CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 5, 2006 Shoreline Conference Center
PRESENT: Mayor Ransom, Deputy Mayor Fimia, and Councilmembers Gustafson, Hansen, McGlashan, Ryu, and Way
ABSENT: none
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:42 p.m. by Mayor Ransom, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Ransom led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
(a) Legislative Report – Representative Maralyn Chase
State Representative Maralyn Chase reported on the highlights and issues of the past legislative session, noting that she has tried to be a “voice for the community in Olympia rather than a voice for Olympia in the community.” She commented on the state’s duty to educate children, noting that Washington ranks 46th in class size and 42nd on education spending. She noted that the problem of high drop-out rates among high school and college students must be addressed. She discussed the challenge that local jurisdictions face as state services are shifted to local budgets.
Continuing, she provided the Council with the brochures “Jobs for the Sidewalk Economist” and “UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development” and commented on creating positive economic growth by nurturing environments for new companies. She emphasized the need to increase jobs through entrepreneurism, noting that 55% of new jobs come from business expansion. She continued by emphasizing the need to pursue energy conservation, alternative energy sources, sustainable growth, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. She detailed the various technologies that have the potential to address these concerns, including bio-diesel fuel, wave power, wind farms, solar energy, methane, micro-algae, and geothermal energy.
Councilmember Way asked Representative Chase to detail her work on Hood Canal.
Representative Chase noted that as a member of the Governor’s commission on Hood Canal, the State has contracted with the university to study the source of pollution in Hood Canal. The commission is also considering an overall oceans policy, since the State currently has no such policy. She said the commission’s final report is due in December.
Councilmember Ryu thanked Representative Chase for her representation in Olympia. She asked her to expand on her comments regarding potential partnerships between small businesses and government.
Representative Chase emphasized the need for communities to reinvent themselves and to consider opportunities for collaboration. She said government can assist contractors and businesses through a number of programs, including business incubators. She noted that Shoreline Community College is a valuable resource in this respect.
Councilmember Gustafson asked about Representative Chase’s sponsorship of House Bill 3027, relating to the transfer of patients to Fircrest Rehabilitation Facility.
Representative Chase noted that she proposed amendments to the bill that would transfer patients with traumatic brain injury who have committed crimes from mental institutions to Fircrest. She said although the bill did not proceed and she will not submit it again, it sent the appropriate message that people should be treated fairly.
Mayor Ransom asked about the number of alternative jobs created vis-à-vis the sustainable energy industry. He also asked for clarification of the study relating to the percentage of jobs created through business relocation.
Representative Chase said the industry is relatively new, so exact figures have not been developed yet. She commented on the potential benefit of the bio-diesel industry in Washington State. She clarified that the job study was performed by David Birch of MIT.
Deputy Mayor Fimia thanked Representative Chase for her presentation and requested that she clarify her bill relating to Fircrest.
Representative Chase noted that if her bill had passed, patients transferred from Western State Hospital would be heavily supervised at Fircrest. She commented that there is no purpose in “keeping people locked up at Western State when they’ve served their time.”
Councilmember Way thanked Representative Chase for her advocacy on behalf of the developmentally disabled. She noted that Fircrest is on the list of potential goals of the Council.
Representative Chase outlined her experience working on issues from the developmentally disabled and emphasized that people need a choice of where they want to live. She pointed out that the level of service that Fircrest offers is not provided in the community, and it doesn’t cost more at Fircrest. She commented on the need for respite care and the potential to enhance the Fircrest property as a community center with a full range of services.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Bob Olander, City Manager, provided updates and reports on the following items:
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Ryu reported on the effort to finalize the SeaShore Transportation agreement.
Councilmember Way reported on her attendance at the Memorial Day event held at Evergreen- Washelli as well as the American Legion luncheon. She also asked staff to follow up on the theft of electronic equipment from Shoreline Community College.
Councilmember McGlashan noted that a report of the National League of Cities (NLC) Community and Economic Development Committee is included in the Council information packet.
