CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 5, 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.
(a)
Proclamation
of Volunteer Week
Mayor
Hansen proclaimed the week of April 25 as Volunteer Week in Shoreline and
recognized the many contributions that volunteers make to the Shoreline
community. Leona Obstler, Shoreline
Police Department, and police storefront volunteers John Monroe, Sally Granger,
and Hill Williams accepted the proclamation and thanked the City for this
recognition.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE
AGENDAS
Steve Burkett, City Manager,
noted that next week’s short agenda will include adoption of the Hazard
Mitigation Plan. He also announced the
ribbon-cutting ceremony for the south section of the Interurban Trail on
Saturday, April 17.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Grace reported on the turnout at the
community forums and thanked staff for their efforts in setting up the venues.
Councilmember Gustafson briefly reported on a
Brightwater forum held in Kenmore.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen reported that the Puget Sound
Regional Council approved a change in grant status for the Aurora Corridor
Project, which means the City can begin using the grant funding. He also mentioned that the Suburban Cities
Association chose him as its representative on the King County Economic
Development Council.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Ginger
Botham, Shoreline, invited interested parties to attend two open houses hosted
by the traffic subcommittee of the Shoreline Community College Master Plan Task
Force.
(b) Gretchen
Atkinson, President, North City Business Association, expressed support for the
North City Project and encouraged the Council to move forward on it as quickly
and economically as possible.
(c) Cindy
Ryu, Shoreline, questioned whether North City property owners were adequately
involved in planning for the North City project. She pointed out that ten percent of the properties face eminent
domain action, and that many owners still have concerns about traffic and
business access. She asserted that the
project would increase neighborhood traffic.
She also noted that owners who have already granted easements would not
be compensated. She said the Council
should reflect on whether the people of Shoreline were well served by this
process.
(d) John
Sims, owner of Frank Lumber, stated that the North City Business Association
does not represent all North City businesses, and that most businesses do not
favor the North City Project. He said
that although the City wants only a small, two-foot easement that fronts his
property, the long-term goal is to take another twenty feet behind his
property. He asserted that Shoreline
favors apartments and mixed use developments over some types of
businesses. He urged the Council to
defer voting on tonight’s action item and instead meet with business owners
instead to find out their concerns. He
said tonight’s proposed action would hurt long-time North City businesses.
(e) Laura
Vicary, West Seattle, owner of Hotwire Online Coffeehouse, expressed support
for the North City Project, noting that it was what attracted her to start a
business there. She said the majority
of merchants are in full support of the project, which will improve safety and
enhance the visual impact of the corridor.
She felt the project would attract many of the consumers who shop in
adjacent jurisdictions. She said the
long-term gain of the project would exceed any short-term loss that some might
suffer.
(f) Gary
East, owner of the building in which the Hotwire Coffeehouse is located,
confirmed that he used the North City project to attract his current tenant to
locate in North City. He discussed the
history of his property and the extensive planning and “charrette” process
involved in designing the North City project.
He said that athough some people will lose a small amount of space, the
benefits of the project more than compensate for any losses. He noted that granting an easement to the
City makes the City responsible for maintaining that easement. He said he offered free legal service to
neighbors to help draft and revise easements, but only one accepted his
offer. He noted that property owners
have been aware of this project for a long time.
(g) Ros Bird,
Shoreline, thanked the Council for its generous support of the Showmobile,
which will debut at the Shoreline Arts Festival on June 26. She expressed excitement about the 1% for
Art budget for the Interurban Trail Pedestrian Bridge Project, noting that the
City is lucky to have artist Vicky Scurry on this project. Regarding sister cities funding, she
encouraged the Council to approve an expenditure policy that will allow Shoreline
to nurture a successful and worthwhile relationship with its sister city,
Boryeong Korea.
6. ACTION ITEMS
(a)
Ordinance No. 351 providing
for the use of eminent domain to acquire certain real property at 17505, 17517,
17541, 17563, 17721, 17727, 17750 and 17763 15th Avenue NE
Mr. Burkett explained the
recommendation to exercise eminent domain to acquire right-of-way in order to
complete construction of the North City Project. He noted that four properties along 15th Avenue NE
have refused to grant easements to the City, and that the City can exercise
eminent domain in order to acquire portions of these properties for underground
utilities and increased sidewalk widths.
