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, with the exception of
Councilmember Gustafson, who arrived at
(a)
Proclamation of “Veterans Appreciation Day”
Mayor
Hansen read the proclamation. Veterans
on hand were U.S. Army Retired Lieutenant Colonel Raymond Coffey, volunteer
military liaison to the City of
Mayor
Hansen thanked all military personnel past and present for their sacrifices for
the cause of peace and freedom and presented the veterans in attendance with a
copy of the proclamation.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
4.
COUNCIL REPORTS: none
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Bronston
Kenney, Shoreline, discussed cottage housing.
He felt that the majority of the residents don’t support it and the only
reason it is still an active issue is because the Planning Department and
Planning Commission want to feel “important”.
The Planning Commission members consist of planners from other agencies
and at least three who are builders/developers.
He quoted Mr. Sands, a member of the Planning Commission, “Density is
not a right, zoning is not a right, and it is not something someone should rely
upon when they purchase a home. If a
developer can meet the requirements, then the “not in my backyard” group should
not be able to stop the development.” He
felt cottage housing only enriches developers at the expense of
homeowners.
(b)
LaNita Wacker,
Shoreline, stated she was upset with the staff proposal to sell a portion of
(c)
Jane Hinton,
Shoreline,
(d)
Anselmo Alvares,
Commander, Veterans of the Vietnam War, Inc. Shoreline Post, said the
proclamation he received is dedicated to the military men and women currently
serving, retired, or no longer with us.
He thanked the Mayor, the
(e)
Peter Henry,
Shoreline, stated that South Woods is important to keep in public
ownership. He felt this will be the last
opportunity for the Council to save this land and urged them to do so.
(f)
Ken Cottingham,
Shoreline, felt the Aurora Project could have been done cheaper. He felt the cost of the project should have
been $8 - $12 million and in his opinion the cost is approaching $42
million. He distributed a handout to the
Council with expenditure calculations and asked for clarification from City
staff.
(g)
Vicky Westberg,
Shoreline, said South Woods is important to maintain. She referred to a Seattle PI article about
City forests which said they are “in peril” and that the build environment
should be balanced with the values of the natural environment. She concluded that trees do a great job in
adding value to the City.
(h)
Michael Broili,
Shoreline, stated he is a past Parks Board member. He is pleased with the City’s vision to
allocate $50,000 from the 2006 budget to conduct a tree inventory and
management plan. He agreed with this
decision because urban forests are good resources and we need to avoid the
“piecemeal approach” to tree management in the City. The promoting, planting, and preservation of
trees is important to the City and will help reduce costs and provide a profit
stream. He said there are a number of
values with well-managed forests including surface water management, improved
quality and protection of streams, improved air quality, noise suppression,
improved soil stability, and improved water quality. He urged the Council to support the $50,000
line item in the budget.
(i)
Colin Sleeper,
Shoreline, discussed South Woods. He
commented that Forbes magazine had an article on global warming that stated
people can pay an organization to plant trees.
South Woods, he said, is a second growth forest that has been in
existence for 80 years. He said he cares
about the planet and the environment and has a passion and wants to save South
Woods.
(j)
Jackson Kellock,
(k)
(l)
Mamie Bolender,
(m)
Kristine Southwick,
Shoreline, stated she grew up near South Woods and is aware of the protection
and benefits of trees. She is a member
of the Thornton Creek Alliance and the South Woods Preservation Group. She said South Woods used to be larger and it
is diminishing and if we don’t do something the youth will not have the nature
opportunities she had when she grew up.
She urged the Council to save South Woods.
(n)
Diana Stephens,
Snohomish, said all levels of Federal government spending is out of control and
taxpayer dollars are not being spent where they are needed most. She said “pork projects” are added onto
legislation and are troubling. She
concluded by stating the monies wasted on projects such as this could be used
on other needed issues.
(o)
Rick Stevens,
President of the Shoreline Merchants Association (SMA), outlined that the
members of SMA did not sue the City.
However, the SMA did file a SEPA appeal opposing a decision of the
Council because the City’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) did not
consider economic impacts to local businesses.
He said the Federal Highway
Administration determined that a number of items in the DEIS needed to be
revised. The City, he stated, withholds
information and that is not fair. He
concluded that the City belongs to the people and the residents want to be a
part of the process.