Councilmember Gustafson reported on his attendance at the Hidden Lake Pump Station Open House at Sunset Elementary. He noted that King County is turning over some property for a City park.
Mr. Olander clarified that part of the Brightwater mitigation agreement is that King County would turn over property to the City to build a public park.
Councilmember Ryu thanked staff for holding open houses to get public input from the Richmond Beach community on this matter.
Mayor Ransom reported on issues discussed at the National League of Cities conference. He noted that Medicaid must be addressed because it is consuming a greater proportion of states’ budgets each year. He said if Medicaid continues to increase, then other budgets such as education, corrections, and transportation must be reduced. He explained the proposal to reform immigration to allow for guest workers, and permanent residency status/citizenship for illegal immigrants if the following criteria are met: 1) no felony convictions; 2) paying a fee of $1,000-$2,000; 3) screening for communicable diseases; 4) paying all back taxes owed; and 5) passing a written test in English on American civics. He reported that the SeaShore contract is expected to be finalized in June. The contract will cover Sound Transit and Metro KC, including all federal grants administered through King County. A continuing controversy is whether cities can complete for grant funding in multiple jurisdictions. He pointed out that Bothell wishes to compete for the same grants that Seattle and Shoreline apply for. He opposes this, as does the City of Seattle.
Councilmember Way invited the public to attend a ground-breaking event on Wednesday at Northgate Mall relating to a development aiding Thornton Creek.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Bob Barta, Shoreline, felt that neighborhoods should get more accurate information on the impacts of potential development as a part of the pre-application neighborhood meetings that developers are required to host. He felt that City staff should make audio recordings or take notes at the meetings. He thanked the City for the Council of Neighborhoods program and for City staff member Nora Smith for assisting neighborhoods with their grant applications and efforts to improve.
6. WORKSHOP ITEMS
6(a) Economic Development Program – First Year
Accomplishments and Aurora Business Promotion
Tom Boydell, Economic Development Manager, gave an overview of the accomplishments in the Economic Development Program and how they align with the Economic Development Strategic Plan. He discussed the major objectives of the Strategic Plan and outlined the seven categories of work, including:
Continunig, Mr. Boydell explained that the current priorities include: 1) Exploring and Supporting Development Opportunities; 2) Exploring Development Road Blocks; and 3) Marketing Efforts. Additionally, the Program includes both quantitative and qualitative measures of performance, which include the following categories:
He concluded by outlining the performance philosophy of tracking, learning from experience, and empowering businesses to celebrate their success with the community.
Mr. Olander pointed out that an attitude of openness and a willingness to assist can be difficult to quantify, but they are important nonetheless. He emphasized the need to build a strong foundation and to be patient because quantifiable results will take time.
There were no members of the public signed in to speak on this item, so the Council proceeded to deliberations.
Councilmember Ryu was pleased that the Economic Development Program has responded to some of the concerns expressed by the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce. She inquired about the effort to relocate businesses displaced by the Aurora Corridor project.
Mr. Boydell responded that the City assisted in helping six out of twelve businesses stay in the community.
Councilmember Ryu emphasized the need to help businesses and keep jobs in Shoreline because it will ultimately help the City’s budget outlook. She thanked Mr. Boydell for the plan to conduct a charrette as outlined on page 9 of the Council packet, and she asked for clarification of the 2005 North King County Economic Survey.
Mr. Boydell noted that a summit was held after the report was completed, but it needs further follow-up.
Responding to Councilmember Way, Mr. Boydell explained the workings of the Community Capital Development program, a $250,000 revolving loan fund that is expected to be self-supporting in three years.
Councilmember Way pointed out that many business owners need help with very simple requests, and often it is “the little things that go a long way.” She requested a copy of the Aurora Square information and the Buxton Company summary.
Mr. Boydell said the Aurora business team is being reactivated and he is willing to work with anyone who wants to “talk marketing.”
Councilmember McGlashan asked if any projects or proposals have been submitted to the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED).
