CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

Tuesday, January 20, 2004

Shoreline Conference Center

6:30 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 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.

3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

Councilmember Ransom stated that, although it is on the agenda for January 26, 2004, he does not have enough information at this time to discuss his proposal from last week to support the removal of legislative barriers to allow Chambers of Commerce and other non-profits to combine to provide insurance and other benefits. He asked that this item be removed from the agenda at next week’s meeting.

4. COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmember Gustafson noted that the draft document relating to salmon conservation action plans prepared by the Water Resource Inventory Area 8 (WRIA-8) is now available.

Deputy Mayor Jepsen noted that the Sister Cities Association identified three possible dates in May and June that will be offered to Boryeong delegates for a reciprocal visit to Shoreline.

Mayor Hansen reported on his attendance at two Suburban Cities Association meetings where discussions centered on regional committee elections. He noted that SCA proposed that Councilmember Gustafson continue serving on the WRIA-8 Committee and that Councilmember Chang serve on the Transit Committee. Councilmember Ransom was nominated for membership on the Growth Management Planning Council. Mayor Hansen concluded that he is nominated to serve on the Puget Sound Regional Council Executive Board and that the elections will be held tomorrow in Kirkland.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Richard Johnsen, Shoreline, followed up on his comments from last week relating to the restriping of 15^th Avenue NE. He requested that the City do something to fix the problem he sees. He also commented on the potential closure of the post office at QFC and urged the Council to do whatever possible to preserve it.

(b) Ginger Botham, Shoreline, described a fellow neighborhood association member's idea for redeveloping the Dayton Triangle property into a City gateway. The proposal, which includes a large, multi-sided monument inscribed with inspirational messages. She said neighborhood consensus is that the gateway should be simple and easy to maintain. She described the popular features of other neighborhood parks she has visited. She thanked the Council for working with State Representative Ruth Kagi to replace the “roving eyes” with a pedestrian stoplight at 165^th and Aurora Avenue.

(c) Jerry Wilkins, the owner of a business adjacent to the Dayton Triangle site, advised Council that pedestrian safety problems could arise from developing the property with vehicle access on Dayton Avenue or Westminster Way. He explained a proposal by the Shoreline Rotary Club to donate a sculpture to be erected at the site. He felt the site would be an appropriate place to display the sculpture if it were constructed similarly to the gateway at NE 145^th Street and Aurora Avenue.

Councilmember Fimia asked Mr. Wilkins if he preferred that the site be developed as solely a gateway or as a combination gateway/commercial application. Mr. Wilkins’ preference was that Council approve a project that would not generate increased traffic since the site is already a potential hazard for pedestrians and drivers.

(d) Paula Nelson, Shoreline, who lives across the street from the Dayton Triangle, expressed her preference that the entire property be developed as a City gateway. She expressed concern that a commercial business built there would create increased traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood.

(e) Michelle Moyes, Shoreline, said the consensus of her neighborhood is that the City should use the Dayton site for a City gateway. She said that although her neighbors do not oppose a small business locating there, they oppose anything that would significantly increase traffic.

Responding to Mayor Hansen, Mr. Burkett said staff would talk to Mr. Johnsen about his concerns regarding 15^th Avenue NE. He pointed out that due to the size of the parcel and the presence of heavy traffic, staff did not suggest a recreation or active park area for the Dayton Triangle property.

Councilmember Ransom expressed concern that the Rotary Club commissioned an artist to build a sculpture for a gateway without consulting with the City. He noted that the City has not yet decided how to develop the property.

Mayor Hansen noted that the Rotary Club has expressed an interest in donating an art piece to be displayed somewhere in the City. He said some members have identified the Dayton Triangle as a prime location for such an art piece.

Mr. Burkett explained that Rotary members have contacted the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Service Board, which makes decisions on art donations for the City. He said the Rotary’s intent is to commemorate its 100-year anniversary with an art donation to the City. He said the sculpture could be incorporated into another City project if not at the Dayton site.

