CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, November 28, 2005 Shoreline Conference Center
7:30 p.m. Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, Grace, Gustafson, and Ransom
ABSENT: None
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 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 “Spirit of Giving Week”
Mayor Hansen read the proclamation and thanked members of the Shoreline Parent-Teacher Council and the Shoreline Fire Department for their efforts in conducting toy and food drives in the City. Andy Denny and Sarah Duset accepted the proclamation and thanked the City for their support and donations this holiday season.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Steve Burkett, City Manager, announced that snow is expected for the City within 12 hours and the public works crews are posed to respond to the priority routes in the City. He reminded the Council of the joint meeting with the Planning Commission on November 29th.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: none
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Robert Henderson, Seattle, stated he has known John Chang for five years and said the campaign being run against him is slanderous. He said Councilmember Chang has an established business, works hard, and wants to do nothing but improve the community. He said Councilmember Chang is a decent and honorable man and the campaign literature being printed about him is false.
(b) Vicki Stiles, Director, Shoreline Historical Museum, announced that this is the Museum’s 30th Anniversary Year. She thanked the Council for its support over the years and invited the public to visit the museum on December 3rd for the “Toys Gone By” exhibit.
(c) Patti Crawford, Shoreline, stated she is opposed to the Twin Ponds cellular tower project. She said there needs to be community consensus regarding private enterprise in City parks, noting that King County plans to ban them in heron habitats. She commented that the City is using Water Resource Inventory 8 (WRIA 8) to degrade Thornton Creek and fish habitat in Shoreline. She said if the sites in the City are referred to as “historical” then the City should be maintaining them as such.
(d) Elaine Phelps, Shoreline, invited the public to attend the 32nd Legislative District Democrats Potluck and Auction on Friday, December 9.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Grace moved to approve the agenda. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved approval of the consent calendar. Councilmember Ransom pulled the minutes of Special Meeting Minutes of November 7, 2005 for further review. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 7-0 and the following consent items were approved:
Minutes of Workshop of October 17, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 24, 2005
Minutes of Dinner Meeting of November 14, 2005
Approval of expenses and payroll as of November 10, 2005 in the amount of $1,498,573.26
Motion to approve Mini-Grant Project for the Ballinger Neighborhood Association
Motion to approve Mini-Grant Project for the Briarcrest Neighborhood Association
Motion to authorize extension of Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Interlocal Agreement
Motion to authorize the City Manager to (1) Execute a Gas Tax Agreement (GTA) to obligate $10 Million of New Gas Tax funding, and (2) Execute Local Agency Agreements, Supplements and Prospectus to obligate approximately $2.3 Million of funding for the Aurora Corridor Project (N 165th Street to N 205th Street) with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
Motion to enter a contract for Public Defense Services with the Schlotzhauer Law Group
Motion to authorize extension of the Prosecution Services Contract
Resolution No. 237, establishing a City Employee Wellness Program
Resolution No. 238, approving the Final Plat for the Urban Trails Townhomes (Whitman Town Homes) Subdivision on N 145th Lane at Whitman Avenue North
Ordinance No. 402, amending the 2005 Budget for Operating Funds and Capital projects
8. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Ordinance No.403 levying the general taxes for the City of Shoreline in King County for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2006, on all property both real and personal, in said City which is subject to taxation for the purpose of paying sufficient revenue to conduct City business for the ensuing year as required by law
Mr. Burkett discussed the steps that had been taken to get to this point in the budget and introduced Finance Director Debbie Tarry to provide additional budget summary. Ms. Tarry highlighted that the estimated levy for 2006 was $7,000,000 and the estimated property tax rate is $1.18 which represents a $.06 decrease from 2005 rate.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved for approval of Ordinance No. 403 establishing the 2006 Property Tax Levy for the City of Shoreline of $1.18 per $1,000. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom asked how much revenue would be generated for the City if the levy rate was raised to the maximum rate of $1.60.
Ms. Tarry responded that it would generate $2.25 million in additional property tax revenue for the City.
