CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

 

Monday, October 18, 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 AND FUTURE AGENDAS

 

Robert Olander, Deputy City Manager, called attention to the new rules for public comment that apply to tonight’s meeting.  He then reported on staff efforts to prevent flooding to homes in the vicinity of N 175th Street and 10th Avenue NE.  He said staff is analyzing alternatives to resolve the long-term flooding issues there.

 

Councilmember Fimia said she would still like to explore “buy-out” as a potential solution to the flooding problem, noting that some properties could be used for water retention.

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen felt King County did not invest the necessary funding to adequately maintain the stormwater system in that area.  Councilmember Fimia noted that King County was dealing with numerous flooding issues throughout the county, and that their solution for N 175th Street was a “quick fix.”

 

Mayor Hansen felt the City should rely on its engineers to propose long-term flooding solutions.

 

Responding to Councilmember Chang, Mr. Olander explained that City Manager Steve Burkett has been absent from Council meetings due to family matters and illness.  He noted that Mr. Burkett is attending a professional conference this week.

 

4.         COUNCIL REPORTS

 

Councilmember Ransom noted he would represent the City on the Jail Oversight Assembly at its first meeting in November.  He then reported on the various topics discussed at the National League of Cities (NLC) Conference on Human Development and the Suburban Cities Association.  These include social services, immigration, single-payer health care, annexation, rural development, taxes, salmon recovery, and stream rehabilitation.  He commented that the King County Housing Authority’s Greenbridge development (a $200 million project with 1,000 homes on 100 acres) was financed through a short-term, tax incentive financing (TIF) plan.

 

Councilmember Fimia wished to make a motion regarding the flooding discussed earlier.

It was pointed out that the Council does not usually take formal action in a workshop meeting.  Mr. Olander felt it would be prudent to do an economic analysis of the various alternatives to the stormwater problem before Council action is taken.

 

5.         PUBLIC COMMENT 

 

            (a)        Rick Stephens, Shoreline business owner, asserted that agenda item 6(d) was not available on the City’s website.  He said the Shoreline Merchants Association (SMA) was disappointed it was not invited to participate in the City’ prioritization exercise it recently conducted.  He said the City could solve more problems through increased citizen participation and by including “those who make up the heart of Shoreline.”  He said the City is not just land and buildings, but people, and that excluding people only creates ill will.  

 

            (b)        Diana Stephens, Snohomish, President of the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce, announced a Chamber sponsored Halloween event at the Ballinger Shurgard Storage on Saturday, October 23rd.  The Chamber will also host a fundraising auction event the same evening to raise money for Dollars for Scholars. 

 

            (c)        LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, thanked the Council for working to change the rules for public comment.  She said while the new format allows for more interaction between citizens and the Council, she felt agenda items should not be excluded as possible topics during the general comment period.  

 

The Council briefly discussed the addition of item 6(d) to tonight’s agenda.  Councilmember Fimia said she was unaware it was on the agenda for this evening.  It was noted that Council agreed to move it from the October 11 meeting to tonight’s meeting.  Councilmember Fimia requested notification by e-mail or other means if the agenda is similarly changed in the future.

 

6.         WORKSHOP ITEMS

 

(a)                2004 Capital Improvement Program Update

 

Jill Marilley, City Engineer, updated the Council on the status of various capital improvement projects in the Transportation (Roads Capital) Fund, Surface Water Fund, and General Fund.   These include the Aurora Corridor Project Phase 1 & 2, Interurban Trail/Pedestrian Bicycle Bridge, North City Project, Richmond Beach Overcrossing, Dayton Avenue Retaining Wall, Ronald Bog, 3rd Avenue NW Drainage, Richmond Beach Saltwater Park Erosion, and City Center Gateway -175th East site.  Her report included the following points:

 

 

·        Interurban Trail: The South section is now complete with only minimal paperwork to complete.  The South Central/North B construction contract has been awarded and construction will start this month.  Design on the North Central Segment has begun.  Stakeholder meetings are being scheduled and with some having already been held successfully.

 

 

·        Richmond Beach Overcrossing:  Discussions and negotiations with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) regarding design options led to a successful conclusion with their approval of a design that is cost effective for the City and works with BNSF restrictions and future plans.  Negotiations with the BNSF regarding construction and cost sharing issues are underway and are expected to take approximately 9 months.