Councilmember Grace moved to
approve the agenda. Deputy Mayor Jepsen
seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, and the agenda was approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Ransom moved approval of
the consent calendar. Councilmember Grace seconded the motion, which carried
7-0 and the following consent items were approved:
Minutes of Regular
Meeting of
Motion to authorize the City Manager
to execute a contract amendment for professional services with KPFF for design services
of the
8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARINGS
(a)
Continued public hearing to receive citizens’ comments
on
the Bond Advisory Committee Recommendations
Bob
Olander, Deputy City Manager, said the recommendation from the City is that the
Council postpone further discussion until December 12th because
there is no immediate rush on this
issue. He reminded the Council that
South Woods is one of the projects in the whole bond issue package. During the last public hearing the Council
asked for options on the bond issue.
These options are as identified as follows: 1) Option 1 is the Bond Advisory Committee
recommendation to accept the proposal to issue a bond in the amount of $15
million; 2) Option 2 would eliminate the Seattle Public Utilities (SPU)
property from the bond and transfer the full amount towards the purchase of
South Woods; and 3) Option 3 would entail raising the bond issue an additional
$4 - $5 million to purchase South Woods.
Mr.
Olander noted that SPU has been holding the property as a courtesy to the City,
but there is no immediate need to surplus the property. A supplemental strategy would be to sell the
City-owned parcel at
Councilmember
Ransom added that he spoke to
Mr.
Olander stated that when the City approached the former president, the strategy
was if the SCC Board and the Council agreed, then both entities would approach
the legislature for some supplemental funding this legislative session.
Councilmember
Ransom asked about the status of potential meetings with the school district to
discuss the South Woods property.
Mr.
Burkett stated that the school board is having a public hearing this evening on
the sale of the three acres. The board
sent the City the purchase and sale agreement last week. However, there is a provision in the
agreement that states if the City purchases more than three acres, the
additional land and the original three acres will be sold to the City at market
value. He added that the board and the
water district both agreed to wait until May to make a decision about selling
the properties to any other entity besides the City. He clarified that the City asked the college
to move their parking lot because the State of
Mayor Hansen reopened the
public hearing at
a)
Stan Terry, Shoreline, said he was a “tree hugger” and there was not a
tree in his yard when he moved in 60 years ago and now there many. He said he is very fond of the South Woods
area and wanted the City to save the area.
The City, he stated, made a commitment to have at least $6 million
available for the acquisition of this property.
He felt that many residents feel the City has let them down. He is in favor of raising the bond issue to
include the full $6 million for the purchase of South Woods.
b)
Charles Brown, Shoreline, outlined he is a retired ecologist and walks
almost everyday in South Woods or the Seattle Public Utilities (SPU)
property. He said he did an evaluation
of both properties based on 13 categories.
He said the South Woods property outweighs the SPU property in twelve of
the categories. He felt the
recommendation to put more funding into the SPU property purchase is incorrect
and there should be more financial emphasis on obtaining the South Woods
property. He said the purchase of South
Woods will be more complicated and involve more parties but South Woods is more
valuable and he wants the City to shift appropriation towards the purchase of
South Woods.
c)
Matt Loper,
d)
Bill Bear, Shoreline, supported the 17 acre South Woods purchase. He said you can’t put a financial value on
South Woods because it is such a great educational resource and sentimental
resource for the families and residents of Shoreline. He urged the Council to proceed with the bond
issue and purchase of the property.
e)
Chris Choich, Shoreline, pointed out the human value of the woods and
the habitat there. He said the habitat
has not been fully studied or understood.
He outlined that he has viewed eagles in South Woods and it is a part of
their habitat. He said he did not want
to see the eagle habitat or South Woods disappear.
f)
Marie Elena McMahon, Shoreline, doesn’t want to see South Woods be sold
to a developer. She outlined that common
sense dictates that urban forests and greenbelts be maintained and are needed
for the environment.
g)
Maryanne Clymer, Shoreline, urged the Council to save South Woods and
said she just wanted to be added to the list of residents in favor of preserving
it.
h)
Carol Danell, Shoreline, said she represents several neighbors in the
Briarcrest neighborhood and they are concerned about losing South Woods to
developers. South Woods offers a natural
setting for birds and small animals and is a natural sanctuary between the
hustle and bustle of
i)
Eric Volkstorf, Shoreline, supported the Kruckeberg and South Woods
acquisitions. Over ten years ago he discovered
the
j)
Laura Brodax, Shoreline, supported the purchase of the
k)
Richard Johnson, Shoreline, stated he did not know about South Woods and
has just recently been educated about it.
