when she grew up. She urged the Council to save South Woods.
(n) Diana Stephens, Snohomish, said all levels of Federal government spending is out of control and taxpayer dollars are not being spent where they are needed most. She said “pork projects” are added onto legislation and are troubling. She concluded by stating the monies wasted on projects such as this could be used on other needed issues.
(o) Rick Stevens, President of the Shoreline Merchants Association (SMA), outlined that the members of SMA did not sue the City. However, the SMA did file a SEPA appeal opposing a decision of the Council because the City’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) did not consider economic impacts to local businesses. He said the Federal Highway Administration determined that a number of items in the DEIS needed to be revised. The City, he stated, withholds information and that is not fair. He concluded that the City belongs to the people and the residents want to be a part of the process.
Councilmember Grace moved to approve the agenda. Deputy Mayor Jepsen seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, and the agenda was approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Ransom moved approval of the consent calendar. Councilmember Grace seconded the motion, which carried 7-0 and the following consent items were approved:
Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 10, 2005
Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment for professional services with KPFF for design services of the Dayton Avenue North at North 175th Street Retaining Wall Project in an amount not to exceed $76,170.
8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARINGS
(a) Continued public hearing to receive citizens’ comments
on the Bond Advisory Committee Recommendations
Bob Olander, Deputy City Manager, said the recommendation from the City is that the Council postpone further discussion until December 12th because there is no immediate rush on this issue. He reminded the Council that South Woods is one of the projects in the whole bond issue package. During the last public hearing the Council asked for options on the bond issue. These options are as identified as follows: 1) Option 1 is the Bond Advisory Committee recommendation to accept the proposal to issue a bond in the amount of $15 million; 2) Option 2 would eliminate the Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) property from the bond and transfer the full amount towards the purchase of South Woods; and 3) Option 3 would entail raising the bond issue an additional $4 - $5 million to purchase South Woods.
Mr. Olander noted that SPU has been holding the property as a courtesy to the City, but there is no immediate need to surplus the property. A supplemental strategy would be to sell the City-owned parcel at Shoreview Park that Shoreline Community College (SCC) has been using as a parking lot to purchase the South Woods. Another strategy includes proposing separate bond issues; one for the $15 million project package and another for the South Woods. He restated the City’s recommendation is for the Council to consider these options to prepare for a discussion when the City brings it back to Council on December 12th.
Councilmember Ransom added that he spoke to Shoreline Community College about a building a baseball field with the City and they said they did not have the funding to support one.
Mr. Olander stated that when the City approached the former president, the strategy was if the SCC Board and the Council agreed, then both entities would approach the legislature for some supplemental funding this legislative session.
Councilmember Ransom asked about the status of potential meetings with the school district to discuss the South Woods property.
Mr. Burkett stated that the school board is having a public hearing this evening on the sale of the three acres. The board sent the City the purchase and sale agreement last week. However, there is a provision in the agreement that states if the City purchases more than three acres, the additional land and the original three acres will be sold to the City at market value. He added that the board and the water district both agreed to wait until May to make a decision about selling the properties to any other entity besides the City. He clarified that the City asked the college to move their parking lot because the State of Washington Interagency Committee for Recreation (IAC) gave the City the money to purchase the site and requires it be used as a park. He discussed an option to sell the parking lot property to the college and then use the money to purchase other park lands.
Mayor Hansen reopened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. There was Council consensus to allow the presenting of only new information at this public hearing.
a) Stan Terry, Shoreline, said he was a “tree hugger” and there was not a tree in his yard when he moved in 60 years ago and now there many. He said he is very fond of the South Woods area and wanted the City to save the area. The City, he stated, made a commitment to have at least $6 million available for the acquisition of this property. He felt that many residents feel the City has let them down. He is in favor of raising the bond issue to include the full $6 million for the purchase of South Woods.