Mr. Boydell said the Aurora Square plan has been shared with CTED, as well as the business incubator program. He said he is impressed that CTED is willing to work with the City.
Deputy Mayor Fimia asked about a work plan for implementing the Economic Development Strategic Plan. She wondered if the Task Force would be reactivated in order to implement the plan.
Mr. Boydell noted that the Task Force members requested specific direction from the City Council and City Manager.
Mr. Olander clarified that staff would bring back a proposed work plan and tasks after the Council establishes its goals. He noted that there are several work elements and details that the Council doesn’t see.
Mr. Boydell added that a business inventory is underway, and information on the estimated number of jobs as well as other statistics will be provided to the Council as it becomes available.
Deputy Mayor Fimia said she envisions Mr. Boydell’s job as an advocate for the businesses to help them interface with the City.
Councilmember Hansen thanked Mr. Boydell for his very informative report. He asked that staff comment in the next segment on the Aurora Corridor sales tax revenue collections for 2004 and 2005.
Mayor Ransom asked Mr. Boydell to briefly report on his work with Enterprise Seattle, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), Shoreline Chamber of Commerce, and the Buxton Company.
Mr. Boydell said Enterprise Seattle met with the Task Force a number of times, and they’ve also come to Shoreline to tour commercial properties in order to understand the market. They are a willing partner, but the City needs to engage them more concretely.
Mr. Boydell outlined his interactions with the Chamber and commented that the Chamber has very practical ideas for marketing and small business services. He has a no interaction with the PSRC. He met with the Buxton Company three times last year, but the real issue is how to disseminate the information more effectively. He said although the Buxton report provides valuable information, site master planning must occur first, which requires a more detailed work plan and collaboration with the existing businesses at Aurora Square.
Mr. Olander said that a necessary first step in making the marketing plan successful is to look at the area as a whole rather than targeting individual businesses. He said businesses want to know who their neighbors will be, adding that they want a “synergistic, complementary relationship” with other businesses.
Mayor Ransom asked how many acres of land and how many owners are involved at Aurora Square. It was his understanding there are 12 owners and only 24 acres of commercial property, but staff seems to allude to a potential development of over 40 acres.
Mr. Boydell said the City’s grand vision for Aurora Square is about 58 acres, but developers are looking in the 30-40 acre range. He said while Aurora Square has wonderful potential for redevelopment, there are serious obstacles due to the ownership profile.
Aurora Business Promotion
Turning to the topic of Aurora Business Promotion, Mr. Olander noted that staff has identified $50,000 within the existing Aurora Corridor budget to help businesses impacted by the construction project.
Mr. Boydell outlined the background and framework of the Aurora Business Promotion effort, noting that the two major objectives are to: 1) Encourage visitors and shoppers; and undertake a 2) “Support Local Businesses” Publicity Campaign. He explained the proposal and steps to accomplish these objectives, which include:
Media advertising (radio)
Direct Mail
Deploy Small Business Service Providers
The next steps include:
Mr. Olander emphasized the need to begin this promotion effort immediately because many of the businesses have already been adversely affected by the project. He said although he could have approved this item with his budget authority, he wanted to bring it to Council because it was not part of the original Aurora Corridor proposal.
Councilmember Ryu expressed support for the proposal and urged the City to explore opportunities to collaborate with the City’s business organizations. She noted that the City could partner with the Chamber on some of its existing business promotion efforts.
Councilmember Gustafson expressed support and encouraged the City to move forward with the plan.
Councilmember Way expressed support for the proposal and heartily endorsed the “door-hanger” concept as part of the effort to encourage visitors and shoppers. She noted that doorbelling and similar efforts made a difference in the parks bond campaign.
Mr. Boydell outlined the proposed content of a door-hanger packet and stressed the urgency to complete this action right away.
Councilmember Way suggested a volunteer outreach campaign in order to canvass the community and advocate for Aurora businesses.
Mr. Olander encouraged the Council to communicate its ideas and then prioritize them so staff has clear direction. He noted that Central Market has been very successful in promoting businesses without spending a lot of money on advertising.