He emphasized that the power of eminent domain requires judicious use,
but this option will provide for construction of the North City Project this
year. He said due to the low impact to
properties and the number of property owners who have already granted
easements, staff believes it is preferable to pursue eminent domain rather than
redesign around the properties, which would result in an irregular road
configuration and higher costs.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney,
explained the reason for the revised ordinance distributed this evening, noting
that certain easements have been received since the Council packet was
produced. He explained the eminent
domain process and the reason it is being recommended in this situation. He said neither the actual fair market value
of the properties in question, nor the litigation costs, are significant, although
there would be appraisal costs if it proceeds to trial. He explained the three issues involved in
condemnation cases: 1) public use; 2) necessity; and 3) fair market value. He said even in the worst-case scenario, the
timeline for condemnation should allow for construction in 2004, given the
expedited scheduling that condemnation cases receive.
Jan Knudsen, Economic
Development Coordinator, provided background and the status of the specific
properties in the ordinance. She also
described the advantages and disadvantages of redesigning the project versus
exercising eminent domain. She
concluded that redesigning the project would be more costly, time consuming,
and result in an inconsistent design.
The City would also risk losing substantial funding from Seattle City
Light for undergrounding utilities.
Mr. Burkett reiterated that
eminent domain is appropriate in this case in order to prevent stoppage, delay,
and increased costs. He noted that the
impacts to property owners are minimal, and the City’s investment of over $6
million to improve this district will greatly benefit the properties.
Councilmember Ransom felt
strongly that eminent domain should be a last resort. He said it should only be exercised after mediation efforts are
made with property owners. He called
attention to the inequity that would result if only some property owners are
compensated for their easements. He
also wondered what particular objections the Peking House Restaurant had, since
restaurant parking would not be affected in the same way as Frank Lumber.
Ms. Knudson said the Peking
House asked the City to repave its parking lot in return for signing the
easement, but the City was not comfortable doing this due to the high costs and
the fact that repaving was not offered to other property owners. She clarified that the electrical design
requires that underground vaults be placed at Frank Lumber and North City
Cleaners.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen moved to pass Ordinance No. 351 as presented this evening. Councilmember Grace seconded the
motion.
Councilmember Ransom moved to amend the
ordinance to require that a mediation process be gone through with the property
owners before eminent domain is exercised.
Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom
emphasized that mediation is a last-step measure before exercising eminent
domain because it is good for the City’s image and public relations.
Councilmember Gustafson asked
about the timeframe and costs associated with mediation.
Mr. Sievers felt mediation as
a prerequisite to eminent domain could delay the project because the City would
not receive a court date until the case is filed in superior court. He noted that mediation could occur
concurrently with the eminent domain process.
He also noted that mediation works best for complex issues, not for
property appraisals, which can be fairly objective. He said most objections to granting easements are based on
objections to the project itself, not how much owners will receive for the
property.
Councilmember Ransom noted
that the state mediation services have always been very accommodating in terms
of scheduling. He felt without
mediation, people could perceive the City as arrogantly pushing this project forward. He said mediation could also set a good
precedent for other projects such as the Aurora Corridor.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen pointed
out that the City can negotiate with property owners up to the last minute, and
that staff will continue to work with property owners so that eminent domain is
a last resort.
Councilmember Grace agreed
that mediation is a valuable tool to help resolve conflicts, and it should
occur concurrently with the ordinance in order to prevent the loss of funding
due to delay. Councilmember Gustafson
concurred.
Councilmember Chang noted
that he is personally opposed to eminent domain, which is very stressful on
property owners. Responding to
Councilmember Chang, Ms. Knudson noted that redesign would likely delay the
project several months, and that construction would not begin until 2005, which
puts the funding at risk. Councilmember
Chang asked about the staff effort to work with property owners.
