CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 15, 2004
Shoreline Conference Center
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia,
Grace, Gustafson, and Ransom
ABSENT: none
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Hansen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor
Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll call
by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the exception of
Councilmember Fimia, who arrived shortly thereafter.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE
AGENDAS
Robert Olander, Deputy City
Manager, introduced Bernard Seager, the new Management Analyst in the City
Manager’s Office.
Police Chief Denise Turner
reported on various police department activities over the weekend, including a
“shots fired” incident with a robbery suspect and an automobile accident
injuring two Shoreline officers. She
commented on the cooperation that Shoreline has received from other public
safety agencies in investigating the rash of robberies that have occurred in
the City in 2004. Responding to Council
comments, she noted that the City’s government access channel has a bulletin
describing the suspect. She explained
that while the robberies have similar circumstances, there is no proof they are
related.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmembers reported on their activities at the
National League of Cities Conference.
Councilmember Ransom discussed his membership on the
steering committee for Human Development.
The major issues facing the Human Development Committee include mental
health and insurance coverage for mental health counselors, “No Child Left
Behind,” and immigration. He noted that
many school districts, including the Shoreline School District, are concerned
they may be listed as “failing” because of the onerous requirements of the No
Child Left Behind initiative. In
Shoreline, this concern is based on the fact that special education students
will not be at grade level, which causes the district to be listed as
failing. He also commented on other
topics, including immigration, affordable housing, and economic development.
Councilmember Grace commented favorably on the
conference and the information he received relating to governance, public
participation, budgets, and leadership.
He felt the conference was very worthwhile and that information learned
should be shared and discussed.
Councilmember Gustafson felt the meetings between
Councilmembers and Washington’s elected officials on transportation and
homeland security were particularly valuable.
He noted he spent most of his time with the Environment, Energy and
Natural Resources Steering Committee.
Councilmember Chang emphasized the importance of
lobbying Washington’s elected officials, even during an economic downturn, so
that Shoreline can be positioned to receive federal funding when the economy
improves. He felt the trip was
effective and a good learning experience.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen commented on his involvement on the
Community and Economic Development Steering Committee and the Homelessness
Taskforce. He suggested that the Council
include a discussion of the homeless at its upcoming retreat. He noted that a Shoreline Enterprise editorial highlighted the progress Shoreline
has made since incorporation.
Mayor Hansen commented favorably on the NLC conference,
noting that Washington’s elected representatives were very encouraging about
Shoreline’s transportation projects. He
was optimistic the trip would result in federal funding for the City’s
projects.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Janet
Way, Shoreline, commented on the death of Shoreline resident and activist
Janeen Cook. She described Ms. Cook’s
various contributions to the City and noted that a tree would be planted in her
honor at Paramount Park. On another
topic, she urged the Council to defend Fircrest School and use its influence to
retain this valuable institution.
Mayor Hansen provided a brief
statement on Ms. Cook’s volunteer efforts and contributions to the Shoreline
community.
(b)
Bob Barta, Shoreline, noted
that the continued growth at Shoreline Community College (SCC) is making it
difficult for the Council to achieve its goal of keeping neighborhoods healthy
and vibrant. He provided information on
traffic revisions developed by the SCC Community Task Force, noting his preference
for option A. He described the efforts
by the neighborhood and the City to address the increasing problem of college
students parking on neighborhood streets.
He asked the City to continue to help the neighborhood deal with the
parking problem.
(c) Laurence
Yaffe, Shoreline, said that City staff represented recent changes to the City’s
Development Code in a dishonest and inappropriate way. He said the substantive changes were
mischaracterized as clarifications of the existing code, and that the process
was unethical, unprofessional, and unacceptable. He said the Casper development in Richmond Beach violates
provisions of the Development Code, including the prohibition against building
on steep slopes. He said there are
systemic problems in the planning department and that corrective actions are
needed. He urged the Council to look
into the problem and fix it, noting that he sent a letter to Council expressing
these concerns.
(d) Cindy
Ryu, Shoreline, commented on the “Healing Garden” at the Fircrest School,
noting that the Council could implement similar projects in Shoreline without
spending large amounts of City money.