b) Charles Brown, Shoreline, outlined he is a retired ecologist and walks almost everyday in South Woods or the Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) property. He said he did an evaluation of both properties based on 13 categories. He said the South Woods property outweighs the SPU property in twelve of the categories. He felt the recommendation to put more funding into the SPU property purchase is incorrect and there should be more financial emphasis on obtaining the South Woods property. He said the purchase of South Woods will be more complicated and involve more parties but South Woods is more valuable and he wants the City to shift appropriation towards the purchase of South Woods.
c) Matt Loper, Seattle, Vice President of the Kruckeberg Foundation and professor of Biology at Shoreline Community College (SCC), supported the acquisition of the Kruckeberg Botanical Garden as a part of the bond issue. He said the property contains an amazing collection and is an invaluable resource. He felt a partnership with the City concerning the property is an exciting, “win-win” situation.
d) Bill Bear, Shoreline, supported the 17 acre South Woods purchase. He said you can’t put a financial value on South Woods because it is such a great educational resource and sentimental resource for the families and residents of Shoreline. He urged the Council to proceed with the bond issue and purchase of the property.
e) Chris Choich, Shoreline, pointed out the human value of the woods and the habitat there. He said the habitat has not been fully studied or understood. He outlined that he has viewed eagles in South Woods and it is a part of their habitat. He said he did not want to see the eagle habitat or South Woods disappear.
f) Marie Elena McMahon, Shoreline, doesn’t want to see South Woods be sold to a developer. She outlined that common sense dictates that urban forests and greenbelts be maintained and are needed for the environment.
g) Maryanne Clymer, Shoreline, urged the Council to save South Woods and said she just wanted to be added to the list of residents in favor of preserving it.
h) Carol Danell, Shoreline, said she represents several neighbors in the Briarcrest neighborhood and they are concerned about losing South Woods to developers. South Woods offers a natural setting for birds and small animals and is a natural sanctuary between the hustle and bustle of Lake City and Aurora Avenue. She strongly urged the Council to purchase the property in its natural habitat.
i) Eric Volkstorf, Shoreline, supported the Kruckeberg and South Woods acquisitions. Over ten years ago he discovered the Kruckeberg Gardens and it was a wonderful resource, he said. He felt it will be a valuable asset for Shoreline and the Puget Sound Region. He thanked the Council for getting the purchase of South Woods and Kruckeberg Botanical Garden on the bond issue.
j) Laura Brodax, Shoreline, supported the purchase of the Kruckeberg Botanical Garden. She felt the City can only benefit in having it as a part of the City’s park system.
k) Richard Johnson, Shoreline, stated he did not know about South Woods and has just recently been educated about it. Many people don’t know about South Woods, he said. He stated he was impressed with the South Woods presentation a couple of weeks ago. He said the City needs to purchase the property. Increasing the bond, if necessary, needs to be done. This is an opportunity for the future and he also supported the Kruckeberg acquisition also.
l) Colin Sleeper, Shoreline, added to the statements concerning eagles in South Woods. He expressed that he lives across the street and has also seen hawks and birds of prey in South Woods. He asked people to take a look at Issaquah Highlands and the big development there and how all the trees are now gone. He said the trees in South Woods give shade and are an asset. He urged the Council to purchase the property.
m) Tanya, Seattle, discussed the shrinking rainforests. She urged the Council to preserve the trees, since they will live longer than people. Trees are a valuable resource and it is logical to keep the trees and to consider the future.
Deputy Mayor Jepson moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 6-1, with Councilmember Fimia dissenting.
Councilmember Chang asked why the City can’t purchase all of the eight acres owned by the school board.
Mr. Burkett said the City needs to negotiate with them. He said the board stated it will not sell the City the remaining five acres at a price of $240,000 per acre. The City would have to buy the remaining property at a higher price.
Councilmember Chang said the City will have to pay more if we buy 3 acres now and more property later, so the City should buy all of the property and work to eliminate this condition.
Mr. Burkett informed the Council that the property is jointly owned by the school district and the water district and it needs to be subdivided before it can be sold.