A vote was taken on the motion to approve Ordinance No. 403 establishing the 2006 Property Tax Levy for the City of Shoreline of $1.18 per $1,000, which carried 7-0.
(b) Ordinance No. 404, adopting the Annual Budget of the City
of Shoreline for the year 2006 and Resolution No. 239, revising
Benefit and Compensation Plan for Employees
Mr. Burkett outlined the Council revisions and the budget amendments that have been incorporated for Council adoption of the budget. The total budget equals $79,439,713, which represents a reduction of approximately 13 percent from the 2005 budget.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to approve Ordinance No. 404 adopting the Annual Budget of the City of Shoreline for the year 2006 and Resolution No. 239, revising Benefit and Compensation Plan for Employees. Councilmember Grace seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom asked why an additional $50,000 was not added to the $200,000 budget amount for the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program (NTSP) as was proposed by Council.
Paul Haines, Public Works Director, responded that he felt the $200,000 figure is an adequate amount because of $80,000-$90,000 that would be carried over from 2005 to 2006. He explained that 40-50 traffic calming devices will be placed throughout the City in 2006; a significant change from 2005. This would be 3-4 devices per neighborhood based on 13 neighborhoods. He said while the actual need could meet or exceed $200,000, he was comfortable with the proposed figure.
Councilmember Ransom stated that other cities allocate as much as 2% of their budgets for human services and suggested the Council consider allocating more for human services in Shoreline.
Councilmember Gustafson pointed out that the new King County levy may address some of the City’s human services needs and the City should wait until those funds are allocated. He agreed that the City should start working on a human services master plan. When the plan gets developed the City can move forward with allocating more funds.
Councilmember Chang opposed spending money on plans and wants to address needs immediately.
Mayor Hansen agreed that there should be a plan, but the City should wait to see the results of the human services levy.
Councilmember Gustafson felt the City should be proactive and prepare a human services master plan so the City’s needs are identified before levy information is known.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen noted that King County Councilmember Edmonds said the funds from the levy have not been appropriated yet; the County will collect and place the funds in an account. Following that, there will be two oversight committees that will decide how to spend the money. He felt the City should become actively involved with this oversight committee to ensure the funds come back to Shoreline.
Councilmember Grace supported the human services master plan since it will allow the City to identify the City’s human services needs. He pointed out that $84,000 was the total amount of funding that the local human service providers in the community can currently provide.
Councilmember Ransom felt the City has not done anything to curb auto theft and burglaries. He said none of his recommendations were accepted by the Council or staff, and the police chief’s recommendations are inadequate. He inquired if there was any Council support for cameras or additional officer time for auto theft, which continues to increasing. He outlined that the cameras on Aurora Avenue will not be installed for several years.
Councilmember Fimia felt the Council should not allocate monies to a specific solution if it doesn’t know why auto theft is increasing. She proposed that the Council pass a proviso that allots the funds to the department with direction that staff conduct an objective analysis to determine why burglary and auto theft are increasing. This analysis would include the solutions and a costs/benefit analysis of each solution. She pointed out that only 30% of the auto thefts are taking place in park-n-rides.
Councilmember Ransom responded that the street crimes unit used to have 4.5 FTEs; now there are only 2-3 FTEs. He felt the decrease in personnel on the street crimes unit correlates to the increase in burglaries and auto theft.
Councilmember Chang concurred with Councilmember Fimia, noting that the City must know what the real issue is and do more analysis. He said one more officer will assist in freeing up others on the street crimes unit. There should be an increased police presence in the communities, and the addition of another officer will help.
Councilmember Grace commented that the City will not see another officer for at least six months, based on the normal hiring process in the King County Sheriffs Department. He agreed with Councilmember Fimia’s proviso and stated that while the City is awaiting a new officer the funds could be used to determine if a second officer is needed.
Mayor Hansen did not support additional personnel costs at this time. However, he felt that a traffic officer should be assigned sooner than later.