 

·        Dayton Avenue N and N 175th Street Retaining Wall:  Staff completed the pre-design report and is pursuing additional grant funding to add sidewalks to the area around St. Luke’s Place. Design will occur Winter 2005 with possible construction Summer 2005 while school is not in session.

 

 

·        Ronald Bog Drainage Improvements:  The storm drainage improvements for the Serpentine Place Project have been completed. The contractor has made all minor corrections required with the exception of those needed for the pump station. Adjustments to the pump station will be made within the next couple weeks and construction completion is expected at that time.  Additional interim relief options for the NE 175th Street and 10th Avenue NE area are being developed and next steps for the entire Ronald Bog basin are being identified. 

 

 

·        Gateway 175th East site (southeast quadrant of the N 175th Street offramp): This project was advertised and no responsive bidders were received.  The project will be readvertised with some flexibility in the timing of construction to attract more qualified bidders. 

 

Councilmember Grace asked staff to clarify the Use and Necessity Hearings for the Aurora Corridor project.  He also asked staff to describe their efforts to meet with property owners in Phase 2.

 

Ian Sievers, City Attorney, explained that the court decides issues of public use and necessity before proceeding to hearings on fair compensation, since the latter is based on the former.  The court order on Use and Necessity triggers an incentive for property owners to give the City immediate use/possession, since under state law, property owners cannot recover attorneys fees and costs unless they grant immediate use and possession within 15 days following the court order.  He said the City should know by mid-November whether property owners will take advantage of that incentive and give the City a stipulated order of immediate use and possession.

 

Mr. Haines explained that he is scheduling weekly meetings with property owners and associated businesses to discuss what is expected to happen in Phase 2.  He said the main objective is to “have a face and a contact for every property owner along Phase 2.”  He said after staff cycles through all property owners and businesses, they would likely cycle through again in a different format.  He said most property owners have concerns relating to individual land use issues, such as access, setbacks, as opposed to the overall project itself.  He noted that staff will recommend a new planning position to assist property owners with the process.

 

Mr. Olander confirmed that a budget recommendation would be coming forward for this position to help build relationships with property owners in Phase 2.

 

Councilmember Fimia emphasized the need to improve future portions of the Interurban Trail with more access points and signage that attributes the trail to its sponsors.  She noted this would allow more people to access the trail from commercial districts and higher-density areas.  She noted that wheelchair users often have difficulty due to the lack of access trails.

 

Councilmember Chang commented that the trail would get more use during the off hours if it had more lighting.  Councilmember Ransom said the most recent citizen survey indicated that women were concerned about the lack of lighting on City trails.

 

Councilmember Ransom suggested that Council consider having a separate workshop or committee meeting to try to reach a compromise on the North City Project before it deliberates the budget.  Mr. Olander explained that today, the North City Project was added to the agenda of October 25 at the request of Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, and Councilmember Grace.

 

Councilmember Fimia understood that King County conducted some long-range planning on the Ronald Bog area.  She felt the City should consider King County’s analysis before investing in its own improvements. 

 

Rersponding to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Marilley explained that the Serpentine Drainage system is so-named because part of it traverses the Serpentine Road area.  She then detailed the basic maintenance work that created more capacity in the Ronald Bog drainage system.  She said staff would continue to monitor the situation because it is not a complete solution to the flooding problems. 

 

Paul Haines, Public Works Director, explained the history of the City’s response to the Ronald Bog drainage problem, noting that basic maintenance conducted recently has created additional capacity in the Ronald Bog basin.  He said the City initially invested in a very expensive solution that did not necessarily include routine maintenance.  He said staff is reevaluating its assumptions about the system to determine if smaller, “bite-sized” solutions and regular maintenance will prove more effective in addressing the problem. He said the City would have a better sense of its “purchased capacity” after completing the Surface Water Master Plan. 

 

Mr. Olander pointed out that an oversized pipe was installed on 1st Avenue NE, which has increased capacity because it slows the water flow to Ronald Bog.  He felt these type of incremental solutions, such as diverting some water south of 10th Avenue NE (instead of sending it north to Ronald Bog) would help address the overall basin problem.