Mayor Hansen confirmed that it needs to be partitioned between both owners before it is sold to the City.
Councilmember Fimia said the Council has asked several times to have meetings with the school board and water district. It is time for the elected officials to talk with them in executive session. She wanted a commitment from the Mayor or City staff that the meeting be scheduled before the end of the year.
Mayor Hansen stated the Council can invite them to a meeting and he is in favor of this.
Councilmember Chang agreed with Councilmember Fimia that the Council needs to be proactive.
Councilmember Fimia moved to direct the City Manager to schedule an Executive Session with the Shoreline School District Board of Directors and the Seattle Public Utilities Board of Commissioners at the first available City Council meeting to discuss the acquisition of the entire South Woods property. Councilmember Chang seconded the motion.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen said it is a great idea to sit down and discuss this with them because there is confusion concerning this issue. Neither the school board nor the water district has had a public hearing concerning the disposition on the entire site. He felt the Council or City staff should meet with the two organizations. He suggested the motion be changed to reflect that the City is not going to acquire all of the parcels at South Woods. He outlined that if the intent of the motion is only to discuss acquisition he cannot support it. If the intent of the motion is based on a broader intention on how the City and the two districts as three public agencies preserve the property in the public domain, then he will support it.
Councilmember Grace said he heard there were opportunities for partnerships and that is the direction in which he would like to proceed. All agencies involved need to work together on this.
Councilmember Gustafson agreed with the motion and felt the partnership is the way to do it.
Mr. Burkett suggested the Council conduct this discussion in an executive session.
Councilmember Fimia agreed but said the Council needs to make the commitment. The intent is to keep the entire parcel within the public domain, she said.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously.
Councilmember Fimia discussed the option of revising the project amounts in the bond proposal in case more funding is needed to purchase South Woods. She identified that the amount for Richmond Beach Saltwater Park could be reduced or maybe bond dollars should not be used for Richmond Beach maintenance.
Councilmember Gustafson commented that the basic premise of the Bond Advisory Committee was that funds could be moved around to different projects depending upon what the Council felt was necessary. He suggested the Council move on to the budget portion of the meeting. He apologized for being late and commented that Snoqualmie Pass was closed on his way here from Spokane.
9. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) Presentation of the 2006 Budget
Mr. Burkett commented that the Council had reviewed all of their own budget items at the last meeting and solicited comments prior to covering the City Manager’s budget.
Debbie Tarry, Finance Director, outlined there were no significant changes to the City Manager budget except for slight salary increases based on the City compensation plan.
Councilmember Fimia requested the job descriptions for the 6.0 FTEs in the City Manager’s budget.
Ms. Tarry reviewed the City Clerk budget which reflects a $25,000 increase based on changes in salary and increased costs in facilities for Council meetings and audio/visual recording services.
Councilmember Ransom asked why there is a drop in the number of records provided, yet the budget for the department is higher.
Ms. Tarry outlined that the City Clerk position is in a higher salary range in 2006 and the other increases are related to salary increases in line with the City’s compensation plan. Additionally, the operating rental costs for renting the Council meeting facility and the audiovisual services have also increased.
Councilmember Fimia thanked the City Clerk’s office for the job well done concerning on-line recordkeeping and asked about the new Records Center. She stated she would like to see a “Citizenship Center” in the library or City Hall for residents to pull documents to read or copy. She asked if the Records Center can accommodate that.
Scott Passey, City Clerk, said the Records Center exists in our current facility and was a major undertaking to remodel the entire center. He said it would be somewhat difficult for residents to get documents out of our Records Center because they are cataloged into our database. However, the City does keep a certain level of information at the libraries such as the Comprehensive Plan, the Budget, Master Plans, and planning documents.
Councilmember Fimia requested a meeting with City staff and any other interested Council members to identify what documents are maintained at the libraries and how to inform the residents they are there. This will reduce staff time if residents know they can get these documents at the libraries.