Mr. Burkett outlined that the evaluation would not cost much, and crime analysis is is included in the contract with the Sheriff’s office. However, once the City concludes that an additional officer is needed, the expenditure begins. Furthermore, everything is reconciled at year-end and the City will either pay additional funds or receive a credit.
Councilmember Gustafson did not favor the proviso, but wanted to know why burglaries and auto thefts are increasing. He said that Police Chief Burtt and staff should determine the causes and propose solutions to the Council. He agreed that there should be a higher police presence in the City, and perhaps the police should spend more time following up on neighborhood police calls. He felt this might reduce costs. He supported the addition of a traffic officer and analyzing burglary and auto thefts to come up with solutions.
Mayor Hansen summarized that Council consensus was to execute the human services plan as presented.
Councilmember Ransom commented that the decrease in burglary rates in the City coincided with a greater outreach effort by the police. The officers were taking extra steps to build up a rapport with the public. This, he believed, is not occurring now.
Councilmember Fimia moved a budget proviso to accept the traffic enforcement portion of the police budget as amended, provided that an independent analysis occurs as to why burglary and auto theft are increasing and identifies the cost/benefits of potential solutions, including increased police visibility and community policing. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen felt the Council should vote to fund and staff the FTE or not. The Council, he pointed out, has the ability to direct the City Manager to do exactly what was said. He felt it is a mistake to include such language in the budget. The Council has direct authority over the City Manager, so a proviso is not needed.
Councilmember Grace agreed with the intent of Councilmember Fimia’s motion, but the proper place for it is through directing the City Manager. He also felt the Council should direct the City Manager to conduct the analysis. Additionally, the study should not be done through an independent firm, but by the King County Sheriffs Office. He supported the traffic enforcement officer implementation as stated.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen expressed concern that the funds for the traffic officer position are coming from the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program (NTSP) overtime funding to provide for the new officer’s salary. He felt this overtime should be retained.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to fund the traffic enforcement officer and the overtime by restoring the gambling tax to 11%. Mayor Hansen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Gustafson opposed the motion but supported having a traffic enforcement officer and reinstating $50,000 for the NTSP which would be taken from the City’s contingency fund.
A vote was taken on the motion, which failed 1-6, with Deputy Mayor Jepsen voting in the affirmative.
Mr. Burkett clarified that the hiring of a new traffic enforcement officer and the $50,000 for overtime are still on the table. He added that part of the police department mission is to evaluate solutions to reduce crime.
Councilmember Fimia stated provisos are a tool that the Council can use to tie direction to the budget.
Councilmember Fimia withdrew the motion to implement a proviso as stated previously. She said she would offer the proviso after the budget adoption.
Councilmember Grace inquired about the gateways reduction of $75,000 and wanted to know which gateways were planned for 2006.
Mr. Burkett responded that the City’s Gateway Master Plan identifies the Dayton Triangle Gateway as the next planned project.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen inquired whether there was interest in restoring the gateway funding in the budget. He felt it was important to invest in the community in this way in order to create a sense of pride.
Councilmember Ransom expressed concern about the Dayton project, noting that the area is not attractive and it wasn’t clear in the budget documents that the $100,000 was allocated for that location. He said he is in favor of restoring the funding for this project.
Mayor Hansen supported restoring the Dayton gateway project because a design would have to be approved before the actual expenditure of funds.
Councilmember Gustafson supported enhancing the City’s identity with gateways, but the current budget priorities do not justify this line item. He felt $25,000 should be enough for gateway design.
Councilmember Fimia said a staff member told attendees at a neighborhood meeting that there were no funds in the budget for neighborhood calming. It is not wise to now restore this item and communicate there are no funds. She emphasized the need to prioritize the funding.
Mr. Burkett clarified that gateway funds are part of the capital budget, which are one-time funds so there is no competition with operating funds. He clarified that there is funding in the NTSP budget to do traffic calming in the City.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to restore gateway funding to the original amount of $100,000, an increase of $75,000 from the current level of $25,000. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.