6. WORKSHOP ITEMS

(a) Dayton Triangle Property

Paul Haines, Public Works Director, explained that staff is seeking Council direction regarding the future use of the Dayton Triangle property located at 14929 Westminster Way. He explained that the property was in violation of code dating back to before the City of Shoreline’s incorporation. The City of Shoreline eventually acquired it through a King County Sheriff’s Sale. The City has removed trash, abandoned vehicles, hazardous materials and the unsafe building from the site. The City of Shoreline Public Works Department is currently preparing for removal of some remaining contaminated soils.

Jesus Sanchez, Public Works Operations Manager, provided a brief history of the site and the process by which the property was acquired by the City. He explained that the City has invested approximately $65,000 in the clean up and acquisition of the site, which has an area of 8,026 square feet and is zoned “Neighborhood Business”(NB). Another 293 square feet of unused right-of-way at the southern tip might be available for use. The 2003 King County Assessor valued the land at $161,500.

Continuing, he explained that the site has a broad range of possible uses. The City’s “Gateway Policy and Procedure Manual” has identified the Dayton Triangle Property as a possible City Gateway. The site was identified as a possible “Primary Gateway” with two alternative development concepts: 1) use of the entire site as a gateway; or 2) use of only the southern tip as a gateway with the use of the remainder of the site undetermined. He said the Parks Department has indicated that the size of the property and its proximity to high traffic volumes makes it unsuitable for an active park. However, if the City retains ownership of the property, it would have the potential as the site for a beautification project. Subsequently, the Public Works’ Facilities Unit or the Parks Department could provide ongoing maintenance of the site. Several local individuals and businesses have expressed interest in the property, and there have been proposals to lease or purchase the property and develop it as a small retail business. City staff has also heard from nearby residents over the years of their desire to maintain this as park or open space. The City’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the property for traffic impacts and ingress and egress issues and finds that there are limited access points.

Mr. Sanchez explained the following five options for the property as identified by staff: 1) do nothing; 2) develop the entire site as a City gateway; 3) develop the southern tip of the site as a City gateway and redevelop the remaining land area under City ownership or control; 4) develop the southern tip and sell the remaining land; or 5) sell the entire site. Mr. Sanchez concluded by recommending that Council give direction on moving forward with Option 2 to redevelop the entire site as a City gateway.

Councilmember Ransom expressed support for either Option 2 or Option 3. He felt very strongly that the City should retain ownership of the property.

Councilmember Fimia noted her interest in the site over the years and expressed approval that the City and neighbors were able to resolve this long-standing code violation. She urged the City to be vigilant about code enforcement. She noted that the crosswalk at Dayton and Westminster functions well, and increased pedestrian traffic at that location may actually help slow down vehicles. She expressed a preference for Option 2 or Option 3, noting the site seems too large for just a gateway and too small for mixed development. She suggested that the City look into the possibility of building a gateway at the south end and leasing the remaining space for some appropriate development, since the City has already invested a great deal of money in the property. She felt the City might be able to recoup its costs while also providing a project the community would support.

Councilmember Grace concurred. He asked if the City has studied vehicle access and traffic patterns as a part of Option 3.

Mr. Sanchez said staff would recommend no access to the site from Westminster Way, limited access from Dayton Avenue, and full access from N 150^th Street. Pedestrian access would be encouraged on the southern tip at the existing signal.

Mr. Haines noted that any increased access to the site would be problematic. He urged the Council to consider whether a neighborhood business should even be considered at the site. He felt it would be advisable for staff to study potential reconfiguration of the intersection as part of a long-term development plan. He felt the emphasis should be on public safety instead of promoting business activity.

Mayor Hansen suggested that N 150^th Street is the only safe access to the site because crossing oncoming traffic can be difficult.

Deputy Mayor Jepsen thanked the speakers for supporting the gateway concept as a way to create a sense of community identity. He agreed that the parcel could be even more dangerous for pedestrians if business was encouraged there. He expressed support for Option 2, noting that a gateway is important in creating a visible transition from Seattle to Shoreline. He expressed concern that Option 3 could present significant parking problems.