Moving on to the Communications and Intergovernmental Relations budget, Ms. Tarry highlighted a reduction in the budget for this department because there were items carried over which are not carried over to 2006.
Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Tarry identified the 3.5 FTEs in the department as being the director, the neighborhood coordinator, the communications specialist, and a part time administrative assistant. She noted that beginning on page 85 of the 2006 proposed budget the City staff position titles and FTE allocations are listed.
Councilmember Grace inquired about the $15,000 reduction in the neighborhood budget for 2006 and whether it would affect services. He also said he would like to see actual targets listed in the CIR areas to see if performance measures are reached.
Ms. Tarry responded that there was $12,000 in grants carried over from 2004 into 2005 that did not carry over into 2006.
Councilmember Ransom commented that Ms. Nichols attends almost all of the Council meetings and there is no indicator in her workload as it pertains to meetings attended. He felt it should be included in the critical success factors. Mr. Burkett replied the measure used is based on outcomes and the results derived from the workload.
Councilmember Fimia added that the indicators need to be more concrete. She suggested that the indicators in this proposed budget are more subjective than objective. She is opposed to spending $25,000 on another citizen survey because the questions are different every time so no progress can be tracked. A year ago, she explained, there was a public process committee that outlined that there was interested in town hall meetings and studying the programming on the Government Access Channel. She asked for a City staff report on the status of the neighborhood organizations.
Mr. Burkett said he would provide the report to the Council.
Continuing her presentation, Ms. Tarry said the 2006 Human Services budget is less than the 2005 budget because of continued one-time funding of $62,113.
Referring to page 121, Councilmember Grace said he would like to know why the targets are set the way they are. He said he would rather see the percentage of service goals met by our contractors increasing every year.
Councilmember Ransom said there will be cutbacks in the areas of Human Services and the City should consider increasing the General Fund contribution towards 2%.
Councilmember Fimia added that the Human Services Ad Hoc Subcommittee identified that 1 in 5 people in Shoreline are living at the low income poverty level or below. City staff did some good work on what levels of service exist and what levels are needed as far as housing, healthcare, and food assistance. These should be tracked as success factors. She announced she will be proposing to the Council to allocate more funds to social services and hopes to get support to target those programs that bring the most benefit.
Councilmember Ransom questioned what was being done about education and the adult literacy issue. He inquired if the City is assisting people with high school diplomas. He also asked if the Center for Human Services (CHS) was still an educational clinic preparing people for GED diplomas.
Mr. Beem said the Center for Human Services (CHS) handles family literacy programs. CHS has also worked with HopeLink and provides intense case management services, which includes teaching job skills. This also includes tutoring for school age children. Unfortunately, he said the education clinic was closed due to the elimination of state funding.
Councilmember Fimia suggested allocating a small amount of funding to do assessment and planning on Fircrest with the State and County. She felt it is time for the City to take some initiative in Fircrest. Her second suggestion is for a small grants program of $500 - $4,900 for youth services.
Ms. Tarry highlighted the information on page 122 which details grants associated with the Human Services budget.
Continuing, Ms. Tarry stated the City Attorney’s Office budget is increasing by approximately 5% in 2006 because the Domestic Violence Victim Advocacy (DVVA) services are being transferred to the prosecuting attorney’s contract. In addition, the Assistant City Attorney position is presently at 0.75 FTE and in 2006 it has been proposed that it be a full-time position. In comparing city attorney services from other comparable municipalities, Shoreline is $9 per capita, which is the lowest amount of all comparable cities. The City Attorney’s Office also has the lowest staffing level of all comparable cities.
Councilmember Fimia asked if the information included the all outside legal counsel contracts. Ms. Tarry responded that it did.
Referring to page 127, Councilmember Grace inquired about the $36,600 increase under “other services and charges”.
Ms. Tarry explained it represents the DVVA services being transferred from a staff person to the prosecuting attorney’s office contract.