 

Councilmember Gustafson commented on the many exciting things the City has accomplished in its capital improvement plan during the years he has served on the Council.  He noted the Spartan Gym as one example of the City partnering with local entities to enhance public facilities for the community.  He thanked Councilmember Grace for his involvement on the school board to effectuate that outcome.

 

Councilmember Chang wondered if the costs for the Aurora Corridor Project would increase in the same way that costs increased for the Interurban Trail Bridge and North City. 

 

Ms. Marilley said staff expects to stay within the allotted budget for the project.  Mr. Olander added that consultants are monitoring the cost of materials very closely and are providing projections on a monthly basis. 

 

(b)               Economic Development Strategic Plan

 

Mr. Olander said this item is a continuation of discussion from several prior workshops.  He noted that Council was provided with a memorandum containing proposals offered by Councilmembers Ransom, Fimia, and Chang.  

 

Mayor Hansen called for public comment.

 

            (a)        Diana Stephens, Snohomish, expressed support for the idea of creating a committee to assist in developing economic strategies for the City.  She felt such a committee should be represented by both the business community and neighborhoods, and that it should represent the widest variety of business types as possible.  She noted that the input of neighborhoods would give the City a broad spectrum of ideas to help in the process.  She felt a committee would also ensure that a qualified candidate is selected to fill the position of economic development coordinator.  She emphasized the need to establish goals, expectations, and priorities so that all details are worked out before someone is hired. 

 

            (b)        Rick Stephens, Snohomish, said although there is a need for an economic development coordinator, the City has not conducted enough planning.  He felt the City has not had a good return on its $1 million investment in economic development since City incorporation.  He noted that the City Manager has only attended two Shoreline Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee meetings, and although the meetings were effective, there is more to be done.  As chair of that committee, he said he is disappointed that the City has not included the larger business community in economic development, but instead chose to contract with Forward Shoreline.  He said Forward Shoreline has exclusive membership that leaves out the rest of the community.  He pointed out that the City of Roseburg, Oregon does not have staff but instead uses its chamber and a commission to achieve its economic development goals. 

 

            (c)        LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, felt the City should first hire a professional economist who can then act as a guide to develop the strategic plan.  She pointed out that although the Council is made up of law makers, none have law expertise like the City Attorney, who acts as a guide.  She noted that people rely on medical doctors because they are trained to diagnose and treat ailments, even though some are incurable.  She said Shoreline needs a trained professional to diagnose its economic ailments in much the same way.  She said while an economist will not necessarily be able to heal all of our ills, they are trained to diagnose.  

 

            (d)        Alan Sharrah, director of operations for Frank Lumber and owner of USA Karate in North City, urged the City to take more time to develop a detailed economic plan before filling the position.  He said while the proposed plan has good intentions, there is no vehicle whereby an individual business or citizen can participate.  He asked that Council create a process that provides individual citizens and businesses with a way to participate equally with other organizations in building an economic development strategic plan that incorporates the things citizens and businesses want for the City of Shoreline.  He said only after this process is developed should the City hire someone to manage the plan.

 

Councilmember Ransom reviewed the following wording changes to the strategies as proposed at last week’s meeting:

 

S1—“Continue pursuing growth in retails sales and increase family wage jobs and office development to ensure financial stability and economic vitality. 

S7—“Work with existing and new businesses to continue development incentives such as fee waivers, designated Planned Action areas, business relocation strategies, parcel assembly, grant and low-interest loan funding.”

S8—to add more specificity to “Help facilitate private efforts...,” by adding “including options for paying for these amenities such as business improvement districts and neighborhood grants . . .”

S9—add a reference to getting an inventory of areas where development might best occur.

 

The Council had mixed feelings about the proposed changes to S1, S8, and S9. 

 

Councilmember Grace felt the issue of family wage jobs is a stand-alone topic that should be addressed separately from retail sales and office development.  He felt Council should have a discussion of what family-wage job means since people define it differently.  Councilmember Gustafson concurred.

 

Councilmember Ransom explained his rationale for including “office development,” noting that increased/enhanced office space would increase retail sales. 

 

Councilmember Fimia supported this rationale since the City’s 2001 Starky Study identified a need for future office space.  She suggested that the City devise a strategy to assist property owners in redeveloping substandard office space.  She agreed that family wage jobs should be addressed separately.

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen wondered if “property values” should be added to bullet #1, since some businesses’ concerns would not be addressed by retail sales alone.

