CITY
OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
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
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor
Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll
call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
(a)
Recognition of Celebrate Shoreline Sponsors
Mayor
Hansen thanked and recognized the following businesses for their support in
“Celebrate Shoreline”.
·
Shoreline Central
Market – Joel Lowern
·
·
Sky Nursery - Mary
Heidy
·
·
Shoreline/South
King County YMCA – Carla Hildebrandt
·
Shoreline/Lake
·
Shoreline Bank –
Nick Anderson
·
John L. Scott
Realty – John Fry
·
Chuck Olsen
Chevrolet/Kia – Greg Olsen
·
James Alan Salon
– Keith McGlashan
·
MetLife Auto
& Home – Liza Chaff
·
·
Top Food &
Drug – Colt Davis
·
Gordon’s Les
Schwab Tires – Mark Carey
·
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Steve Burkett, City Manager,
noted that 883 residents participated in the recycling event held on
Saturday. He thanked all the residents
and City staff who made it such a success.
He also reported on the Natural Yard Care Workshop, which was aimed at
improving the water quality in
4.
COUNCIL REPORTS: none
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Dale
Wright, Shoreline, commented that the Aurora Corridor and
(b)
Keith McGlashan,
Shoreline, President of the Shoreline Public Schools Foundation, thanked
everyone for the phone-a-thon which supports the classroom grant program. He called attention to the need for callers
and an increase in donations for the phone-a-thon.
Councilmember Fimia congratulated the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce on
their auction on Saturday which raised $37,000 for the Chamber and Dollars for
Scholars. She then clarified that
Councilmember Chang, George Mauer, and Cindy Ryu are in favor of economic
development along the Aurora Corridor and in
Councilmember Chang felt the public comment period should not be used
for campaigning. He disagreed with Mr.
Wright’s comments and said he has never opposed the Aurora Project. He said he favors the project but he still
has questions and concerns.
6. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a)
Presentation of the 2006 Budget
Mr.
Burkett introduced the budget and noted it has improved from the previous year
in the performance measures area.
Furthermore, he said he will focus on the key changes and policy issues
in his presentation.
Responding
to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Burkett replied there would be executive summaries
available for the public, and one will be included in the next issue of Currents.
Mr.
Burkett then outlined the budget schedule which began in April with the Council
Planning Retreat. The budget update, he
said, was provided to the Council in September which covered the majority of
what will be presented at this meeting.
On October 24th, he outlined, the Council will have the
public hearing and the department budget presentations. Furthermore, over the next several Council
meetings the Council will be reviewing the budget, and the actual adoption of
the budget and the property tax levy is scheduled for November 28. He said the guiding principles of the City’s
budget are to make commitments that can be maintained for the long-term and to
maintain and improve the City’s parks, roads, and drainage systems. The City’s current financial position is
excellent; the budget is balanced and totals $78.9 million. The Operating Funds of the City total $36.5
million which is a 0.4% increase from the 2005 Operating Budget. The General Fund is 6.6% less than in 2005
because many one-time expenses from last year have been removed. The Capital Fund total is $42.2 million which
is 22.4% less than last year’s total.
This amount goes up or down each year depending on the projects for the
given year. 33% of the City’s budget
comes from grants and loans for the Aurora Project and the Interurban Trail
Project.
Continuing,
Mr. Burkett noted that property tax and sales tax each make up 9% of the
resources. The largest source of
operating revenue, property taxes, will provide an estimated $6.9 million in
2006 with the levy. The 2006 property
tax rate will go down 5.6% ($1.25 in 2005 versus $1.18 in 2006), because
property values are increasing in the City.
He communicated that the City receives 10.48% of all property taxes
collected each year. In 2006, he outlined,
the growth in property taxes is projected to be less than the rate of inflation. Sales tax is the other major source of
revenue and the current rate is 8.8%.
The average annual growth from 2001 - 2006 has been at a rate of 2.3%
per year. In terms of expenditures, $42
million, or 53% of the proposed 2006 City expenditures is for capital
improvements, and $28 million, or 36% is for operating expenditures. Major operating budget changes include a 4.8%
increase in personnel costs.