Councilmember Ransom asked if the intent is for the prosecuting attorney to handle domestic violence cases. He commented that when these cases are prosecutor-driven they tend to favor prosecution rather than resolving issues through counseling.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, said this field is a specialty that requires social service counseling. The person will not be an attorney and will not be doing the actual prosecution, however, they will be working closely with the prosecutor on a day-to-day basis. He added that it will be the same existing program. He clarified that this is not an advocate for the victim. The most common outcome of this process is a settlement between the parties where both have options for counseling and both feel safe.
Councilmember Ransom inquired why the cities of Lakewood and Federal Way have so many more FTEs in their City Attorney offices than Shoreline.
Mr. Sievers said the numbers are a little misleading because they include the prosecution FTEs. Shoreline’s 3.0 FTEs under contract in the prosecutor’s office are not counted as a part of the total.
Mr. Burkett commented that the cost per capita of Lakewood and Federal Way is comparable to Shoreline, so that is a better basis for comparison than FTEs.
Councilmember Fimia requested the underlying data so she can take a look at this more closely.
Ms. Tarry outlined the Finance Department budget on page 15 of the presentation. Major revisions in the finance budget, she said, include putting $187,000 in contingency for future PERS rate increases. Second, the salary survey is complete and implementation will cost $64,000, which also would be placed in contingency. The next increase concerns $99,000 for anticipated election costs related to the 2006 Capital Improvement Bond Issue. Also, $50,000 is proposed to be reserved for a vacation buyout program. Another recommended change is to hire and staff the network specialist position instead of having an outside contract, which results in a savings of $30,000. Major budget changes include adding the network specialist position ($54,000), the vacation buyout ($50,000), compensation increases under the City’s compensation plan ($31,000), benefits, which also are attributed to the network specialist addition, and computer equipment supplies.
Councilmember Ransom asked if there was any discussion about a sick leave buyout program. He also inquired who manages issues related to health insurance, life insurance, and workers compensation.
Ms. Tarry responded that there is no recommendation to add sick leave to the buyout program. She said the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) handles the benefits and the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) deals with insurance issues.
Councilmember Fimia requested a full cost breakdown by each City department of professional services, travel, dues, and advertising for 2004 through 2006. Additionally, she asked staff to identify the anticipated $57,000 line item for professional services in the City Manager’s budget.
Referring to page 143, Councilmember Grace asked for an explanation of the decrease in the implementation of the Information Technology strategic plan.
Ms. Tarry replied that this reduction follows the 2004 – 2006 Council plan, which focuses on the information integration aspect of the City’s business operations.
Councilmember Ransom asked was about the drop in the month-end closings rating for the years 2004 and 2005. Ms. Tarry explained that there was some employee turnover. The turnover caused some slowdown in the month-end closings.
MEETING EXTENSION
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to extend the meeting until 11:00 pm. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.
Ms. Tarry said the Human Resource budget decreased slightly from last year.
Councilmember Ransom wanted to know what training programs were being conducted. He also wanted to know how much time the director was spending on both training and benefit programs.
Mr. Burkett noted he would provide that information to the Council.
Ms. Tarry reported that there were no significant changes in the Customer Response Team (CRT) budget, only a change in work effort. There are some shifts to devote more time to code enforcement.
Councilmember Fimia questioned why the 2003 and 2004 customer request numbers are not listed. Also, she inquired why the customer requests for service went up from 2004 to 2005.
Julie Modrzejewski, Assistant City Manager, explained that the increase has to do with the abandoned vehicle program. In the past, the police department handled this program. Now, CRT is the first to go out to see if there is a violation, then the police are called when it is time to tow the vehicle.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen commented that the Council has done a lot of work to increase Code enforcement but the numbers in the budget seem to be status quo. He said he was expecting an increase to reflect the policy work the Council adopted.
Mr. Burkett said the data is found in the annual CRT report. The revisions in the Code enforcement may not be realized because the system is complaint-based as opposed to sending staff out to find violations.