Mr. Burkett said he could direct staff to identify a less expensive solution for Dayton Avenue. The last design proposed a solution exceeding $100,000.
Councilmember Ransom moved an amendment to increase gateway funding to $50,000 from the current level of $25,000. The motion died for a lack of a second.
A vote was taken on the motion to restore gateway funding to the original amount of $100,000, an increase of $75,000 from the current level of $25,000, which failed 3-4, with Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, Gustafson, and Grace dissenting.
Councilmember Fimia outlined four items she would like Council to work on concerning the budget: 1) emergency management; 2) human services; 3) park and recreation fees; and 4) litter control. She asked if the $15,000 in emergency management was for updating or implementing plan.
Mr. Burkett responded that the $15,000 was for updating the plan. He outlined that there are some items that are now required by the Federal Government as a part of the National Incident Management System. Several elements concern emergency planning and a couple require a contract for execution.
Councilmember Fimia felt funding should go towards implementation of the plan. For example, there should be some general education of the public on how to get emergency kits and where to go and what to do in case of an emergency so every Shoreline resident is prepared. The staff should identify specific needs and outline the highest priorities for the Council to discuss and finalize.
Mr. Burkett responded that this was covered as part of the original proposed budget where additional funds were allocated for education. The Citizen Emergency Response Team (CERT) class is part of this education piece. Public education is an important element of emergency management and it was outlined in the budget. He said staff identified the highest priorities as directed at the last Council meeting.
Councilmember Fimia moved to allocate $15,000 for the implementation and planning of the City of Shoreline Emergency Management Plan. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Councilmember Grace inquired if there are compliance issues if the City does not update the emergency management plan.
Mr. Burkett responded that the motion to implement the emergency management plan should satisfy the requirements of the Federal government.
Tony Burtt, Police Chief, said the City needs to update the National Incident Response Plan to be eligible for disaster relief funding. One of the first things the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) does before it releases funds is to determine if the emergency management plan is current. Presently, the City’s plan is not current because there have been recent requirements imposed on the City. In order to be in compliance, new chapters need to be added to the plan.
Councilmember Gustafson pointed out that this is an “unfunded mandate” and agreed with the language revision from Councilmember Fimia. He said the Council needs to move on and get this done.
There was Council consensus to include the word “implementation” in the $15,000 line item for the Emergency Management Plan.
Councilmember Fimia moved to freeze the fees for youth and family recreation programs for Shoreline residents. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.
Councilmember Fimia stated this loss of revenue would be a small amount that the City would lose, but it has a positive impact on Shoreline residents.
Councilmember Grace preferred not to arbitrarily increase fees, but he did not want to put the department in a deficit situation. He wanted to know how this freeze would affect the revenues.
Councilmember Gustafson concurred and wished to have an analysis done by the Parks, Recreational & Cultural Services (PRCS) Board.
Dick Deal, Parks, Recreational & Cultural Services Director, noted the scholarship program for qualified students for up to $50.00 per quarter and $100.00 in the summer quarter for free class activity. Typically, the City provides $30,000 - $35,000 in scholarships annually.
Mayor Hansen stated he is opposed the motion because the PRCS Board should make a recommendation to the Council before a vote is taken.
Councilmember Fimia inquired if there are waiting lists for children and their families who qualify.
Mr. Deal said the program operates on a first-come, first-served basis for those families that meet the low-income standards, and there is a waiting list for popular classes. However, no one is turned away from any scholarship program that is offered.
Councilmember Fimia withdrew the motion to freeze the fees for youth and family recreation programs for Shoreline residents.
Councilmember Fimia felt that $20,000 was a high amount for drawing up a plan for human services. She suggested allocating $5,000 for a human services plan, $5,000 for a youth service plan, $2,000 to conduct two City-sponsored grant workshops for non-profit schools and community leaders, and the remainder for human services with an emphasis on literacy programs.
Councilmember Fimia moved to allocate the $20,000 for human services as follows: 1) $5,000 for the human services plan; 2) $5,000 for a youth service plan; 3) $2,000 for two City-sponsored grant workshops for non-profit schools and community leaders; and 4) $8,000 for human services with an emphasis on literacy programs. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom favored conducting some grant workshops but said the rest of the motion is too restrictive.