Deputy Mayor Fimia noted that the businesses themselves will be the greatest resource for ideas on how to effectively promote Aurora business. She suggested a different framework for the goals, noting that “recapturing Aurora business customers” should be a main objective. She suggested that the Council take a pledge to shop in Shoreline with the hope that the community will follow. She pointed out that “businesses are people,” so Shoreline should “put a face on these businesses.” She suggested that business promotion could be done in a fun, community-building way. She asked about the possibility of assisting with the advertising of products and services vis-à-vis a business directory, either in hard-copy or on the City website.
Mr. Boydell said he has explored the possibility of developing a business directory that the City can participate in funding, as well as an on-line directory that could be maintained by the Chamber. He commented on the need to consult with the City Attorney to ensure that public funds are spent appropriately, but assured Council that there are many creative ways to provide information and incentives that can help promote business in Shoreline.
Mr. Olander noted that there are many business promotion ideas that have been used successfully in other jurisdictions, such as Renton, so Shoreline can benefit from their experience.
Mayor Ransom expressed support for the proposal, noting that the funds are already budgeted in the Aurora Corridor project. He appreciated the fact that the plan includes using the Chamber and Forward Shoreline. He noted that he and the Deputy Mayor have been meeting with many businesses, so he would like staff to check back with the Council before publishing any literature so the Council has a chance to provide feedback and direction.
Deputy Mayor Fimia said she would like more direct involvement with this business promotion effort. Councilmember Ryu also expressed interest is being more involved.
Mr. Boydell and Mr. Olander requested that Council provide general direction on the proposal, after which staff will take their ideas to the advertising professionals and the business community for additional input and direction.
Councilmember Hansen expressed support for the proposal and asked staff to respond to his previous question regarding analysis of sales tax collections. He pointed out that some businesses sales have increased and others have decreased, but there is an overall increase in revenues over the past two years. He suggested finding out “what some businesses are doing right and what others are doing wrong,” because this information can help elevate the entire field. He suggested a more detailed breakdown of the sales tax figures.
Mr. Olander said he has not identified any concrete “lessons” from the raw sales data, but noted that a lot of the detailed information is confidential. He expressed his opinion that the businesses most adversely affected are the “impulse purchase” businesses that have more competition along the corridor, such as fast-food restaurants. Businesses that are less-affected include destination businesses, such as medical and law offices.
Debbie Tarry, Finance Director, concurred with Mr. Olander and affirmed that restaurant businesses are disproportionately affected. She noted that staff tried to classify the information to the extent that business categories could be identified. She said the smaller, service businesses tended to be impacted the most.
Councilmember Hansen said it would be helpful to know the percentage decline among the businesses that declined, as well as the percentage increase among those that experienced sales increases. He speculated that the business impact to small businesses could be due in part to lack of management expertise.
Mr. Boydell commented that the businesses that do better have been in business longer and have less competition.
Councilmember Ryu provided statistics on restaurant and service-related businesses and noted that the real decline is close to 25% for restaurants and 15% for service businesses. She wished to see the statistics broken down for businesses with more than $600,000 in sales and those with less than $600,000.
Ms. Tarry commented that despite the decline, businesses are still seeing overall growth during the Aurora construction. Councilmember Ryu concurred, although the rate is declining.
Mayor Ransom pointed out that lunchtime business has decreased dramatically at several restaurants and casinos.
Mr. Boydell suggested encouraging Shoreline employers to allow their employees some extra time for lunch if they patronize Shoreline restaurants.
6(b) Forward Shoreline Update
Jeff Lewis, Board Chair, Forward Shoreline, reported on the activities that have been performed by Forward Shoreline since the City contracted for services in July 2005. The philosophy of Forward Shoreline is to make Shoreline a better place for our children and grandchildren by focusing on the following areas:
Mr. Lewis outlined the following Forward Shoreline goals: 1) Establishing forums to highlight and discuss important topics; 2) Encouraging capital investment; 3) Facilitating collaborative private-public efforts; and 4) Helping define Shoreline better to the regional business community and outside the region. Forward Shoreline has engaged in a number of activities over the past year to include:
Continuing, Mr. Lewis outlined other specific activities and forums held during the past year as well as future activities, such as promotion of Aurora Avenue businesses during project construction. He concluded his presentation by thanking the City and civic organizations for their support and said he looks forward to working with City officials and staff in the coming years.