Ms. Knudson responded that
staff has been working individually and collectively with property owners since
late 2001. She noted that staff has
been in contact with the manager of Frank Lumber on several occasions, at open
houses and at the store itself. She
said Ms. Atkinson has been in contact as well.
Councilmember Ransom felt the
Council should hear Mr. Sims’ views on mediation before taking a vote on the
amendment, but Councilmember Grace was not comfortable having Mr. Sims or any
other property owner testify since they have not had sufficient time to
consider the proposal.
A vote was taken on the motion, which failed
2-5, with Councilmembers Ransom and Fimia voting in the affirmative.
Councilmember Fimia said she
could not support the ordinance because voting for it is a vote for the entire
project. She said she opposes a
project that proposes spending $6 million for increased population density and
reduced traffic capacity. She said the
project does not fit her definition of a livable community, and that there are
not sufficient benefits compared to the costs.
She said eminent domain should be a last resort that is reserved for
major public benefits.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen expressed
support for the ordinance and for the project in general.
Councilmember Ransom did not
support the ordinance due to traffic concerns and the project costs. He said the lack of bus turnouts will
interrupt traffic flow, and drivers would use neighborhood streets to bypass
slow-moving traffic on 15th Avenue NE. He also noted that the project cost has grown from $1 million to
over $6 million.
Councilmember Gustafson said
this project was a major issue when he was elected to the Council. He pointed out that the City went through an
extensive public process for the project, and most business owners support
it. He felt the improvements would
yield many benefits to the community, including beautification, safety, and
higher property values.
Councilmember Chang opposed
the ordinance. He also expressed
opposition to the project itself, noting that people are concerned about
reduced capacity on a major traffic corridor.
Mayor Hansen expressed
support for the project, noting that it would increase everyone’s property
values, and the City would eventually collect more tax revenue because of
it. He said the North City Business
District got this project because it was willing to accept density that would
have been assigned to other business districts. He noted that North City has given up some things in order to get
this project. He supported using
eminent domain in this case, although passing the ordinance does not preclude
formal mediation if property owners desire.
Councilmember Fimia agreed
with increasing density in the area, but she opposed decreasing traffic
capacity there. She asked how the plan
provides for trips in and out of North City.
Ms. Knudson explained that a
Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement was prepared for this
project. This went beyond a basic
policy level analysis. She said the
analysis shows that the actual capacity of the road is not reduced because left
turn lanes would be made into center turn lanes, which allows for increased
movement through the travel lanes. She
noted that the maximum daily number for trips in North City is 19,000.
Councilmember Fimia wondered
why two-way left turn lanes are being used in North City but not on Aurora
Avenue. She also wondered if a traffic
impact analysis had been done for 10th Avenue NE. Ms. Knudson clarified that North City and
Aurora Avenue have completely different traffic volumes and turning
movements. She further explained that
the long-term scenario anticipates fewer driveway curbs along 15th
Avenue because access would be provided via an alley system behind businesses.
Mr. Burkett noted that
traffic volumes, design issues, and mitigation measures have already been
debated as part of approval of the project.
He said although not everyone agreed, the project has moved forward in
the Capital Improvement Plan.
Councilmember Grace wished to
direct staff to pursue a more formal mediation process concurrently with the
eminent domain process.
Mr. Burkett said the
ordinance states that the City can acquire right-of-way by negotiation or
condemnation, which means that mediation is included. He said staff would pursue mediation, although property owners
must voluntarily participate.
A vote was taken on the motion to pass Ordinance
No. 351 providing for the use of eminent domain to acquire certain real
property at 17505, 17517, 17541, 17563, 17721, 17727, 17750 and 17763 15th
Avenue NE, which carried 4-3, with Councilmembers Chang, Fimia and Ransom
dissenting.