She questioned the need to spend part of the Interurban Trail design
funding just to implement $30,000 for the 1% for Arts component, noting that
people are willing to volunteer their efforts for worthwhile projects like the
Healing Garden. She disputed the
description of the federal and state funds that Fircrest receives as “free
money,” clarifying that it is really taxpayer money. She asked Council to be creative and consider ways to keep
Fircrest School in the region.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen suggested
that the full Council read Mr. Yaffe’s letter before responding to his
comments. He described the efforts to
put additional restrictions on parking in the Highland Terrace neighborhood,
noting that some neighborhoods are being polled about permit parking.
Mr. Olander reminded Council
that Shoreline Community College is still in the process of working on its
long-range master plan. He noted that
the plan would be presented to the Planning Commission and Council for
review.
Councilmember Ransom said
although the Casper development seems to be an unusual situation, the Council
does not have a direct role in that particular land use decision.
City Attorney Ian Sievers
concurred, noting that the Hearing Examiner decides that particular permit upon
staff’s recommendation. He explained
the outstanding issues that must be resolved before the Hearing Examiner will
hold a hearing on the permit application.
Councilmember Fimia asked
people to provide information about how Janeen Cook touched their lives so she
could include it in a recognition to be presented to her family. She asked that the issue of the future of
Fircrest be discussed at the Council Retreat.
She asked if there has been an inventory of changes to the Development
Code, or a formal comparison of the old code to the new code.
Tim Stewart, Planning and
Development Services Director, reported that the Planning Commission has
reviewed the Development Code definition of “reasonable use” and is looking at
an amendment to it.
Mr. Olander clarified that
the Planning Commission is dealing with the definition of reasonable use and
not a comprehensive inventory of code changes in the last few years.
Councilmember Grace asked
that agenda item 6(d) be taken first so that he could participate on the
discussion before he had to leave the meeting.
There was Council consensus to amend the agenda to do so.
6. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(d) Process
for Public Input
Councilmember
Grace outlined the proposed process for soliciting public input on this
issue. Council discussed the scheduling
of the meetings to solicit public input and agreed to meet on March 29, April 1
and April 10. The March 29 meeting will
be in the Mt. Rainier Room. The
suggestion was made to contact the Bethel Lutheran Church for an eastside
venue.
After
discussion of having a part of a workshop agenda devoted to taking public
comment on Council process, the majority of Council wished to focus on
gathering information outside of the regular Council meetings.
Responding
to Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmember Grace said the participants will be asked
to focus on the questions outlined in the draft proposal in the Council
packet. Deputy Mayor Jepsen said he
would like to see the final version of the material distributed. He suggested changing the issue statement to
“Some members of the community have raised concerns about the process
for public input into City Council decision-making and the Council is
interested in encouraging additional residents to participate.”
Councilmember
Gustafson commented on how many of the recommendations from the Citizens
Advisory Task Force of several years ago have been implemented. He wished to ensure that this item be
included on the Council of Neighborhoods agenda for April.
Councilmember
Grace said he would work with staff to revise the information to be distributed
to the public. Deputy Mayor Jepsen
offered to assist. This will then be
sent to the full Council for review before it is finalized.
There
was Council consensus to distribute a calendar with these three dates and allow
Councilmembers to sign up to attend one or more meetings. The City Clerk noted that these will be
noticed as special meetings; therefore, more than three Councilmembers will be
able to attend if they wish.
Councilmember
Grace left the Council table at 7:50 p.m.
Mr.
Olander asked the Council to amend the agenda again to discuss Item 6(b) next
to accommodate representatives from the district court in the audience.
(b) Approval of Interlocal Agreement with
King County for Court Services
Mr. Sievers introduced Tricia
Crozier, Chief Administrative Officer for the King County District Court System
and Wesley St. Clair, the Chief Presiding Judge for District Court. Also in the audience were Judge Smith and
Judge Chapman, who serve at the Shoreline District Court.
Judge Smith commended the
Shorewood High School mock trial participants and their long-time coach for
their excellent showing this year’s in the competition. He also acknowledged all the contributions
that Judge Chapman makes to the Shoreline community.