 

Councilmember Fimia felt the S7 strategy (work with existing businesses) would adequately cover most businesses.  She said the strategy is not to target everything, but just a couple key items. 

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen questioned the justification for adding office development and how the overall community benefits by it. 

 

Councilmember Fimia said the Starky Study identified a demand for more office space, which would potentially bring higher-wage jobs and more mixed-use communities.  She said there is very little land for industrial uses, so the City will likely see retail and office development in the future. 

 

Councilmember Gustafson was inclined to support the original proposal for S8.  He felt the City should first hire an economic development manager, who can then use his/her expertise to follow the general policies adopted by the Council.

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen concurred.  He opposed the change to S8, noting that installing banners and flower pots are significantly different from the kinds of amenities that are created through a business improvement district (BID). 

 

Councilmember Grace felt BID did not fit into the main subject of S8, although neighborhood grants might be appropriate. 

 

Councilmember Fimia felt the original S8 strategy was too specific, explaining that the City does not need to provide examples of how to beautify the business areas.  She said she would propose broader language for this strategy at the next meeting. 

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen noted that neighborhood grants have been used in many cases for business district improvements (such as the banners and flower pots in North City). 

 

It was noted that a group of merchants would have to partner with a neighborhood association for grant funding to improve a given street.  

 

Councilmember Ransom explained the rationale for changes to S9, noting that the emphasis is on having an inventory of parcels with development potential.  He said the City does not currently have such an inventory.

 

Councilmember Grace did not see the need for the change, noting that such an inventory should already be covered by this language of this strategy.  

 

Councilmember Ransom said that the City has never had an inventory of specific properties with development potential.  He pointed out that the economic development specialist in Edmonds is aware of all developable properties in Edmonds.

 

Councilmember Fimia said she would offer a revised amendment to this strategy next week to clarify the issue.

 

Councilmember Grace saw two different subjects within strategy S9: 1) working with innovative developers and brokers, and 2) identifying areas where development might occur.  He noted that the second subject is the vehicle whereby the first subject is achieved.

 

Councilmember Ransom suggested that family-wage jobs could be included as separate strategy S11. 

 

Councilmember Gustafson felt that increased family wage jobs would be an end result of achieving other strategies.  He did not feel it necessarily had to be stated.

 

Mayor Hansen expressed skepticism about creating a strategy to increase family wage jobs.  He said an economic development specialist might possibly assist in devising such a strategy. 

 

Councilmember Grace asked Councilmember Ransom to provide a common definition of family wage jobs that the Council could work from. 

 

Councilmember Ransom said the term “family wage job” is generally used to describe the minimum amount needed to support a family, which usually starts around $15 per hour.  This is distinct from retail sales jobs, which generally pay lower wages.

 

Mayor Hansen noted that many of his business clients who work in retail sales make much more than $15 per hour.

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen expressed concern about how to accurately define and measure the growth of family wage jobs.  He said retail is fairly easy to measure because these statistics are recorded at the state level.  He questioned the feasibility and appropriateness of asking existing businesses how much they pay their employees. 

 

Councilmember Chang identified various jobs which he felt the Council could easily categoize as either minimum wage or family wage.   He pointed out that Frank Lumber has approximately 70 full-time employees who make $20 per hour.   He stressed the need to set high goals for economic development, noting that family wage jobs are one way to do that. 

 

Councilmember Grace said he would like to see information on family wage jobs from comparable jurisdictions.

 

Mr. Olander pointed out that Shoreline’s biggest detriment to economic development is lack of available land.  Noting that the Starky Report identifies employment centers as a long-range strategy, he felt that redevelopment of the Fircrest property might be Shoreline’s best long-term opportunity for job creation and growth.

 

Councilmember Chang expressed strong support for an economic development advisory committee.  He said Shoreline’s uniqueness requires that key stakeholders are actively involved to develop the strategic plan.  He said he is not against hiring a coordinator, but simply asking for a committee that can work with a coordinator so Shoreline can have its own success story.

 

Councilmembers Fimia and Ransom said they would try to make additional language refinements to address the concerns expressed tonight.

 

Councilmember Ransom explained the rationale for strategy S12, which would create an ongoing economic development standing committee to act as an oversight body.  Similar to the Parks Advisory Board, members of this committee would be appointed by the Council and represent various sectors of the community.  