Councilmember Gustafson expressed support for Option 2, but felt that any plan should include potential reconfiguration of the intersection. He said although he would like to see a small business locate there, he is more concerned about the negative impacts on parking and traffic. He expressed interest in learning more about Ms. Botham’s monument idea.

Responding to Councilmember Chang, Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, clarified that the $75,000 estimate is for a limited gateway project in the southwest corner of the site. He said although the design and scope of work has yet to be defined, sidewalks, curbs and gutters were suggested as part of the plan.

Councilmember Chang expressed support for Option 2. He suggested it might be better to construct the gateway in the center of the parcel to allow for potential road reconfiguration at the perimeter.

Mr. Stewart said Option 2 provides the maximum amount of flexibility for the design and the greatest number of alternatives for both the gateway and for road reconfiguration. By contrast, Option 3 would limit the placement of the gateway to the southern tip of the site.

Mr. Haines noted that there is still a lot of work to do, regardless of which option is chosen. He was confident that most of the design details could be worked out once a design option is chosen. He said staff will bring back cost estimates and a recommendation on potential road reconfiguration after a final decision is made.

Councilmember Chang said the limited size of the property seems to preclude Option 3 or Option 5. He favored Option 2 due to the potential reconfiguration of the roadway.

Councilmember Gustafson asked staff to consider the possibility of vacating N 150^th Street if road reconfiguration is likely. Mr. Haines said that option would be considered within the whole reconfiguration process, although some residents depend on that street for access.

Mayor Hansen estimated the City’s total investment in the property at approximately $150,000, considering the $87,000 in unpaid fines and fees.

Councilmember Grace pointed out that road reconfiguration could drastically change the design of the gateway. He wondered if it is preferable to defer this item until there is more certainty about how the road will be developed.

Mayor Hansen said the staff proposal includes road reconfiguration in conjunction with gateway design.

Mr. Burkett said staff has taken the approach that additional right-of-way (ROW) could be used if the site is developed for public use. There would not be an opportunity to use some of the site for additional ROW or reconfiguration and for a private use. He added that a small business only generates a small amount of revenue for the City.

Councilmember Fimia estimated that the City will likely spend between $150,000 and $250,000 on the property when it is finished. She commented on the difficulty of crossing Westminster from N 150^th. She said she would be in favor of increasing the amount of cross traffic so that drivers pay more attention. She felt the site should be developed to bring an inherent benefit to the community because of the City’s sizable investment. She felt the site could be designed to achieve the goals of 1) City entryway; 2) return on investment; and 3) public safety.

There was Council consensus to direct staff to pursue Option 2 with consideration of the potential reconfiguration of the intersection at Dayton Avenue N and Westminster Way.

(b) Update on the City’s 2001-2003 Information Technology Strategic Plan and Presentation Of the 2004-2006 IT Plan

Debbie Tarry, Finance Director, introduced Tho Dao, Information Technology Manager, who in turn introduced the consultant, Tom Krippeahne of Moss Adams Advisory Services. This firm evaluated the current plan and helped to develop the 2004-2006 IT plan.

Mr. Krippeahne explained the methodology used to develop the proposed plan and how Shoreline compares to other jurisdictions. He described the standard, three-phase process of 1) fact-finding, 2) analysis, and 3) reporting. He said Shoreline has done a good job in identifying its needs and prioritizing projects based on limited resources. He said his firm believes Shoreline is in good condition due to the following reasons:

1) Shoreline has not wasted resources (computing infrastructure and staff).

2) Shoreline has come a long way in a relatively short period of time.

3) Shoreline has acquired/implemented “best of breed “systems (systems that meet particular needs and that are appropriately sized).

4) Shoreline’s systems can continue to grow as Shoreline’s needs grow.

He concluded by stating that Shoreline has evolved to a point where it can now shift from data collection to data analysis and utilization.