The Mayor called for public comment.
(a) Richard Johnsen, Shoreline, asked what could be done to preserve the small businesses along Aurora which have been heavily impacted by construction activity. He noted that some businesses may be “going under,” and either Forward Shoreline or the Economic Development Program should do something about it.
Responding to Councilmember Ryu, Mr. Boydell outlined the total City investment in Forward Shoreline of $50,000 for two years, or approximately $2,000 per month. This is the same amount as the ECOSS program and less than the Community Capital Development program.
Mr. Lewis said he could provide a balance sheet of all revenues and expenditures, noting that 2005 gross revenues totaled about $85,000.
Councilmember Ryu asked about the North King County Economic Survey and other cities’ interests in this effort.
Mr. Lewis said the Survey was a two-pronged effort to: 1) conduct a survey and 2) present the results. There was hope of following up but it was a not a strong priority for some cities. Mr. Boydell added that some cities don’t have an Economic Development manager and therefore their commitments are different.
Councilmember Gustafson thanked Mr. Lewis for his leadership and said he appreciates all the groups that support the City’s economic development goals. He also appreciates the focus on the positive and the effort to achieve partnerships.
Councilmember Hansen thanked Mr. Lewis for his many years of volunteer service as Chair of Forward Shoreline. He noted that Forward Shoreline is credited with the acquisition of the Showmobile. He hoped the relationship with Forward Shoreline would continue.
Councilmember Way asked about Forward Shoreline’s specific programs to help schools.
Mr. Lewis said one of Forward Shoreline’s roles is to hold forums to support the school system, so anything it can do to support the institutions that attract people to Shoreline will benefit the City.
Deputy Mayor Fimia thanked Mr. Lewis for his time. She felt it has been a strain to split the efforts of the business community by having Forward Shoreline operate independently from the Chamber of Commerce. She said the business community should “speak with one voice” because there is a lot of talent in both organizations and it makes sense to consolidate resources and efforts. She felt the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Arts Council is a model the City should follow.
Councilmember McGlashan disagreed, noting that many jurisdictions have a variety of organizations, and there has not been much response from the Chamber. He said Forward Shoreline and the Chamber are totally different organizations that can cooperate, but it’s not happening.
Mr. Lewis noted there are many cities in which multiple business organizations not only exist but cooperate. He said it’s not about the organization, but about whether the goals and work are getting done. He commented that Mayor Ransom, Deputy Mayor Fimia and Councilmember Way visited his business, which shows the City is increasing its communication and visibility.
Mayor Ransom felt the presentation focused on public relations and promotion, but he thought the main emphasis was recruiting new businesses to Shoreline.
Mr. Lewis said the goal is to balance public relations with creating awareness that Shoreline is a place to invest. He said the 2005 emphasis was on public relations, but it must be balanced with attracting investment.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:00 p.m., Councilmember Gustafson moved to extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m. Deputy Mayor Fimia seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.
Councilmember Hansen’s impression was that the original vision was to build pride in the City.
RECESS
At 10:01 p.m., Mayor Ransom called for a five-minute recess. The meeting reconvened at 10:08 p.m.
6(c) Shoreline Fields A and B Rate Policy
Dick Deal, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, provided the staff report and explained the rationale for the proposed fee structure, which must be adopted by Council prior to the opening of the Shoreline A and B Soccer Fields. He noted that even with the proposed increases in the youth and adult fees, it’s still a less expensive hourly charge to individuals than other organized sports. With the investment in synthetic infill turf for Fields A and B, the Council directed staff to generate an additional $800,000 in user fees over the next 10 years to help subsidize the cost of this improvement. Mr. Deal described the reduced maintenance costs associated with synthetic turf as well as the process used to maintain the surface.