Mr. Sievers reviewed the
terms of the proposed interlocal agreement with King County to provide district
court services through the end of 2006.
He explained that in response to King County's position that it was
subsidizing municipal court costs, the compensation in the new contract
increases the initial compensation from 75 percent to 86 percent of Court
revenue, and this estimate is reconciled each year with actual case costs. The agreement also discusses a District
Court master planning process to formulate long-term policy for new negotiations
with the cities served by District Court prior to the end of the two-year
contract. The reduction in court
revenue will be included in the 2005 budget.
He concluded by saying the agreement will allow Council enough time to
consider a different course if it decides not to contract with King County for
future court services.
Judge St. Clair described the
innovations made at the district courts in order to provide better access and
impartial, expeditious justice. He said
despite severe budget restrictions, the court has implemented several new
programs, including mental health court, relicensing court, payment plans, and
enhanced internet presence. The court
is also in the process of implementing an electronic court record retrieval
system that will greatly assist law enforcement. He concluded by expressing his intent to address and improve any
service issues that may arise. Ms.
Crozier distributed copies of the court’s web page.
There was Council consensus
to bring the interlocal agreement forward for approval on April 12.
Councilmember Ransom
commented on the very poor phone service now provided by the court and said he
waited one hour to get a live person.
This reflects low customer service standards, as does the long wait
times for walk-ins. He gave a
description of a person having to wait for 3-1/2 hours to get a simple name
change that under normal circumstances should have taken ten minutes. He characterized the current process as
cold, impersonal, and indifferent. He
was particularly concerned that there is no place for customers to register
complaints.
Councilmember Ransom pointed
out the issue of customer service will be an item of consideration in whether
to create our own municipal court or one in combination with Lake Forest Park
and Kenmore. He concluded that the
reputation of the judges and their accessibility is extremely good.
Judge St. Clair explained
that court staffing has been cut by thirty percent in two years. In response to these budget cuts, the court
has been forced to focus only on its mandated duties. He also noted that Washington State is “dead last” in the country
in the amount of funding provided by the state to local courts. He explained that he is trying to come up
with solutions in a resource-scarce environment.
Ms. Crozier said she would
relay Councilmember Ransom’s concerns at the next management review committee
meeting.
Mr. Olander commented that
the County’s development of an operational master plan for district court
services should allow the system to address these issues.
Mayor Hansen suggested that
citizens contact the City Attorney with complaints, which he can then bring to
the committee working with King County on court matters.
Responding to Councilmember
Gustafson, Councilmember Ransom said the customer service issue is a factor in
deciding whether or not to pursue a plan to provide court services with other
jurisdictions.
Councilmember Fimia said the
erosion of funding at King County for essential services is an ongoing
problem. She said there is no reason
why court funding should be cut while less vital programs continue to be
funded. She suggested that the Council
attend King County Executive and Council forums to address the issue.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen expressed
support for the agreement but encouraged the management review committee to
work closely with the district courts to ensure that the system runs
efficiently. He related a personal
experience he had with jury duty to illustrate basic communication problems in
the court system.
Councilmember Chang asked how
20 other cities in King County are able to fund their own municipal
courts. Mr. Olander stated that fees
and fines do not completely support court services, and the General Fund must
usually subsidize some of the costs.
Councilmember Ransom said a County
study found that people were not showing up for their court dates, which
resulted in increased jail time. He
pointed out that City volunteers started making reminder phone calls, which
greatly reduced Shoreline’s jail costs.
He said fees are down because people are keeping their appointments.
Mayor
Hansen thanked thanked staff and guests for their report.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen surprised Mayor Hansen with a cake to celebrate his birthday.
At 8:30 p.m. Mayor Hansen declared a ten minute recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:38 p.m.
(a)
Governmental
Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34:
Basic Financial Statements and Management’s Discussion and Analysis for State
and Local Governments (GASB 34)
Finance
Director Debbie Tarry introduced Financial Operations Manager Al Juarez, who
reviewed the staff report. Mr. Juarez
explained that in June 1999 the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB),
which sets “generally accepted accounting principles” (financial reporting
rules) for all state and local governments, established a new framework for the
financial reports of state and local governments. It represents the biggest single change in the history of
governmental accounting. Known as
Statement No. 34, it represents a fundamental revision of the current financial
reporting model in place since 1979.