Many people don’t know about South Woods, he said. He stated he was impressed with the South
Woods presentation a couple of weeks ago.
He said the City needs to purchase the property. Increasing the bond, if necessary, needs to
be done. This is an opportunity for the
future and he also supported the Kruckeberg acquisition also.
l)
Colin Sleeper, Shoreline, added to the statements concerning eagles in
South Woods. He expressed that he lives
across the street and has also seen hawks and birds of prey in South
Woods. He asked people to take a look at
Issaquah Highlands and the big development there and how all the trees are now
gone. He said the trees in South Woods
give shade and are an asset. He urged
the Council to purchase the property.
m)
Tanya,
Deputy Mayor Jepson moved to
close the public hearing. Councilmember
Ransom seconded the motion, which carried
6-1, with Councilmember Fimia dissenting.
Councilmember
Chang asked why the City can’t purchase all of the eight acres owned by the
school board.
Mr.
Burkett said the City needs to negotiate with them. He said the board stated it will not sell the
City the remaining five acres at a price of $240,000 per acre. The City would have to buy the remaining
property at a higher price.
Councilmember
Chang said the City will have to pay more if we buy 3 acres now and more
property later, so the City should buy all of the property and work to
eliminate this condition.
Mr.
Burkett informed the Council that the property is jointly owned by the school
district and the water district and it needs to be subdivided before it can be
sold.
Mayor
Hansen confirmed that it needs to be partitioned between both owners before it
is sold to the City.
Councilmember
Fimia said the Council has asked several times to have meetings with the school
board and water district. It is time for
the elected officials to talk with them in executive session. She wanted a commitment from the Mayor or
City staff that the meeting be scheduled before the end of the year.
Mayor
Hansen stated the Council can invite them to a meeting and he is in favor of
this.
Councilmember
Chang agreed with Councilmember Fimia that the Council needs to be proactive.
Councilmember Fimia moved to
direct the City Manager to schedule an Executive Session with the Shoreline
School District Board of Directors and the Seattle Public Utilities Board of
Commissioners at the first available
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen said it is a great idea to sit down and discuss this with them
because there is confusion concerning this issue. Neither the school board nor the water
district has had a public hearing concerning the disposition on the entire
site. He felt the Council or City staff
should meet with the two organizations.
He suggested the motion be changed to reflect that the City is not going
to acquire all of the parcels at South Woods.
He outlined that if the intent of the motion is only to discuss
acquisition he cannot support it. If the
intent of the motion is based on a broader intention on how the City and the
two districts as three public agencies preserve the property in the public domain,
then he will support it.
Councilmember
Grace said he heard there were opportunities for partnerships and that is the
direction in which he would like to proceed.
All agencies involved need to work together on this.
Councilmember
Gustafson agreed with the motion and felt the partnership is the way to do it.
Mr.
Burkett suggested the Council conduct this discussion in an executive session.
Councilmember
Fimia agreed but said the Council needs to make the commitment. The intent is to keep the entire parcel
within the public domain, she said.
A vote was taken on the
motion, which carried unanimously.
Councilmember
Fimia discussed the option of revising the project amounts in the bond proposal
in case more funding is needed to purchase South Woods. She identified that the amount for
Councilmember
Gustafson commented that the basic premise of the Bond Advisory Committee was that
funds could be moved around to different projects depending upon what the
Council felt was necessary. He suggested
the Council move on to the budget portion of the meeting. He apologized for being late and commented
that
9. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a)
Presentation of the 2006 Budget
Mr.
Burkett commented that the Council had reviewed all of their own budget items
at the last meeting and solicited comments prior to covering the City Manager’s
budget.
Councilmember
Fimia requested the job descriptions for the 6.0 FTEs in the City Manager’s
budget.
Ms.
Tarry reviewed the City Clerk budget which reflects a $25,000 increase based on
changes in salary and increased costs in facilities for Council meetings and
audio/visual recording services.