Mr. Olander noted that the City is already accepting reservations for fall scheduling, so the fee structure is time-sensitive. He pointed out the synthetic turf has a lifespan of 8-10 years, so the City should establish a reserve policy to ensure there will be replacement funds accumulated.
The Mayor called for public comment.
(a) Mark Bishop, Seattle, Assistant Manager for Co-Rec Soccer Association, noted that all adults will be charged the $65/hour fee because most players are non-residents. He said soccer teams quit when rates become cost-prohibitive, so the City should try to stay competitive with fields such as Marymoor Park. He urged the Council keep field rates affordable.
Responding to Councilmember Ryu, Mr. Deal noted that 50 percent of participants must be from Shoreline in order to get the resident rate.
Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Deal said the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Board reviewed the recommendation and support the proposed rates.
He also responded to Councilmember Gustafson regarding the agreement with the school district, which allows for school teams to use the fields at no charge from 3-5 p.m.
Councilmember Gustafson felt the proposed fees were reasonable and said he would support it when the time comes. He felt the PRCS Board should discuss scheduling at a later time and report back to Council.
Mr. Deal emphasized the need to achieve a fair balance between scheduling for both adult and youth time.
Councilmember Way asked about the total number of Shoreline participants, as well as the amount of time the fields are used by groups or teams. She also asked if gas prices have affected field reservations, and if Mr. Bishop’s comments disturb him.
Mr. Deal responded that the Hillwood and Shorelake soccer groups have a combined total of approximately 2,000 players. He noted that there is ample field time available during the day, and that gas prices have not noticeably affected field reservations. He felt the proposed rates are reasonable when compared to other jurisdictions, and since the Council directive is to increase revenues, he is comfortable with the proposal.
Councilmember Hansen expressed support for the proposal, noting that the City can consider discounted rates if customers can guarantee a certain number of reservations each year. He asked if the surface would need to be completely replaced after 10 years.
Mr. Deal said there haven’t been any major renovations of existing fields, so he felt it would cost less to replace it than the original installation cost. He clarified that the new field rates would net the City about $80,000 above existing revenues.
Councilmember Hansen commented on the poor conditions and flooding at the soccer fields at Twin Ponds Park. Mr. Deal replied that funds were included in the parks bond to address this issue.
Responding to Councilmember McGlashan, Mr. Deal confirmed that most organizations said they would continue to use the Shoreline fields under the new rate structure. Councilmember McGlashan also asked how the City determines whether to charge a resident or non-resident rate to sports teams. Mr. Deal said the City can get player rosters to determine which rate to apply. Councilmember McGlashan expressed support for the proposed rate structure.
Deputy Mayor Fimia also supported the proposed rates. She suggested that the advertising of these rates include an analysis of travel costs to show that these rates are reasonable because people will end up spending more money to travel to other destinations due to increased fuel prices.
There was Council consensus to direct staff to return with a motion to approve the proposed rate structure.
7. ACTION ITEMS
(c) Motion to Execute a Construction Contract for
the 2006 Sidewalk Priority Routes
Paul Haines, Public Works Director, explained that there were no bids for this contract on May 1, so staff went back and packaged the project differently to make it more appealing to contractors. The City received two bids, which were both higher than engineers’ estimates. Staff recommends the Council authorize a construction contract with Kemper Construction for Project 1 and Project 3 of the 2006 Sidewalk Priority Routes. Project 1 and Project 3 would construct pedestrian improvements on 10th Ave NE, 3rd Ave NW, and 8th Ave NW.
Councilmember Ryu moved to authorize the City Manager to execute a construction contract with Kemper Construction for Project 1 and Project 3 of the 2006 Sidewalk Priority Routes. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Deputy Mayor Fimia wished to explore ways to find additional funding to complete the other projects not funded under this proposal. She expressed support for the motion.
Mr. Olander said an additional amount could be brought forward from next year’s capital fund, but he would recommend against it.