(b)
Motion to appoint three
Planning Commissioners for four-year terms ending March 31, 2008
Councilmember Fimia reported
that the subcommittee, composed of herself, Deputy Mayor Jepsen and
Councilmember Chang, had been unable to reach agreement on a recommendation of
three individuals to appoint to the Planning Commission. She said she and Councilmember Chang had
recommended Virginia Botham, Christian Eggen, and Chakorn Phisuthikul. In addition to these three names, they
offered three more individuals, Jerome Cronk, Michael Broili, and Mark Deutsch,
for interviews by a committee-of-the-whole. She said their choices were based
on broad selection criteria, including interest in environmental affairs,
planning, land use, residential/commercial development experience, diversity,
and location/length of residency on Shoreline.
She noted that consistency is built into the appointment process, since
Planning Commissioners serve staggered terms.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen
maintained his strong support of reappointing David Harris and Carol
Doering. He also offered the names of
Michael Broili and Chakorn Phisuthikul.
He said while geography and diversity are important, there are many other
important qualifications that should be considered when appointing commissioners. He noted that his top two choices (Harris
and Doering) were the other subcommittee members’ last choices.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to reappoint Carol
Doering and David Harris to the Planning Commission. Deputy Mayor Jepsen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom
expressed grave concern about the Council not taking the subcommittee
recommendation without conducting interviews.
He said interviews would tell the Council much more about the candidates
than resumes would.
Councilmember Gustafson
reaffirmed his support of Commissioners Harris and Doering because they are
known quantities and have experience on the Planning Commission. He felt the Council should start by
appointing them and then deciding on a third selection.
Councilmember Chang felt the
selection should also be based on geography, noting there are no Commissioners
living in neighborhoods south of Shoreline’s centerline. He said Shoreline needs representation from
the south, the eastside, and lower-income neighborhoods. He said that while he admires the service of
Commissioners Harris and Doering, he would like to see that all areas of
Shoreline are represented on the Planning Commission.
Mr. Burkett stressed the
importance of having a quorum of Commissioners at the next Planning Commission
meeting, since there is scheduled business.
Councilmember Grace said he
went through the Planning Commission record, which suggests that the two
incumbents have been providing professional, even-handed participation. However, he also respected the basis for the
other recommendations. He proposed
appointing one person that everyone agreed on, and then limiting interviews to
the two incumbents and the two top picks of the subcommittee majority.
Mayor Hansen felt it was
imperative that at least two people be appointed tonight.
Councilmember Fimia felt that
if Council intends to override the subcommittee recommendation, it should
appoint Chakorn Phisuthukul and then interview at least four more candidates.
After further discussion, Councilmember
Fimia moved a substitute motion to appoint Chakorn Phisuthikul to the Planning
Commission and interview David Harris, Carol Doering, Virginia Botham,
Christian Eggen, and Michael Broili.
Councilmember Chang seconded the motion, which carried 4-3, with Mayor
Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.
Mayor Hansen confirmed the appointment of
Chakorn Phisuthikul to the Planning Commission for a term ending March 31,
2008.
7. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) Proposed
amendments to the Sister Cities Policy
Scott Passey, staff liaison
to the Shoreline Sister Cities Association, and Julie Modrezjewski, Assistant
City Manager, outlined the recommendation to amend the Sister Cities Policy to
include expenditure guidelines for the $10,000 allocation to Sister Cities that
was approved in the 2004 budget process.
He outlined what sister city activities the City can legally fund, as
well as the following proposed changes to the Sister City Policy:
He
concluded by saying that the Council’s decision to fund the sister city program
would still be valid even without an expenditure policy. However, the recommended changes would
clarify the Council’s intent and provide an extra level of assurance that City
funds are spent appropriately.
Councilmember
Ransom said the recommendation is similar to what he had in mind for sister
cities expenditures. He reiterated his
prior support for assisting the City Sister Cities Association (SCA), since it
is still a small and weak organization.
He said it is unlikely that it would be able to raise a significant
amount of funding initially.
Councilmember
Fimia expressed support for the program, although she recommended adding
language to reflect the intent that City funds should be based on funds or
in-kind contributions raised by the SCA.
She also suggested language prohibiting Council solicitation of
individuals for sister cities activities.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen
concurred, but said the SCA was created specifically to fund, organize, and
move the sister city relationship along.