Additionally, the City is proposing the addition 4.5 net FTEs and
increasing in compensation and employee benefits. However, he added, the City’s 2.6 employees
per 1,000 residents is the fourth lowest of comparable cities in
Councilmember
Ransom questioned the $927,000 reduction to the operating budget.
Mr.
Burkett responded that the $927,000 reduction involves projects or one-time
expenditures that will not be carried over from 2005 to 2006. He continued his presentation, stating that
net revenues for the end of the year 2005 should be $1.3 million, and the City
is proposing moving 635,000 into the capital fund or utilizing $450,000 for
traffic signal rehabilitation and other key expenditures such as an urban
forestry assessment. 2006 capital
expenditures are $42 million with 64%, or $27 million, in transportation
projects. Future items which may impact
the 2006 Budget include: Initiative 912, which may reduce local funding by
$240,000 annually; the Seattle City Light vs. City of
Mayor
Hansen called for public comment. Seeing
no one wishing to speak, the Council commenced discussion.
Councilmember
Fimia asked to see the operating budget forecast slide in increments of $5
million as opposed to $10 million increments as displayed. She said she wants to know what the past
shortfalls were in order to predict what the future shortfalls will be.
In
addition she asked to see sales tax and property tax growth from neighboring
cities or cities with similar populations.
Finally, she asked that budget figures include demographic information
such as average resident income for the City and average income per zip code.
Councilmember
Gustafson thanked the budget staff and the City Manager for the presentation
and congratulated them for producing a budget that had no findings on the State
audit.
There
was Council consensus to move Item 6(b) to Item 6(c).
(b)
Review of King County District Court Services
Julie
Modrzejewski, Assistant City Manager, provided the staff report, noting that in
2002
Mayor
Hansen asked whether a cross-county court system between
Councilmember
Ransom was concerned with the drop in caseload, noting that when he was a
member of the Law and Justice Committee, the administrative staff called people
to remind them of court dates, which increased the caseload. He questioned if that could be done here.
Ms.
Crozier commented that she was the court administrator for Shoreline for eleven
years and concurred with Councilmember Ransom.
She said the pilot program used volunteers to remind defendants to
appear for court, and this was a huge success and has been duplicated across
Councilmember
Ransom also had concerns about the length of time it took to have his daughter
change her name in 2004. He said the
process took four hours when it should have taken five or ten minutes. Additionally, he said there were long lines,
people complaining, and other problems.
He added that he also called the King County District Court information
line and he waited for an hour and a half before he got his questions
answered. This is very discouraging and
apparently there are still numerous complaints about the passport processes, he
concluded.
Ms.
Crozier replied that 2003 was a difficult time for the District Court and there
were long lines and long wait times.
However, she said those days are over and they have extended call center
hours and increased resources to include multilingual services.
Judge
Harn said she is proud of the advances in the court system that makes
Councilmember
Fimia asked for clarification of the 2002 Sims proposal to close District
Court. She also inquired whether or not
someone from the District Court could meet with the City to discuss the
education, engineering, and enforcement efforts to curb neighborhood speeding.
Judge
Harn replied that the master plan for the District Court System was approved by
the County Council and presented by Executive Sims. Therefore, both parties are unified in the
long-term goal to operate court facilities for the cities of
Councilmember
Fimia said she recalled that at one time there was a juvenile program where social
workers intervened with the parents. She
asked if this program was still active.
Judge
Harn said the program is called the Juvenile Diversion Program and it still
exists in the County. Judge Clark, the
presiding judge, oversees the program in Shoreline.
Councilmember
Gustafson asked for an explanation of the reduced staffing in the police
department due to injuries, turnover, and the increasing difficulty in
recruitment.
Captain
Dan Pingrey, Shoreline Police Department, explained that there was an officer
added at the end of 2003, however, in 2004 there were officers that weren’t
available because of injuries. To date,
the police department is down one officer and is currently recruiting to fill
the position. Currently, there are over
twenty officers in the academy, and the department has intensified our lateral
transfer recruitment efforts. By
February those recruits will graduate and the department is hoping to find five
lateral transfers to get officers into patrol to fill vacancies.