Continuing,
Mr. Juarez said the most compelling reason to conform to GASB 34 is to receive
a “clean audit opinion,” the lack of which could adversely impact the City’s
bond rating, increase interest costs, and possibly prohibit the City from
selling bonds or obtaining grant funding.
Mr. Juarez explained that the new reporting model seeks to improve operational accountability by highlighting the big picture that was sometimes lost in the detail of fund accounting. Some key specific changes in this regard are:
·
Introduction
of government wide financial statements.
·
Expanded
focus for governmental activities. In
the past, financial reporting for tax-supported activities focused solely on near-term
inflows and outflows of spendable resources.
Governmental activities are now accounted for in the same way as
business type activities in the new government wide financial statements.
·
Presentation
of cost data for both governmental and business type activities.
·
Narrative
overview and analysis.
The
new governmental financial reporting model also seeks to improve fiscal
accountability in several important ways:
·
Shift
in focus to major individual funds.
·
Shift
in focus to individual fund budgets.
(The new model eliminates aggregated budget presentations [e.g., totals
for all budgeted special revenue funds] in favor of comparisons for the general
fund and each individual major fund.)
·
Inclusion
of data from the original budget.
·
Infrastructure
reporting. The new reporting model
requires governments to report infrastructure assets on the face of the
financial statements.
Concluding,
Mr. Juarez said the City would implement GASB 34 for the past fiscal year. Due to the complications associated with the
retroactive reporting of infrastructure assets, the mandatory deadline for this
component of the new reporting model has been set for December 31, 2007.
Mr. Olander noted that once
new financial statements come out, staff would be happy to help Council
interpret them.
Mayor Hansen asked if the
financial statement would include the cost of City infrastructure. Mr. Juarez said the goal is to provide as
much of that in the 2003 financial statement as possible.
Councilmember Chang was glad
the City did not have to spend money on consultants in order to implement this
framework.
Councilmember Ransom asked if
GASB 34 means that the fall budget report would be in a different format this
year. Ms. Tarry said the budget
document will be the same, but the most significant change will be a comparison
of the original budget to the final budget.
(b)
Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan
– Goals, Objectives and Strategies
Denise
Turner, Shoreline Police Chief and Emergency Operations Manager, introduced
Heidi Kandathil and Rebecca Spinks of the University of Washington Institute
for Hazard Mitigation. The City
contracted with this group for hazard mitigation analysis to prepare Shoreline’s
Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP). The draft
plan has been available for public review and will be adopted in April. She emphasized that local governments are
required to have hazard mitigation plans approved and adopted by November 1,
2004 in order to receive relief funding and hazard mitigation grants.
Ms. Spinks provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining the goals, objectives, and potential mitigation strategies of the HMP. The plan identifies 28 mitigation strategies. The top ten strategies include the following:
1. Creation of a full time position in the City of Shoreline for an Emergency Management Coordinator.
2. Creation of a community wide comprehensive education program to educate the public about hazards and hazard mitigation.
3. Creation and maintenance of a partnership with utility providers to ensure that the utility infrastructure serving Shoreline is retrofitted or built to standards that make them less vulnerable in a hazard event including critical infrastructure protection.
4. Creation and maintenance of a partnership with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to ensure that the I-5 overpasses located in Shoreline are retrofitted to current seismic standards within a reasonable time frame.
5. Implementation of non-structural retrofitting in city facilities and provide incentives for non-structural retrofitting for privately owned structures throughout the city.
6. Identification of critical community facilities and infrastructure that are without back up power generators.
7. Identification and assessment of critical and essential city infrastructure and facilities.
8. Ensuring that the public is informed of the necessity of maintaining a 3-day supply of food and water, along with basic first aid and medical supplies.