He said it was never intended to have Council or staff solicit private
contributions. He said if the SCA is
weak, then there should be no sister city relationships. He felt there should be as many sister city
relationships as the SCA is able to support.
He opposed using City funds to pay for Council travel as a rule, but
said one-time appropriations could be approved as needed. He noted that Councilmembers could pay their
own travel expenses, or have them covered by the SCA.
Mr. Burkett noted that other
cities have adopted rules requiring their councils to approve any sister city
expenditures in advance.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen felt the
appropriate philosophy is that City funding should be used to host visiting
delegations in Shoreline, since the City of Boryeong paid Shoreline’s
delegates’ expenses.
Councilmember Gustafson
noted his continued opposition to funding the sister city program, saying there
are higher priorities in the City. He
said if the Council approves an expenditure policy, it should not fund Council
travel, but perhaps one delegate approved by the Council.
Mayor Hansen noted that he
would never solicit private individuals or businesses on behalf of the Sister Cities
Association.
Responding to Ms.
Modrzejewski, Deputy Mayor Jepsen clarified that funds should be used to
support visiting delegations when they visit Shoreline, not for Council travel
abroad.
Councilmember Chang
emphasized that visiting a sister city is a tremendous personal sacrifice of
time, energy, and money. He pointed
out that traveling to Korea requires a minimum commitment of three days. He felt Councilmembers would not be able to
travel if they must pay all their expenses.
He also felt it would be insulting to send only one Council delegate to
a sister city. He felt all
Councilmembers should have an opportunity to visit sister cities in the future.
Mayor Hansen noted that he
paid his own way on the last trip to Korea, and would be happy to do so
again. He felt the City should not
underwrite the costs for Councilmembers’ travel.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen said he
is not suggesting that Councilmembers pay their own travel costs, noting that
the SCA is there to fundraising and underwrite such expenses. He pointed out that City funds were not used
to send a delegation of nearly 20 people to Korea last year.
Responding to Councilmember
Grace, Mr. Passey clarified that cities generally fund Councilmembers’ travel
expenses.
Councilmember Chang
clarified that Federal Way delegates pay their own way when visiting a sister
city, and sister city delegates pay their own way when visiting Federal
Way. However, cities like Federal Way
and Bellevue have large corporations that make contributions to fund such
activities, but Shoreline does not.
Councilmember Fimia wished
to amend the recommendation to strike “all” from travel expenses. She also wished to include the intent that
City funding is contingent on substantial financial and in-kind contributions
by businesses and non-profit organizations, in addition to the SCA. She also reiterated her concern about
Council solicitation, asking that language be added prohibiting Council
solicitation on behalf of the SCA.
Councilmember Ransom said the
real question is whether to adopt a Bellevue or Federal Way model. He noted that Shoreline does not have the
broad business and corporate support Bellevue does, and that Federal Way
substantially funded its sister cities program until it was up and running. He felt the City should fund the program
until it can be self-sustaining. He
supported the recommendation as written, noting that it would be a “loss of
face” to Boryeong if Shoreline’s program does not meet minimum standards. He also said it would be a hardship on some
to pay their own travel expenses.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen
reiterated that the SCA could fund Council travel if it chooses to do so.
Mr. Burkett agreed with
Councilmember Fimia’s recommendations, noting that the program should be supported
only if there is strong financial support for it in the community. He said from an investment standpoint, the
sister cities program is a low priority for using City funds. He felt the SCA should fund those items the
City cannot or should not fund. He said
there should be a partnership and balance between the City and the SCA.
Mayor Hansen was comfortable
with the language in the resolution since it does not mandate that the City pay
for travel expenses. He noted that the
word “may” is discretionary.
Councilmember Fimia
suggested contacting Bill Stafford of Seattle’s Trade Development Alliance to
discuss Seattle’s approach to sister city funding at a future dinner meeting.
Councilmember Chang thanked
past and present staff for their work on this proposal.
Mr. Burkett noted that staff
would return with revisions based on Council input, but would proceed with the
understanding that the proposed guidelines would be used to support the May
visit of Boryeong’s delegation.