Councilmember
Ransom asked why there is a drop in the number of records provided, yet the
budget for the department is higher.
Ms.
Tarry outlined that the City Clerk position is in a higher salary range in 2006
and the other increases are related to salary increases in line with the City’s
compensation plan. Additionally, the
operating rental costs for renting the Council meeting facility and the
audiovisual services have also increased.
Councilmember
Fimia thanked the City Clerk’s office for the job well done concerning on-line
recordkeeping and asked about the new
Councilmember
Fimia requested a meeting with City staff and any other interested Council
members to identify what documents are maintained at the libraries and how to
inform the residents they are there.
This will reduce staff time if residents know they can get these
documents at the libraries.
Moving
on to the Communications and Intergovernmental Relations budget, Ms. Tarry
highlighted a reduction in the budget for this department because there were
items carried over which are not carried over to 2006.
Responding
to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Tarry identified the 3.5 FTEs in the department as
being the director, the neighborhood coordinator, the communications
specialist, and a part time administrative assistant. She noted that beginning on page 85 of the
2006 proposed budget the City staff position titles and FTE allocations are
listed.
Councilmember
Grace inquired about the $15,000 reduction in the neighborhood budget for 2006
and whether it would affect services. He
also said he would like to see actual targets listed in the CIR areas to see if
performance measures are reached.
Ms.
Tarry responded that there was $12,000 in grants carried over from 2004 into
2005 that did not carry over into 2006.
Councilmember
Ransom commented that Ms. Nichols attends almost all of the Council meetings
and there is no indicator in her workload as it pertains to meetings
attended. He felt it should be included
in the critical success factors. Mr.
Burkett replied the measure used is based on outcomes and the results derived from
the workload.
Councilmember
Fimia added that the indicators need to be more concrete. She suggested that the indicators in this
proposed budget are more subjective than objective. She is opposed to spending $25,000 on another
citizen survey because the questions are different every time so no progress
can be tracked. A year ago, she
explained, there was a public process committee that outlined that there was
interested in town hall meetings and studying the programming on the Government
Access Channel. She asked for a City
staff report on the status of the neighborhood organizations.
Mr.
Burkett said he would provide the report to the Council.
Continuing
her presentation, Ms. Tarry said the 2006 Human Services budget is less than
the 2005 budget because of continued one-time funding of $62,113.
Referring
to page 121, Councilmember Grace said he would like to know why the targets are
set the way they are. He said he would
rather see the percentage of service goals met by our contractors increasing
every year.
Councilmember
Ransom said there will be cutbacks in the areas of Human Services and the City
should consider increasing the General Fund contribution towards 2%.
Councilmember
Fimia added that the Human Services Ad Hoc Subcommittee identified that 1 in 5
people in Shoreline are living at the low income poverty level or below. City staff did some good work on what levels
of service exist and what levels are needed as far as housing, healthcare, and
food assistance. These should be tracked
as success factors. She announced she
will be proposing to the Council to allocate more funds to social services and
hopes to get support to target those programs that bring the most benefit.
Councilmember
Ransom questioned what was being done about education and the adult literacy
issue. He inquired if the City is
assisting people with high school diplomas.
He also asked if the Center for Human Services (CHS) was still an
educational clinic preparing people for GED diplomas.
Mr.
Beem said the Center for Human Services (CHS) handles family literacy
programs. CHS has also worked with
HopeLink and provides intense case management services, which includes teaching
job skills. This also includes tutoring
for school age children. Unfortunately,
he said the education clinic was closed due to the elimination of state
funding.
Councilmember
Fimia suggested allocating a small amount of funding to do assessment and
planning on Fircrest with the State and County.
She felt it is time for the City to take some initiative in Fircrest. Her second suggestion is for a small grants
program of $500 - $4,900 for youth services.
Ms.
Tarry highlighted the information on page 122 which details grants associated
with the Human Services budget.
Continuing,
Ms. Tarry stated the City Attorney’s Office budget is increasing by
approximately 5% in 2006 because the Domestic Violence Victim Advocacy (DVVA)
services are being transferred to the prosecuting attorney’s contract. In addition, the Assistant City Attorney
position is presently at 0.75 FTE and in 2006 it has been proposed that it be a
full-time position. In comparing city
attorney services from other comparable municipalities, Shoreline is $9 per
capita, which is the lowest amount of all comparable cities. The City Attorney’s Office also has the
lowest staffing level of all comparable cities.