 

Councilmember Grace strongly favored an advisory board including key businesses and stakeholders, but felt the Council should not relinquish its oversight role to such a committee.  Councilmember Ransom clarified that this committee would simply make recommendations to Council and serve primarily in an advisory capacity.

 

There was additional discussion about how an advisory committee would function and how it would be staffed.  Councilmember Ransom said the expectation is that City staff and an economic development coordinator would provide clerical assistance to the committee.  

 

Councilmember Gustafson agreed with Ms. Wacker’s suggestion that the City should first hire an expert who can then act as a guide to develop the strategic plan, which may or may not include an advisory committee.  

 

Councilmember Ransom said the City has followed the same approach for the past eight years with little progress.  Rather than repeat the same mistakes, he felt the City should take new approach, with specific strategies and an advisory committee. 

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen assumed there was support for hiring an economic development coordinator since Councilmember Ransom suggested he/she would help staff an advisory committee.  He felt that filling the position first would allow the coordinator to take inventory of the various economic development organizations and committees and bring back a recommendation on how to consolidate them in the most efficient fashion.  He agreed that the Council should consider Fircrest in the overall strategic plan.  He felt the remaining changes proposed by Councilmembers Ransom, Fimia and Chang were either too detailed or already included in the draft plan.

 

Councilmember Chang supported the suggestion to look at other cities to see how to implement economic development most effectively.  He commented favorably on the Chamber’s tourism seminar, noting that need for more programs to attract businesses to Shoreline.  He said the City should be aggressive, and that tonight’s discussion is about whether there is agreement on forming a committee. 

 

Councilmember Grace expressed support for hiring an economic development professional to advise the Council on all the things it has been discussing.  He felt the Council should not delay because hiring for this position could be a lengthy process.  He agreed that this position could help address the issue of how to best involve the various stakeholders.

 

Councilmember Fimia said she could not support hiring for the position until the strategies are more defined, specifically the one about the advisory board.  She said the City should work with the business and education communities in the same way it has partnered with the school district to build a relationship of trust.  She said between the City Manager’s Office, the Council, the Chamber Economic Development Committee, Forward Shoreline, and Shoreline citizens, the City should be able to establish its priorities and goals before filling the position.  She also felt the proposed plan lacks some of the basic strategies identified in the Starky Report.  She wondered why the City Manager signed a contract with Forward Shoreline when the strategies have not been “flushed out” with the community and businesses. 

 

Mr. Olander said that while the strategies are important, they could change as the City further develops the plan with its various stakeholders.  He said an economic development manager would bring a level of reality and expertise to the process and help the City understand what it can realistically expect to accomplish in the given economic climate.  He pointed out that after Council fills the position and adopts the strategies, a more detailed work plan would come forth based upon the adopted strategies.  He said it is perfectly appropriate to modify the strategies later if Council wishes. 

 

Councilmember Gustafson preferred the original proposed strategies, noting that Council should set general policies and hire experts to work on the details.  He felt this is how the Council-Manager form of government should operate.  He said the City has accomplished many positive things over the past nine years because it has relied on staff.  However, it is frustrating that some seem to be rejecting this approach.  He felt the meetings could move along much faster by allowing staff to manage the details, noting that being on the Council was not meant to be a full-time job.   

 

Councilmember Fimia said the City should rely on the expertise of local business and neighborhoods before looking to find an outside expert.  She said since the City already went ahead and contracted with Forward Shoreline, it should help finalize the strategies.  She reiterated that the proposed plan does not include things the City has already paid experts to find out.  She said Council work is turning out to be a full-time job because Council direction is not being implemented.  

 

Councilmember Ransom considered the community outreach element to be the most crucial part of the economic development strategies.  He did not support filling the position unless the strategies include the creation of an advisory committee. 

 

Councilmember Chang said economic development is critically important for Shoreline because budget deficits are projects in the coming years.  He said he wants the City’s $150,000 investment in economic development to be used wisely since there are many other worthwhile programs that could use more funding.  He emphasized the need to have a strategic plan in place so that the economic development coordinator has something to implement.

 

Mayor Hansen said deficits have been predicted for the past five years, but the City has always managed to avoid them due to conservative fiscal policies.