Councilmember
Gustafson asked if the City staff was going to have the proposal on the other
two court alternatives ready before the November 14th Council
Meeting.
Ms.
Modrzejewski replied it will be a part of the staff report for that meeting. The City is anxious to present alternatives
because if the Council directs staff to implement a
Councilmember
Grace said it would be helpful if the Council received a copy of the
Ms.
Modrzejewski responded that the District Court has supplied data on call times
and a copy of the operational master plan.
She said she would provide a copy to the Council for the November 14
meeting.
Councilmember
Chang questioned how many police officers serve at the courthouse as guards,
and whether the law requires that a police officer be stationed there.
Ms.
Crozier replied that one officer serves as a security screener at the
courthouse.
Judge
Harn answered that most of the defendants are traffic violators, but felons
also commit misdemeanors. Some
defendants who enter the courthouse are domestic violence cases. She emphasized the importance of having a regular
officer at the court for protection, respect, and the security of the judges,
staff and people who enter the courthouse.
Councilmember
Chang said perhaps City staff could look into combining the location of the
police department with the courthouse to minimize FTEs.
Ms.
Crozier noted that the probation officers who serve the City are in that
facility. When probationers meet with
their probation officers they must go through security screening at the
courthouse.
Councilmember
Chang inquired if the District Court received any federal funds for processing
passports at their facilities.
Ms.
Crozier replied that the District Court is a federal passport acceptance
center. The passport applications are
accepted and an application fee is kept by the Court. In turn, the District Court then sends a
check to the Federal Government for processing.
Councilmember
Fimia asked Judge Harn why there was a decrease in case filings.
Judge
Harn responded that all the cities in the State of
Councilmember
Fimia inquired what the decrease in the other cities was, noting that Shoreline
experienced a 40% decrease from 2003 to 2004.
Ms.
Modrzejewski responded that from 2003 through 2004
Councilmember
Fimia said it is disconcerting that the staff report did not identify the main
reasons for the decrease in total cases.
It appears the analysis came after the staff report, so there is no way
to know how much is attributable to the DWLS 3rd degree decision.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen questioned if Failure to Appear is classified as the same caseload
or a second caseload.
Judge
Harn said this does not have any impact on the caseload; the case is not
counted again if it went to warrant status when the defendant failed to appear.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen asked if Judge Harn could work with the City staff to provide some
statistics or some justification to the Council on why the caseload in the City
of
Judge
Harn stated the current contract and the new contract the District Court
provides for annual reconciliation based on caseload. The City is and will be billed only for those
services actually used. She continued
and said her staff can conduct a query to deduce where the DWLS caseload was
before and after the ruling.
Councilmember
Ransom asked if the judges were elected locally and what the benefits were in
continuing the municipal court services contract with
Judge
Harn responded that there are three districts: 1)Seattle; 2) I-90 South; and 3)
I-90 North. The current contract was based
on nine judicial districts, but the new contract will have cities choosing from
a larger group of judges. The district
boundaries have not been decided yet.
The districting committee has to decide and recommend the boundaries but
there will be some flexibility for cities to choose who their judges will
be. Judge Harn outlined that the
benefits of continuing with King County Municipal Court is having a regional
court in addition to a local community court to handle name changes, passports,
small claims, and civil actions in the same facility. Additionally, cities that contract with the
County for court services do not assume any probation risk. To have an effective regional justice system,
all of the pieces need to work together, and this is realized by contracting
with
Mr.
Burkett stated this is a complex issue with several factors that interest the
Council. It makes sense to focus on the
regional issue and to benefit from the economy of scale. Quality, jail costs, and the consistency in
jurisprudence are all important factors which will be weighed. He said staff will look at these issues and
bring this back to the Council in approximately one month.
(c)
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Update
Jill
Marilley, City Engineer, noted that the hurricanes are impacting construction
schedules. Specifically, some products
are in short supply and could affect the projects. She announced that last week the City has processed
and paid $2.8 million in invoices for the
Mr.