Mr. Dao provided details of various past projects and themes of the current plan. His presentation included the following points:

• During the first six years, the City built an information systems infrastructure that provides a reliable and stable platform for staff to provide services. These systems include financial, customer services, permitting, asset inventory and recreation management.
• For the next three years, a strong focus will be placed on integration of the information stored in these systems in order to make strategic and tactical business decisions.
• In 1997 the City’s Information Systems Strategic Plan had twenty-nine projects and a five-year budget of $4.28 million. The 2001-2003 Updated Plan had sixteen projects and a budget of $2.05 million. The new plan has fourteen projects and a budget of $950,000.
• The City uses Moss Adams to assist with technology planning for two main reasons: 1) to provide a proven methodology of long-range technology planning that matches closely with business needs; and 2) to provide an objective assessment of past performance, industry/peer reviews, and an external audit of information technology implementation to date.
• Some projects represent basic tenets of a strategic plan, and therefore will be carried forward to the new plan. These essential items include: 1) Strengthening Technology Oversight; 2) Establishing Technology Standards; and 3) Strengthening IT Staff
• The plan is designed to provide accurate information and easy access. City staff can be more informed of customer requests and contacts, thereby enhancing the customer experience.
• For decision-makers, a better understanding of past demand, current trends, and future opportunities will allow them to act with a high level of confidence and knowledge.
• The 2004-2006 IT Strategic Plan is comprised of sixteen projects. These projects can be grouped into the following categories: 1) Review the City’s infrastructure and customer response management application (Hansen); 2) Integration of existing system information; 3) Improve employee and citizen interfaces to e-government initiatives; 4) Improve technical and project management skills for City employees.

• These projects build on the projects contained in the last plan, with an emphasis on leveraging data that has been collected in the City’s existing information systems to help make better decisions, measure productivity and give the ability to forecast, detect trends and estimate work load.
• The IT Plan has citywide projects aimed at maximizing existing business capabilities and knowledge. It also includes specific projects: a new phone system, enhancing systems security, establishing technology standards, and strengthening IT staff skills. It contains projects that integrate existing systems for business intelligence and implement portal technology for serving business intelligence needs.
• The 2004-2006 Technology Plan is constrained by both budget allocation and human resources to implement technology improvements. Not only will these projects require the expertise and time of the Information Technology Staff, but that of personnel within operating departments. This is especially true as the City moves from system implementation to system integration projects.
• The City will continue to use a combination of internal staff and consultant support. At the current time staff believes there is an appropriate level of internal staff to proceed with the 2004-2006 plan.
• Current challenges to Shoreline’s technology needs include: 1) resource constraints; 2) changing business models and new business requirements; and 3) increased user expectations and sophistication in utilizing technology tools.
• The 2004-2006 Technology Plan moves the City from system implementation to system and information integration. This phase of the City’s technology development should result in information being readily available to all levels of decision-making and more access to City customers.

Councilmember Gustafson emphasized the importance of integrating existing information and better utilizing Channel 21 to disseminate it.

Councilmember Grace asked about the proportion of internal resources versus external resources that would be used in integrating systems for decision-makers. Mr. Dao said external resources would be used on occasion, but internal staff would undertake the bulk of the effort.

Councilmember Grace noted that a small investment in external resources can be effective in getting more capability out of current systems. He urged staff to look for opportunities to collaborate with local entities in future technology planning. He commended staff for its ambitious and labor-intensive plan.

Councilmember Fimia commended staff for the effective presentation, noting that she has a healthy skepticism about the amount of technology used by the City. She emphasized the importance of determining what is essential and practical, noting that the IT budget totals nearly $1 million at a time when other programs are being cut. She suggested formation of a citizens advisory committee that could provide a more objective review and an analysis of the costs/benefits.

Ms. Tarry noted that Moss Adams was chosen because of its ability to provide that kind of external “reality check.”

Councilmember Fimia said that as a steward of public funds, she would feel more comfortable having an objective party conducting additional review.

Mr. Dao commented that the City of Seattle and King County have used a citizen advisory board to their IT groups. He felt this added an extra level of credibility to their technology plans.