Councilmember Fimia requested an estimate concerning the cost of implementing a litter control effort. This option would mostly be staffed by volunteers, but organized by the City. She asked about other cities’ expenditures for litter control and maintenance. She also inquired about a quarterly clean-up program in the City and an Adopt-a-Road program. She expressed concern about the amount of litter in the City.
Councilmember Gustafson added that the City should also consider an Adopt-a-Park program.
Mayor Hansen reported that the Spring/Fall Clean-up program was hugely successful, but the City also needs to address the litter problem on the streets.
Councilmember Ransom commented that community service crews are more effective than handing out fines.
Ms. Tarry noted that the budget for the Police Department is $8.1 million dollars, which represents a $272,000 (3.5%) increase from 2005. $7.8 million is for a contract the City has with King County. The 2006 Police budget is broken down in to several program areas. She outlined that about half of the budget is focused on police patrol. The 2006 proposed budget will include salary increases and increases on the workload of the department. Referring to page 164, she noted an administrative sergeant’s salary was moved from the patrol line item to the administration line item. Additionally, there is a new line item for janitorial services at the police department.
Referring to page 164, Deputy Mayor Jepsen asked for explanation on the drop in the revenues for traffic enforcement.
Mr. Burkett said the drop is related to negotiations with King County. At present, King County is now requesting 100% of the revenue from citations. Additionally, we have had a reduction in the number of citations issued over the last couple years.
Mayor Hansen commented that the feedback he is getting from the residents is that enforcement needs to be increased.
Tony Burtt, Police Chief, stated that speeding is the single complaint he hears is the most.
Councilmember Grace inquired what the cost would be for another full-time traffic enforcer.
Chief Burtt replied it would cost $128,000 for a fully-equipped officer with vehicle.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen stated that one of the things that is not in the contract is the ratio of administrative FTEs to contract FTEs. He said it appears based on the funding that the City has six administrative FTEs to 42 patrol officer FTEs. He requested that the staff clarify if this ratio is correct. He also pointed out that last year during the budget process he suggested the City need to revise the way it handles traffic enforcement. He said last year he wanted more emphasis on speeders in the neighborhoods but did not get any support from the Council. He urged the Council to support him this year and wondered if the number of administrative FTEs are appropriate.
Mr. Burkett commented that other cities have higher ratios than we do. He said he will provide information on the FTEs to the Council.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen asked about the School Resource Officer Program funding and confirmed it was split with the school district.
Chief Burtt noted there were five contract administrative FTEs in the Police Department.
Councilmember Chang confirmed that the biggest issue in Shoreline is speeding in all neighborhoods. He asked if all 42 FTEs can serve as traffic control officers. He felt there are few people speeding all of the time, and reasoned that maybe the officers can rotate between their duties and patrol. Perhaps after the Council and the Police Department target this as a priority issue it will stop being a problem.
Mr. Burtt said the dedicated traffic unit prioritizes areas and tries to minimize traffic accidents. He has noticed that traffic complaints have gone up significantly in terms of the amount of time spent in neighborhoods. The patrol unit is equipped with radar and has been emphasizing traffic enforcement as much as possible in these neighborhoods.
Councilmember Ransom inquired what the line item “teen recreation” was for in the Police budget.
Chief Burtt replied it is for the overtime expenditures for the officers that staff the various teen program events.
Councilmember Ransom pointed out that there used to be two dedicated traffic motorcycle officers. He felt there is not enough neighborhood traffic enforcement.
Mr. Burtt said whenever there is a traffic complaint the officers try to make three separate visits to the neighborhood in question and spend at least 30 minutes each visit. Frequently, there is little speeding going on but the department still tries to be responsive. He felt there should be a balance between officers’ responsiveness to neighborhoods and spending time in high-volume trouble areas by reducing accidents, slowing people down, and being active in school zones.