(b)
Human
Services Update
Rob Beem, Human Services
Manager, updated the Council on past human service accomplishments and future
goals and strategies. He explained that
the City had played the role of catalyst to achieve15 desired human service
outcomes using funding, leadership, and planning. His presentation included the following points:
·
In 2003 the City funded 19
direct service programs with a combined value of $272,000 that provided service
to over 16,000 Shoreline residents. In
addition to direct funding with City revenues Shoreline works to improve the
strength of the services system through partnerships and alliances with
others.
·
The City’s strongest
partnerships are with the Shoreline Public Schools, the Northshore Shoreline
Public Health and Safety Network, and United Way of King County. Through these partnerships, Shoreline
agencies have received an additional $70,000.
·
Through this leadership our
local agencies are stronger and Shoreline plays a prominent role in local and
regional decision-making.
·
In the coming year the City
will allocate direct services funding for the 2005-2007 cycle. This process will proceed in the same
fashion as in the past with a citizens committee developing recommendations for
the City Council to consider in the fall of 2004.
·
Through the work of an Ad Hoc
Human Services Advisory Committee and staff, the City is refining strategies
aimed at strengthening the financial condition of local service providers and
addressing emerging issues of substance abuse and securing a permanent presence
in Shoreline for a Food Bank/Emergency Services Center.
He concluded his remarks by
saying that Shoreline provides more human services than it did when it first
incorporated, and more than doubled the number of agencies in the community.
Councilmember Ransom asked
if state and federal reductions in human service funding is affecting
Shoreline’s ability to provide services.
Mr. Beem explained that the state has shifted its focus to serve a
greater proportion of Medicaid recipients, which means more people in Shoreline
must rely on private agencies and fundraising to access certain services.
Councilmember Fimia
discussed benchmarking outcomes and emphasized the important role that public
transit plays in access to human services.
She felt there is a direct link between transportation and the ability
to access human services. She said
access to transit is a “great equalizer” for youth and low-income earners that
will enable them to access jobs and medical care. She asked to discuss this issue at the Council Retreat.
Mr. Burkett felt that
transportation issues are best addressed on a regional level, since it is a key
responsibility of King County.
Councilmember Grace asked
about the future of federal funding allocations, and what the current
projections are based upon.
Mr. Beem said the
projections are based on current level of resources, since the direction from
Council has been to maintain a constant level of funding.
At 9:55 p.m. Councilmember Fimia moved to extend the meeting to 10:30
p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the
motion, which carried unanimously.
Councilmember Grace wondered
what trends in human services would give the Council some direction on
allocating funding.
Mr. Beem explained that
funding is provided broadly over a wide range of services in order to attract
additional contributions. He said the
goal is to attract activity across all outcome areas. He noted that a majority of funding is provided to the Senior
Center and the Center for Human Services.
Mayor Hansen suggested that
staff investigate the City of Kent’s in-house home repair program, rather than
using King County as Shoreline does.
Councilmember Ransom
emphasized the need for increased access to dental services. Mr. Beem concurred, noting that there are
programs where private entities partner with other cities to provide indigent
dental services.
Councilmember Chang asked
what problems there were with food distribution in the City. Mr. Beem said the main problem is that
although there is food stored in warehouses, there is no permanent, full-time
food distribution facility in Shoreline.
He said the City is working with Hopelink to help address that problem.
Councilmember Ransom
wondered if Shoreline Community Care could be used for food distribution. Mayor Hansen noted that there are numerous
private food banks provided in the City.
Councilmember Fimia
suggested the use of the Fircrest facility to provide certain types of medical
services. She felt that human services
funding and allocations requires a more in-depth discussion so that Council can
give direction to the citizens committee that recommends the allocations of the
Community Development Block Grant funds.