9. Providing incentives for voluntary structural retrofitting of older structures on vulnerable soils.
10. Improving/expanding storm water drainage, dams, detention and retention system capabilities.
Chief Turner emphasized that
the list of strategies has been prioritized according to adopted criteria, and
the City is not obligated to implement all of them. The focus will be on the top ten or so strategies. This is a five-year plan, and part of the
process is to do a cost-benefit analysis for each strategy. Staff will seek funding options for
implementation of the strategies from Hazard Mitigation Planning Grants (HMPG)
and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants (PDMG) from FEMA.
Mayor Hansen noted that the
Shoreline Water District went through an identical hazard mitigation planning
process. He pointed out that if the HMP
is not adopted, the City would not be eligible for FEMA grant funding.
Councilmember Ransom noted
that the Emergency Management Council does not have representation from elected
officials. He felt that at least one
elected official should sit on the committee as a representative of the
public. Mr. Olander responded that in
Council-Manager forms of government, the elected officials set policy and the
staff acts to administer it. The
Emergency Management Council administers the policies in the Emergency
Management Plan.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia, Chief Turner said that the strategies were prioritized through a “dot”
exercise, which applied the criteria in the plan.
Councilmember Fimia felt the
City should try to implement as many strategies as possible and not just those
for which grant funding is available.
She felt these items, which address public safety issues, are of a
higher priority than some programs currently being funded. She added that citizens would be willing to
volunteer to implement some of the ideas in the plan.
Chief Turner noted that there
are about 75 to 80 Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) volunteers in
the City. She said that block watch
neighbors and the Council of Neighborhoods could also help implement this
initiative.
Councilmember Fimia wondered
if there are designated shelters or other locations in Shoreline where people
can go to get supplies. Chief Turner
said although the Emergency Operations Plan identifies evacuation routes and shelters,
people should be prepared to take care of themselves for the first 72 hours
after a disaster strikes. She
reiterated that the plan is still in its infancy, and the new emergency
management coordinator will develop a cost-benefit analysis for each priority.
Councilmember Gustafson
commented that the City is much more prepared for an emergency now than it was
just a few years ago.
Councilmember Chang suggested
that the Planning Commission should review this plan so it can use the hazard
information when it is making land use recommendations.
There was consensus to bring
this forward for adoption.
Councilmember Fimia said she might suggest amendments to the plan. Councilmember Ransom reiterated his desire
to have an elected official on the Emergency Management Council.
7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Bob
Phelps, Shoreline, responded to questions raised by Councilmembers Fimia and
Ransom about the emergency management plan.
He said the current plan requires the Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services Department to determine the locations of public shelters. He said that right now people would not know
where to go in a disaster.
(b) Laurence
Yaffe, Shoreline, followed up on his earlier comments about decision-making by
planning department staff. He gave
further examples of what he considered violations of the code in regard to the
Casper permit. He felt the City should
have issued an Environmental Determination of Significance, since the home is
proposed on steep slopes and requires relocation of a Class II stream. He said that granting of a reasonable use
permit involves judgments by staff. He
felt how these are made should be reviewed and restructured.
(c) Cindy
Ryu, Shoreline, supported the hazard mitigation plan. She said many of the 28 recommended strategies are science-based
decisions. The land use recommendations
made by the Planning Commission should be consistent with these. On another topic, she suggested that the
City Council rules of procedure be posted on the City’s web page, particularly
for reference in the upcoming public forums.
(d) Janet
Way, Shoreline, felt that mitigation strategies should be prioritized by their
ability to prevent disasters from occurring.
She also concurred with the previous speaker’s comments. She said the Planning Commission should be
asked to reexamine the criteria for a Reasonable Use Special Use permit in
order to prevent its misuse. She said
Mr. Casper created his own problems and should not be allowed to use a
Reasonable Use permit to remedy them.
Councilmember Gustafson
noted that Councilmember Chang’s son, Andrew, had just been elected Senior
Class President.
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 9:42 p.m., Mayor Hansen announced that Council would recess into executive session for forty minutes to discuss litigation. To accommodate the length of the executive session, Councilmember Gustafson moved to extend the meeting to 10:22 p.m. Councilmember Chang seconded the motion, which carried 5-0 (Councilmember Fimia stepped away from the Council table). At 10:21 p.m., the executive session concluded and the workshop reconvened.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:22 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Sharon Mattioli, City Clerk