Councilmember Hansen commented on the fact that the bids were much higher than engineers’ estimates. He asked for the rationale for proposing Project 1 when it’s 72% over the engineer’s estimate, which is a much higher proportion than Project 2. He also expressed his preference for concrete sidewalks.
Mr. Haines noted that sidewalks near schools were a stated priority of the Council. The improvements on Dayton Avenue (Project 2) were not considered to provide the most immediate benefit. He affirmed that concrete sidewalks would increase the total project cost by 25%.
Councilmember Hansen pointed out the need to monitor the construction cycles carefully, noting that this is the “wrong time to hit the bid cycle.” He expressed his preference for doing a “first-class project” using concrete at the right time.
Mr. Olander noted that the timing was less than desirable, but the Council felt it was important to pursue.
Councilmember Way noted that “the perfect is the enemy of the good,” so she will support the motion.
Councilmember Hansen asked if it would be feasible to modify the project to include concrete instead of asphalt.
Jesus Sanchez, Public Works Operations Manager, noted that the project would have to be rebid in order to specify concrete.
Councilmember Gustafson said although he would prefer concrete, he has seen good asphalt projects.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 7-0, and the City Manager was authorized to execute a construction contract with Kemper Construction for Project 1 and Project 3.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 11:00 p.m., Councilmember Ryu moved to extend the meeting until 11:30 p.m. Deputy Mayor Fimia seconded the motion, which carried 5-1, with Councilmember Hansen dissenting (Deputy Mayor Fimia left the Council table).
(a) Resolution No. 244, amending the Council Rules of
Procedure
Mr. Olander introduced this item and suggested that the Council adopt the recommended changes to the Council Rules of Procedure without changes. He noted that a sunset clause could be added to the motion so the Council could implement the new rules on a trial basis.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to adopt the Council Rules of Procedure as contained in Attachment F of the Council meeting packet. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Deputy Mayor Fimia said she incorporated Councilmember Gustafson’s suggestions into this version of the Rules, which provides more opportunities for the public to comment at meetings.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to insert the following as Section 4.4: “If, after the motion is made to approve the agenda, the Council is considering moving an item to the Consent Calendar, the Mayor will first call for public comment on that item in order to enable members of the audience to provide input if they wish to do so.” Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Following brief Council discussion, a vote was taken on the amendment, which carried 6-1, with Councilmember Hansen dissenting.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to insert “Presentation by staff” after “Staff Reports” in Section 5.4A. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to strike “documentation that they represent” and insert “the action which authorizes them to speak for” in Section 6.8C. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Deputy Mayor Fimia noted that this change would make it easier for a speaker to demonstrate that they speak on behalf of a given organization without being required to provide documentation.
After further discussion, a vote was taken on the amendment, which carried 7-0.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to amend Section 7.16 to read “If a member of the Council abstains or is silent on a vote, it shall be recorded as a vote for the prevailing side.” Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Gustafson felt the current language allowing silence to be counted as an affirmative vote was deficient. It was noted that Robert’s Rules of Order regards abstentions and silence as neutral votes.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, pointed out the current inconsistency between Section 7.15 and 7.16. Section 7.15 suggests that Councilmembers must vote on all questions put to them, but 7.16 implies that Councilmembers can abstain or remain silent on a vote. He suggested language to remedy this problem.
Councilmember Hansen said that while he supports the motion, a neutral vote essentially has the effect of favoring the prevailing side. He noted that this particular rule has been ignored for the past 10 years.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 11:30 p.m. Councilmember Ryu moved to extend the meeting until 11:45 p.m. Deputy Mayor Fimia seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.
Councilmember Ryu felt that allowing neutral votes could delay the meetings because a division of the house would be needed every time a vote is taken.
Deputy Mayor Fimia felt that the Council Rules should be consistent with Robert’s Rules of Order.