 

Councilmember Chang pointed out that the Bond Advisory Committee identified sidewalks as a top City priority, but there are no excess funds to construct more sidewalks, or to even adequately fund street overlay projects.  He said the economic development program is the vehicle whereby the City can create the necessary revenue to implement needed improvements.  Mayor Hansen concurred.

 

Councilmember Fimia clarified that although the City has had balanced budgets and maintained adequate reserves, it will need to cut programs in order to balance future budgets unless the City generates additional revenue.  She said the Council would have to deal with the ever-increasing budget gap at some point.

 

(c)                Salary Commission for Council Compensation

 

Councilmember Ransom explained that the state legislature provided for the salary commission, an alternative system for reviewing and establishing Council salaries.  He said the current system allows the Council to establish its own salaries, which do not take effect until the next election cycle.  However, salaries decided by an independent salary commission can take effect immediately, although salary reductions would not take effect until the next election cycle.   He noted that several jurisdictions, including Federal Way and Redmond, have established commissions to set salaries for council and other boards.  He said the Shoreline City Council has been slow to increase salaries and benefits, adding that it has only made two salary adjustments in the past nine years.  He favored establishing a salary commission to perform more frequent reviews and to ensure parity on Council salaries. 

 

Councilmember Gustafson was not in favor of a commission because he felt the Council should be accountable for that decision.  

 

Councilmember Fimia expressed support for a salary commission, noting that it would be a good way for getting the public to serve.  She felt it would separate the Council from the salary decision and thereby serve as a fair process for establishing Council salaries. 

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen questioned the need for establishing a salary commission at this time, noting it would not rate highly on his list of City priorities.  

 

Councilmember Grace did not consider a salary commission a good use of City resources at this time.  He felt the Council could address the issue by directing the City Manager to provide information about salaries from comparable cities. 

 

Councilmember Gustafson concurred.  He felt the current system is fair because salary increases are not effective until reelection.  He also felt the City could use staff and resources elsewhere. 

Councilmember Chang supported the proposal for a salary commission, noting that Shoreline citizens should determine Council salaries.  He said many people are not in a position to run for City Council because they simply cannot afford it.  He felt increasing Council compensation might create opportunities for more people to seek public office.

 

Councilmember Fimia concurred, noting that a salary commission supports the vision of a citizen-led government.  She said it would also fix the current inconsistency that exists between Councilmember salaries from election to election.  She pointed out that staff gathers salary information for any position they intend to fill; therefore, a salary commission would not require excessive staff time or effort. 

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen felt it was wrong to be talking about increasing Council salaries in the context of forming a salary commission because it implies that a salary increase is a foregone conclusion. 

 

Using the Planning Commission candidates as an example, Councilmember Gustafson noted that most people seek City positions because they are committed to the community, not necessarily because of the compensation. 

 

Mayor Hansen did not support a salary commission because he did not want Council salaries to become the incentive for seeking public office.

 

Councilmember Ransom reiterated that the Council has only made two salary adjustments in nine years.  He noted that Federal Way’s salary commission was able to complete its process in only three months.  He said the legislature created this option so cities could implement reviews and cost-of-living adjustments on a regular basis.  He urged the Council to consider this as an option for Shoreline. 

 

Commenting on the low compensation for City Councilmembers, Councilmember Fimia stated that no salary increase would be enough to attract people to the position.   She felt a salary increase might make it easier for someone with two jobs to give up one job in order to serve on the Council.  She felt a salary commission would provide an opportunity to those who might not otherwise seek public office.

 

Councilmember Chang felt that a salary commission would “open the doors” to those who make much less than current members of the Council.  He felt the Council should not prohibit them from running for the job by opposing a salary commission.   He questioned whether there was equal representation of Shoreline, noting that only one Planning Commissioner lives south of N 180th Street.  He felt a salary commission could facilitate a truly democratic form of government by having many faces of the community represented on the Council. 

 

Mr. Olander summarized that only three Councilmembers appear to support a salary commission at this time.  Responding to Councilmember Fimia, he concluded that staff would bring back information about Council salaries from comparable jurisdictions.

 

Councilmember Ransom requested that comparisons be made with both council-manager and mayor-council forms of government, as well as with neighboring cities such as Edmonds and Lynnwood. 