Mr. Burkett commented on the City’s past success and accomplishments, noting that the budget has steadily decreased since incorporation. He said the next challenge is to integrate all the systems and create a business intelligence system that will yield even greater benefits.

Mayor Hansen commented on his professional observations of other companies’ technology plans. He commended staff for continuing to reduce its technology budget while at the same time providing increasingly better data.

Councilmember Ransom felt that Moss Adams was brought in to provide the kind of objective review needed for significant expenditures such as the technology plan. He felt that any savings achieved from additional review would be consumed by other factors. He did not think there would be much benefit in having another consulting firm do a second check.

Councilmember Fimia clarified that she is not proposing additional expenditures, but that the community could volunteer its professional expertise. She said if the plan is sound, then a second review will only confirm that conclusion.

Councilmember Grace felt he needed to start with some basic information about other jurisdictions’ technology plans before pursuing the community review board idea. He felt the City Manager or Moss Adams could easily provide such information.

Deputy Mayor Jepsen was skeptical about how a review board would be chosen. He said it would be essential that the people chosen are qualified professionals.

Councilmember Chang asked if the City is now projecting that it will spend approximately the same amount ($1 million) in the next three-year cycle.

Mr. Dao affirmed that staff expects it will not be acquiring large systems as it has done over the past few years, but rather processing what it has.

Mr. Krippeahne explained that there are definite cycles for any capital infrastructure investment, and that Shoreline stands to reap the benefits in payback from its current systems. He said there would be a future cycle when the City should reinvest as systems upgrade and replacement technology is introduced. He said the City has examined all its systems on a project-by-project basis from a financial payback standpoint. He concluded by stating that Shoreline adopted a robust process that would withstand scrutiny.

Mayor Hansen commented that technology changes rapidly and that any projections beyond three years would not be very reliable.

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Richard Johnsen, Shoreline, reiterated that the City’s restriping of 15^th Avenue NE lacks consistency and common sense. He said the City and its consultants will not admit they made a mistake. He said citizens did not realize that there would not be any lane demarcation at bus stops along 15^th Avenue NE. He felt there was nothing wrong with the original four-lane road, and that any problems arose from increasing traffic volumes and a lack of traffic enforcement.

(b) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, urged the Council to develop the Dayton Triangle property entirely as a City gateway. She commented that any small business located there will have parking and delivery requirements, which will increase traffic problems. She also pointed out that the City would not benefit financially by a professional office building because it would not generate any sales tax revenue. She suggested that the City gateway incorporate a fountain or other water feature along with a sculpture.

(c) Patricia Peckol, Shoreline, commented on the Hillwood Estates development. She noted that the City has still not installed a street sign on NW 192^nd Street, despite the fact that the development began two years ago. She also said she was promised that NW 192^nd Street would be a two-way street. She asserted that the City violated every rule in favor of the developer. She said that because of this development process, she plans to move out of Shoreline.

Responding to Mayor Hansen, Mr. Burkett said staff would follow up on Ms. Peckol’s concern about lack of signage on NW 192^nd Street. He said he would have the City’s traffic engineer reevaluate 15^th Avenue NE, although he had driven that road several times and did not notice a significant problem.

Councilmember Ransom concurred, noting that he had also driven that route and did not consider the inconsistency to be as dramatic as Mr. Johnsen indicated.

Councilmember Fimia felt the City should try to provide closure regarding Ms. Peckol’s assertion that NW 192^nd Street was promised to be a two-way street. Mr. Burkett said staff would report back on that issue.

Councilmember Ransom asked that the Choy property be the subject of a workshop, considering the fact that the Aurora Corridor 60% design review is coming up in February. Mr. Burkett noted that there have been other requests for left-turn lanes along Aurora Avenue, and staff will work with Mr. Choy to evaluate the options for access to his property.

8. EXECUTIVE SESSION

At 8:50 p.m., Mayor Hansen said the Council would recess into executive session for one hour to discuss property acquisition. At 9:49 p.m. the executive session concluded and the workshop reconvened.

9. ADJOURNMENT

At 9:50 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.

_________________________

Sharon Mattioli, City Clerk