Burkett asked that she review the traffic control costs on the North City Project.
Ms.
Marilley said the cost of traffic control on the North City Project is higher
than expected based on more crews needed to maintain access to local
businesses. Additionally, the extra
crews were needed because the work zone is smaller because of the
undergrounding work. The contractor, she
said, will be monitoring the overages and the City staff will bring them to the
Council when available.
Mayor
Hansen assumed there would be a slowing of expenses since more of the work is
being completed.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen wondered if expenditures for traffic control are reimbursable
under the contract.
Ms.
Marilley responded that traffic control is not a fixed price, but on an hourly
basis. Therefore, the City must pay the
contractor for it.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen encouraged working with the contractor to emphasize that they are
also benefiting by having multiple crews and the City shouldn’t have to pay for
the full reimbursement. He inquired who
is doing the landscaping on the Interurban Trail project from 182nd
to 185th.
Ms.
Marilley said the City is responsible for landscaping that area.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen asked about delays on Boeing Creek and whether there was an
escalation clause in the agreement with
Ms.
Marilley said there is no escalation clause in the agreement. The push, she commented, on the City end is
getting the County to take on scope rather than financial agreements.
Councilmember
Chang inquired about the status of the
Ms.
Marilley responded that
Councilmember
Chang encouraged people to continue to patronize Shoreline businesses through
the construction period.
Councilmember
Ransom inquired when the
Ms.
Marilley replied that the
Councilmember
Ransom discussed an incident that occurred on September 27th at
Councilmember
Gustafson asked if all 2005 – 2006 Capital Improvement Projects were under
budget. Ms. Marilley said that
information is not yet available because not all the projects have been
closed-out.
Councilmember
Grace felt restriping of
Ms.
Marilley responded that they have been trying to use some innovative solutions
to the striping of
Councilmember
Fimia thanked Ms. Marilley for the report.
She said the current format of the major construction projects is better
than the prior document. However, she
said the large Capital Improvement Plan Project Schedule document cannot be
read. The document outlining the
projects should contain the project description with the original
documentation, the original budget with the original documentation, the
original timeline including where the City is currently with the budget and
timeline, and the narrative and graphs to properly track the projects.
Ms.
Marilley inquired as to whether the Council would be interested in knowing when
and if the scope changes or items are added.
Councilmember
Fimia said the Council would want such information. She said based on the current documents, it
is difficult to determine what the original plan was and if any changes or
budget increases have occurred. She
asked if the night work on
Ms.
Marilley responded that the night work is not related to the three week
delay. The work going on at night would
greatly impact the daily commute traffic, so the decision was made to allow the
night work, which may continue until Thanksgiving. Ms. Marilley said they have tightened up on
the contractor and have limited the type of work that can be performed at
certain times during the evening.
Councilmember
Fimia asked for clarification on the traffic control information on both the
Ms.
Marilley responded that the three areas that are causing the increase in
traffic control expenditures. First, the
City anticipated in the contract that the contractor would work with two or
three work crews in the area. However,
this contractor, for efficiency, works with three to six crews which all
require traffic control. Second, it was
originally planned that there would be one lane in each direction for the
movement of traffic through the construction site. However, after construction began the City
discovered the need for three lanes.
Thus, another traffic control crew was needed. Third, more flaggers were needed to get
patrons in and out of businesses safely.
Councilmember
Fimia followed up on her question from last week regarding the number of
sidewalk miles left to construct in Shoreline, and the sidewalks for Aurora
Corridor Phase I. She asked what the
sidewalk needs will be after the Aurora Corridor project is done, and what the
sidewalk need is for major school walkways.
She also asked how much is being spent on emergency management-related
capital projects in the CIP. She pointed
out that the most important function of a City is public safety, so emergency
management cannot “take a back seat.”
Lastly, she asked about the City’s plan if Initiative 912 passes and if
the SCL franchise fee lawsuit is upheld.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen stated he would like staff and possibly the Police Department to
respond to the newspaper article that stated Shoreline has the highest auto
theft rate in the nation.
7. ADJOURNMENT
At
/S/