 

(d)               Discussion of Council Goal # 8: Enhancing Public Participation in City Government

 

Mr. Olander explained the background on this item, noting that some of the recommendations for Council Goal # 8 come from staff and some from a Council subcommittee comprised of Councilmembers Fimia, Grace, and Ransom.  He described it as a “work in progress” and requested further Council direction.

 

Joyce Nichols, Communications and Intergovernmental Relations Director, outlined the following proposed work plan for achieving Council Goal No. 8:

 

·        Finalize recommendations on proposed changes to the public participation process, including: holding two town hall meetings each year; increasing the number of issues of Currents newsletter from six to 10 per year; and expanded and better use of City Web site and government access channel;

·        Implement community information process on City’s long-range financial planning; 

·        Develop and implement a Public Information/Participation/ Decision-Making Matrix to define the appropriate public process for different types of decisions; 

·        Begin offering a “Citizen Academy” to provide more in-depth information to community members about City services and issues;

·        Develop and implement communications plans around Citizen Satisfaction Survey results to provide information to neighborhoods/areas of City about needs/ problems/issues identified in the 2004 survey;

·         Develop and implement citywide neighborhood-based emergency response information and training.

 

Mayor Hansen called for public comment.

 

            (a)        LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, suggested that public participation exercises, whether town hall meetings or other formats, should be opportunities for public interaction with the City Council.  She commented that the Council’s dinner meetings are not widely announced, so she considers them “secret meetings” because the public is not aware of them.  She felt the Bond Advisory Committee should reconvene to consider a bond issue for sidewalk construction.  She noted that most public participation involves “action”; this is why citizen academies and the Planning Commission are so successful. She felt the Council could also work with “Friends of Fircrest,” the public, and other groups on potential opportunities to redevelop the Fircrest property. 

Councilmember Grace felt there was Council consensus to conduct town hall meetings on a semiannual basis.  He said these could be designed as either open forums or discussions of specific topics. 

 

Councilmember Fimia felt the Council should move forward more quickly with this recommendation, noting that the Council subcommittee already provided an outline for the proposed town hall meetings.  She felt this item should have returned to Council in the form of a specific work plan.  She felt Council was missing an opportunity to have a town hall meeting on the Comprehensive Plan and master plans, since the upcoming budget discussions would likely monopolize the Council’s meeting schedule.  She pointed out that the City Manager spent $8,000 on bullet # 2 without Council direction, so apparently these items do not have to go through an extensive process to be implemented.  She said the proposal does not include the recommendation to allow community organizations to make presentations to the Council as part of the meeting agenda. 

 

Given the limited time remaining, Councilmember Grace felt the Council should either consider the proposed work plan items or defer discussion to another meeting. 

 

Mayor Hansen clarified that Council dinner meetings are open to the public and are held in the Highlander Room at 6:00 p.m. prior to every Monday regular meeting.  He supported having semiannual town hall meetings.

 

Councilmember Ransom supported the work plan, although he agreed with Councilmember Fimia that some ideas the subcommittee proposed were not reflected in the plan.  Mr. Olander commented that staff had difficulty determining Council consensus on some issues.  Ms. Nichols said she would be happy to include the community agenda item if there is Council consensus.

 

Councilmember Fimia noted there was agreement on expanded/better use of the government access channel and the City website, but not on how to accomplish it.

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen agreed with most of the work plan items, but felt Council should strike “expanded and better use of City Web site and government access channel” due to lack of specificity.  He had reservations about bullet # 3 because identifying the appropriate decision-makers and participants in the public process has proved problematic.  He said the City was criticized for the stakeholders it invited to its long-term planning exercise, and he did not want to set the City up for constant criticism of who is included and who is left out.  He felt that occasional mistakes could be excused as long as the City makes good faith efforts to include all stakeholders.   

 

Councilmember Grace felt the objective of the City website/government access channel item was to create partnerships with other organizations (school district, community college) that have similar resources in order to expand the use of these resources. 

 

Councilmember Chang emphasized the need to consider how the Council can better serve the needs of the disabled and reach out to the increasing minority community.

 

Councilmember Gustafson favored most of the work plan items but felt the Council should also consider the costs and benefits of implementing them.

 

There was Council consensus to continue deliberation of this item at the October 25 Council meeting.

 

7.         ADJOURNMENT

 

At  10:02 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.

 

 

 

_________________________

Scott Passey, Deputy City Clerk