Referring to page 167, Councilmember Ransom noted there is no target for measuring effectiveness. There have been a higher number of complaints that the police are unapproachable and not customer service-oriented. He agreed with Deputy Mayor Jepsen that the City needs another officer in the traffic unit. He noted that 185 drug houses were closed when the street crime investigations unit had 4.5 officers. The unit also lowered burglaries. Currently, the burglaries and auto thefts have increased. Just recently, he said he received a statement from Carol Cummings, Chief of Transit Police in the Sheriff’s Office, that outlined the State of Washington was 5th highest in the nation for auto thefts and our City was significantly higher than other cities in the state. The problem, according to Ms. Cummings, is the lack of security at park-n-rides. He felt this is something the street crimes unit can address by placing security cameras at park-n-rides to deter auto thefts. He said the Council should consider allocating some funds in the budget for security cameras and adding an officer to the street crimes unit and the traffic control unit.
Councilmember Fimia commented that the Council can make amendments to this administrative proposal. The level of discontent with traffic safety is serious in the City and there is more we can do about it. She agreed that Council needs to take some action, possibly issuing a proviso, and letting the neighborhoods know that the Council is taking this seriously.
Councilmember Ransom added that speed bumps might resolve some of the speeding issues.
Councilmember Gustafson pointed out that he received a call last week from a resident that was upset that an officer was conducting radar enforcement near his house instead of by the school zones.
Ms. Tarry commented that the Criminal Justice budget pertains to jail and public defender costs, noting that the 2006 budget shows these costs are declining. However, there is an increase in the number of jail days the City has been billed for compared to the previous two years. The City may need to revisit the 2006 jail costs projection. The transition from King County Jail to Yakima Jail is occurring and the City is utilizing the minimum days in Yakima, thus maximizing its savings. In the future, partnering with Issaquah on bookings is in the process which will also save the City more money.
Councilmember Ransom expressed concern about bed days and the costs at the Yakima Jail. He said the costs in Yakima were underestimated by Yakima County and that Yakima will be raising its prices.
Mr. Burkett replied that there are other options, but the City committed to 18 beds for the costs outlined in the contract.
Mr. Olander stated the Yakima County Jail Administrator did a study of the process and agreed to honor their obligations with the City.
Councilmember Fimia questioned why crime in Shoreline is increasing when it is not occurring in cities adjacent to Shoreline. She felt if social services are not funded then crime rises, and there is a correlation between poverty and crime.
Mr. Olander said that jail days were fairly constant over the past seven years and the City is not arresting more people. However, the seriousness of the crimes and the length of the sentences are increasing.
Councilmember Ransom inquired if there were new judges making decisions on the City’s misdemeanant cases.
Mr. Sievers replied the City has had and will have the same elected judges through 2006.
Mr. Olander added that repeat offenders get longer sentences. He suspected that is what is occurring in some of the cases.
Councilmember Fimia felt that this means that somewhere in the system defendants are not getting the assistance they need. If the basic services aren’t there, then the City is spending more money putting them in jail, and this need to be prevented.
Councilmember Chang suggested the Council get the underlying data regarding the arrests.
Mr. Olander stated that the courthouse information lags behind about 1-1.5 months, so these statistics are relatively new.
Ms. Tarry outlined that the Economic Development focus has changed a little due to the emphasis on small businesses. A proposed business licensing program, slated to be implemented in the second quarter of 2006, should generate approximately $95,000 in revenue.
Tom Boydell, Economic Development Manager, outlined that this budget reflects a broad-based approach which emphasizes small business resources and assistance through a three-pronged approach. First, the direct outreach program aims to reduce costs and help businesses plan and expand via audits, utility rebates, and other cost-saving measures. Second, business mentoring and training through the Community Capital Program helps provide access to loan funding to support business growth. The third program is Business Relocation Assistance. The Community Capital Program is a potentially declining commitment because it is assumed to be self-sustaining after three years. It is anticipated that this program’s loan fund that would grow from $250,000 with the possibility of growth to $2 million.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At 11:00 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_______________________
Scott Passey, City Clerk