A vote was taken on the
motion as restated by Councilmember Gustafson to read “If a member of the
Council abstains or is silent on a vote, it shall be recorded as a neutral
vote for the prevailing side.”, which carried 7-0.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to accept the City Attorney’s recommendation for Section 7.15 as follows: “If a Councilmember has a conflict of interest or an appearance of fairness question under state law, the Councilmember may recuse themselves from the issue and shall leave the Council chambers during discussion and voting on the issue. That Councilmember shall be considered absent when voting occurs.” Councilmember Ryu seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.
In Section 5.4B.8., Councilmember
McGlashan moved the following amendment: “Organizations which may have
alternative positions or information from those already scheduled should be given priority scheduling if
they also request to do a Community Group Presentation will be scheduled at the next Study Session.”
Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Deputy Mayor Fimia spoke against the motion, noting that there was already compromise language in the original draft.
Councilmember Gustafson noted that with this amendment, there is a potential for having two Community Group Presentations at the following Study Session.
Councilmember Hansen expressed enthusiastic support for the amendment, noting that it would be good to get both sides of an issue quickly. He added that it wouldn’t require staff to reschedule the group for a future meeting.
Councilmember Ryu was opposed to the motion because staff will have already scheduled another group for the following Study Session.
Councilmember Way concurred, noting that the schedule should include some flexibility. She said it is not unreasonable to have a group wait a month to respond.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to call the question. Councilmember Ryu seconded the motion, which failed 3-4, with Deputy Mayor Fimia and Councilmembers Ryu and Way voting in the affirmative.
Mayor Ransom did not feel this would be a significant issue because there were very few group presentations in the past under previous Council rules. However, he felt if Council allows the amendment, it should read “alternative, controversial positions…” to ensure that the issues are important and timely.
Councilmember Hansen agreed, noting that while he feels group presentations won’t generally be a problem, this amendment allows the Council to handle controversial issues in a timely way. He felt opposing sides should not be denied the opportunity to make a timely response.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 11:45 p.m., Councilmember Ryu moved to extend the meeting until 11:59 p.m. Deputy Mayor Fimia seconded, the motion, which carried 7-0.
Deputy Mayor Fimia pointed out that there is ample opportunity for opposing sides to utilize the public comment period at Study Sessions. She urged that the Council oppose the motion.
A vote was taken on the amendment
as restated, which read “Organizations which may have alternative,
controversial positions or information from those already scheduled should be given priority
scheduling if they also request to do a Community Group Presentation will be scheduled at the next Study Session.”,
which carried 4-3, with Deputy Mayor Fimia and Councilmembers Ryu and Way
dissenting.
A vote was taken on Resolution No. 244, adopting the Council Rules of Procedure as amended, which carried 6-1, with Councilmember Way dissenting.
Councilmember Gustafson noted that Council and staff have a responsibility for time management. He said the Council should do it’s “homework” and ask questions ahead of time in order to move business along more quickly.
Councilmember Ryu moved to adjourn the meeting. Deputy Mayor Fimia seconded the motion, which failed 3-4, with Deputy Mayor Fimia and Councilmembers Ryu and Way voting in the affirmative.
(b) 2007-08 Council Goals
Councilmember Gustafson explained his proposal to adopt a number of the Council goals prior to holding the two Community Workshops scheduled for June 6 and June 14. He felt this would expedite the goal adoption process.
The Mayor called for public comment.
(a) Wendy DiPeso, Shoreline, said the City has done a wonderful job in getting the public to participate in the priority-setting process. She opposed the proposal because the public is not aware of Councilmember Gustafson’s idea. She urged the Council to act with caution and not jeopardize the trust it has established with the community.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to adopt the following Council goals, with Councilmember McGlashan seconding the motion:
Councilmember Gustafson felt the Council should be honest with the public by adopting the goals for which there is already Council consensus. He said although the public can still comment on these goals, it should be clear that these are long-established and ongoing objectives that the Council has discussed in the past.
A vote was taken on the motion, which failed 3-4, with Councilmembers Gustafson, Hansen, and McGlashan voting in the affirmative.
8. ADJOURNMENT
At 12:00 p.m., Mayor Ransom declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Scott Passey, City Clerk