Councilmember Gustafson opposed the motion and agreed that the motion is too restrictive. He added that grant writing workshops are good, but he felt staff needed more flexibility in how to use the funding.
A vote was taken on the motion, which failed 2-5, with Councilmember Fimia and Councilmember Ransom voting in the affirmative.
Councilmember Fimia moved to allocate $2,000 for two (2) grant workshops sponsored by the City. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen outlined that most of the non-profit agencies in the City are very good at obtaining grant funding. He pointed out that the County conducts two of these each year and he encouraged the Council to confer with King County Councilmember Ferguson to have the County sponsor them for the district.
Mayor Hansen opposed the motion and said the Council should direct the City Manager to conduct a grant workshop. He felt the Council was getting too detailed with the budget.
Councilmember Fimia outlined that this has public support. She stated the larger non-profit organizations have staff to handle grants but smaller organizations do not. She said this would be a small amount to try as a pilot project.
Mayor Hansen agreed that the Council should approve one workshop through the existing budget and gauge the response. If this goes well, then the City can sponsor another workshop. He felt the discussion was moving away from policy-making and moving into “micromanaging.”
Mr. Burkett said he can have the Human Services Manager return with ideas at the next Council meeting. Councilmember Gustafson concurred with this approach.
Councilmember Fimia felt this was a policy-making issue and that the Council’s responsibility should not be abdicated to City staff. She disagreed with allowing staff to decide whether or not the workshop should take place.
Councilmember Ransom moved an amendment to direct the City Manager to conduct one (1) grant workshop and then report back to the Council. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.
Regarding litter control, Councilmember Fimia felt the language in the proposal is not very strong and it needed stronger direction from the Council.
Councilmember Fimia moved to direct the City Manager to plan a citywide litter control program, adopt-a-park program, and a gifting program and report to the Council on costs and potential funding sources. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.
Councilmember Chang inquired if this could be a part of the park planner job description. Additionally, he asked Councilmember Fimia if the City needed to spend funds on litter control. Councilmember Fimia responded that she would like to see funding allocated for litter control in the City.
Councilmember Gustafson outlined he does support it, but does believe the parks coordinator is the logical person to handle this task. He requested that information on this program be available at the next Council retreat. City staff, he pointed out, should have the flexibility to evaluate these programs. He concluded that he is in support of the program but opposes the motion.
Councilmember Ransom stated that the North Rehabilitation Facility (NRF) crews and community service from the district court did litter control for the City at one point in time. He inquired how litter is controlled now.
Mr. Burkett responded that the City contracts with a private firm for litter control, which actually is less expensive than the NRF crews. He said if the motion passes, staff would propose a new program for this.
Councilmember Fimia amended the motion to direct the City Manager evaluate a City-wide litter control program, adopt-a-park program, and a gifting program, report to the Council, and, if directed, implement such programs with the proposed budget. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.
Mayor Hansen estimated that litter controls are already in place in the City and there would be no need for anything further.
Councilmember Gustafson pointed out the staff would come back to the Council anyway and the funding portion should not be included.
A vote was taken on the motion to direct the City Manager to evaluate a City-wide litter control program, adopt-a-park program, and a gifting program, report to the Council, and, if directed, implement such programs with the proposed budget. The motion carried 6-1, with Mayor Hansen dissenting.
Councilmember Chang noted that street trees on Meridian and 15th Avenue NE are causing damage to sidewalks and underground utilities for property owners. He urged the Council to start working on a solution which should be made a priority when the extra funds come back from the sidewalk projects around the City.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen announced that King County Councilmember Edmonds succeeded in getting $1,000,000 allocated in the 2006 budget for open space acquisition. Since this represents $200,000 more than the City estimated, he asked if the budget need to be revised to accept the $200,000.
Ms. Tarry said it could be done during the CIP update next year and this budget does allow for the appropriation of funds and the expenditures.