(c) Customer
Response Team 2003 Annual Report
LaDonna Smith, Customer Response Team Supervisor, and Ms. Modrzejewski updated the Council on the Customer Response Team’s (CRT) progress and accomplishments for 2003, noting that CRT responded to more than 18,900 customer requests. They said this update serves to confirm how well CRT is achieving program objectives and the Council and citizens’ vision. The top five service requests for the 2001-2003 period include: 1) sign repair/replacement and request for new signs, 2) road repairs, 3) litter/debris calls, 4) drainage requests, and 5) tree service. More than two-thirds of requests for 2001-2003 were received by telephone, and there was an increase in 24-7 on-call requests. For the past five years, CRT has sent out survey letters in order to improve service delivery. Despite the trend of increasing requests for services, survey results indicate a 98% excellent service rating. The Customer Response Team looks at service delivery using a broad customer focus. The goal is to create, manage, and share information with departments to simplify service delivery, reduce duplication, and improve the level and speed of service to customers.
Continuing, Ms. Smith explained the benefits that CRT implementation has had on the Shoreline community, adding that the data collected has supported the development of the Surface Water Program, Code Enforcement Program, Street Overlay Program, and the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program. It has also provided information for damage recovery and insurance claim processing and recoveries.
At 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Ransom moved to
extend the meeting to 10:45 p.m.
Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Councilmember Fimia invited
CRT to make recommendations to the Council in order to reduce future service
calls or improve service delivery.
Councilmember Ransom
wondered if the City could be losing some of the data because calls may be
routed to other departments. Ms. Smith
clarified that CRT does not receive some calls that come in relating to Public
Works work orders, although everything gets captured in the City’s computer
system. She explained that CRT manages
the customer service module, and Public Works manages the work order module.
Mr. Burkett said the purpose
of the tracking system is to solve problems, anticipate problems, and
ultimately reduce the number of problems in the City.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen
encouraged the use of 546-1700 as the main customer service contact
number. He expressed concern that some
information would not be tracked in the Hansen system if people circumvent
CRT.
Ms. Modrzejewski pointed out
that there are other systems in place to track service requests, for example,
the City Clerk’s system for tracking public disclosure requests.
She emphasized the need to focus
on service requests that generate workload and not routine requests for
information. She hoped that the Hansen
analysis would help the City be more strategic in using the City’s technology.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen stressed
the need for one central location where people can go for information in order
to provide consistency.
Councilmember Gustafson
spoke highly of the CRT’s customer service and ability to gather and analyze
data on service requests.
8. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Janet
Way, Shoreline, said Fircrest School is a good example of a place that offers
valuable services that are often overlooked in studies. She said it would be useful to see how
Fircrest and the Shoreline School District would fit into the analysis of
service delivery. She felt there is a
gap in the City between services offered and real needs. She also inquired about what services are
offered to people who speak different languages.
(b) Richard
Johnsen, Shoreline, asked that Council continue to hold community forums in May
and June, and that they be broadcast on Channel 21. Regarding sister cities funding, he asked the Council to consider
the ideas presented by staff, and to consider the practices of other cities. He pointed out that other cities have had to
fund sister city activities initially.
He suggested that in addition to discussing sister cities with Bill
Stafford of the Trade Development Alliance, the Council should also consider
inviting Alma Plancich of the Ethnic Heritage Council.
At 10:40 p.m. Councilmember Ransom moved to extend the meeting ten
minutes. Councilmember Grace seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
(c) Vance
McElmurray, Shoreline, described the difficulties the City has caused him as he
has tried to expand his home. He said
although he began remodeling without a permit, the City has made the process
more difficult than it needs to be. He
said the plans he has submitted are reasonable, but the City continues to
reject them. He said the City’s
practice does not follow the spirit of the development regulations. He said he would like to see the
“experiment” of Shoreline abolished because it does not provide citizens with
anything of value.
Councilmember Ransom asked
that discussion of business properties in the first one-half mile of the Aurora
project be added to the agenda of April 19.
Councilmembers Fimia and Chang supported the request.
Councilmember Fimia asked
that discussion of the City’s role in Forward Shoreline also be added to the
agenda of April 19th.
Councilmember Ransom supported this request.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:48 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Sharon Mattioli, City Clerk