Councilmember Grace inquired how many of the damaged sidewalks are located near schools. If they are, the Council should focus on them.
A vote was taken on the motion to approve Ordinance No. 404 adopting the annual budget of the City of Shoreline for the year 2006 as amended, and Resolution No. 239, revising Benefit and Compensation Plan for Employees, which carried 7-0.
Councilmember Fimia moved to direct the City Manager to acquire an analysis from King County as to why burglary and auto theft rates are increasing and what the City of Shoreline and King County can do to reduce those rates. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom expressed concern that crime statistics personnel at the County are rotated and a professor of criminology is needed to get the correct information.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 7-0.
MEETING EXTENSION
Councilmember Ransom moved to extend the meeting until 10:30. Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.
Mayor Hansen stated the Council would not be able to hear Item 9(b) this evening and asked that the City Manager move it to the next City Council meeting. Mr. Burkett stated the item was scheduled for discussion only.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(a) Municipal Court Analysis Part 2
Julie Modrzejewski, Assistant City Manager, review two options; 1) implementing and running a municipal court in Shoreline; and 2) contracting with another city for municipal court services. She introduced King County District Court attendees Judge Douglas Smith, Chief Administrative Officer Trisha Crozier, Division Director Rochelle McKenzie, and Budget Director Donna Burner. She reported that three jurisdictions resemble Shoreline based on caseload and population: Kirkland, Bothell, and Seatac. She reviewed the estimated costs and revenues of each option, noting that the lead time for implementation of a municipal court would be 12 – 18 months. She reported that for various reasons, Lake Forest Park, Bothell, and Seattle did not show a real interest in partnering for court services. She concluded that the staff recommendation is for the City to keep utilizing King County District Court.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen felt the Council should move ahead and contract with King County for municipal court services. However, he is worried about the declining revenues and the increasing costs to the City. He asked about the judges’ degree of flexibility in reducing fines within the municipal court system and how it may impact the City’s obligation to make up the difference if there is a shortfall.
Judge Smith stated that everyone is treated equally at court. There are established figures on how much the City will receive from each infraction. Some infractions are paid off with community services. He urged the Council not to contract with the Seattle District Court because he felt the City would have no control in their court system.
Ms. Brunner outlined that if things stay the same, expenditures could outpace revenues. However, she said the addition of the new traffic officer will increase citations and both traffic and parking citations increase revenues.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen is concerned that the Council has little control over the decisions the District Court makes and these decisions affect the City’s revenue.
Ms. Brunner stated that the County Council has the same concerns and the District Court is looking for more efficient ways to provide municipal court services. She said the new contract has language that emphasizes some City control and the willingness to work with the City.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen questioned if it was possible for the Suburban Cities Association (SCA) to work with the District Court and the State Legislature to refine the system so costs to administer the municipal court system can be recovered through fines.
Ms. Modrzejewski pointed out that at the last legislative session a bill was passed to have judge salaries paid by the State. She said SCA is already working with the District Courts to control costs. She also noted that Shoreline is a member of the Court Management Review Committee which meets quarterly to review the contract.
Judge Smith emphasized that a positive aspect of contracting is the City has limited liability concerning court staff and statewide probation liability issues.
Councilmember Ransom asked for further information concerning the 141 active misdemeanant cases in the City of Shoreline.
Judge Smith responded that although the cost for them is steep, probation officers are a valuable resource and a tremendous asset in being able to know the background of these individuals.
Councilmember Ransom supported renewing the contract as presented.
Councilmember Fimia supported renewing the contract for a five-year term but asked that the alternatives analysis be more thorough next time. She said she would like to hear specific advantages and disadvantages.
Mayor Hansen had concerns about the length of the contract. He felt a five-year term is too long.
Councilmember Ransom inquired if the five-year term is binding.
Ms. Modrzejewski responded that the City staff will outline the terms of the agreement for the Council at the December 12th City Council meeting.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:31 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Scott Passey, CMC
City Clerk