Councilmember
Fimia asked if the information included the all outside legal counsel
contracts. Ms. Tarry responded that it
did.
Referring
to page 127, Councilmember Grace inquired about the $36,600 increase under
“other services and charges”.
Ms.
Tarry explained it represents the DVVA services being transferred from a staff
person to the prosecuting attorney’s office contract.
Councilmember
Ransom asked if the intent is for the prosecuting attorney to handle domestic violence cases. He commented that when these cases are
prosecutor-driven they tend to favor prosecution rather than resolving issues
through counseling.
Councilmember
Ransom inquired why the cities of
Mr.
Sievers said the numbers are a little misleading because they include the
prosecution FTEs. Shoreline’s 3.0 FTEs
under contract in the prosecutor’s office are not counted as a part of the
total.
Mr.
Burkett commented that the cost per capita of
Councilmember
Fimia requested the underlying data so she can take a look at this more
closely.
Ms.
Tarry outlined the Finance Department budget on page 15 of the
presentation. Major revisions in the
finance budget, she said, include putting $187,000 in contingency for future
PERS rate increases. Second, the salary
survey is complete and implementation will cost $64,000, which also would be placed
in contingency. The next increase
concerns $99,000 for anticipated election costs related to the 2006 Capital
Improvement Bond Issue. Also, $50,000 is
proposed to be reserved for a vacation buyout program. Another recommended change is to hire and staff
the network specialist position instead of having an outside contract, which
results in a savings of $30,000. Major
budget changes include adding the network specialist position ($54,000), the
vacation buyout ($50,000), compensation increases under the City’s compensation
plan ($31,000), benefits, which also are attributed to the network specialist
addition, and computer equipment supplies.
Councilmember
Ransom asked if there was any discussion about a sick leave buyout program. He
also inquired who manages issues related to health insurance, life insurance,
and workers compensation.
Ms.
Tarry responded that there is no recommendation to add sick leave to the buyout
program. She said the Association of
Washington Cities (AWC) handles the benefits and the Washington Cities
Insurance Authority (WCIA) deals with insurance issues.
Councilmember
Fimia requested a full cost breakdown by each City department of professional
services, travel, dues, and advertising for 2004 through 2006. Additionally, she asked staff to identify the
anticipated $57,000 line item for professional services in the City Manager’s
budget.
Referring
to page 143, Councilmember Grace asked for an explanation of the decrease in
the implementation of the Information Technology strategic plan.
Ms.
Tarry replied that this reduction follows the 2004 – 2006 Council plan, which
focuses on the information integration aspect of the City’s business
operations.
Councilmember
Ransom asked was about the drop in the month-end closings rating for the years
2004 and 2005. Ms. Tarry explained that
there was some employee turnover. The
turnover caused some slowdown in the month-end closings.
MEETING
EXTENSION
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to
extend the meeting until
Ms.
Tarry said the Human Resource budget decreased slightly from last year.
Councilmember
Ransom wanted to know what training programs were being conducted. He also wanted to know how much time the
director was spending on both training and benefit programs.
Mr.
Burkett noted he would provide that information to the Council.
Ms.
Tarry reported that there were no significant changes in the Customer Response
Team (CRT) budget, only a change in work effort. There are some shifts to devote more time to
code enforcement.
Councilmember
Fimia questioned why the 2003 and 2004 customer request numbers are not
listed. Also, she inquired why the
customer requests for service went up from 2004 to 2005.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen commented that the Council has done a lot of work to increase Code
enforcement but the numbers in the budget seem to be status quo. He said he was expecting an increase to
reflect the policy work the Council adopted.
Mr.
Burkett said the data is found in the annual CRT report. The revisions in the Code enforcement may not
be realized because the system is complaint-based as opposed to sending staff
out to find violations.
Councilmember
Fimia requested an estimate concerning the cost of implementing a litter
control effort. This option would mostly
be staffed by volunteers, but organized by the City. She asked about other cities’ expenditures
for litter control and maintenance. She
also inquired about a quarterly clean-up program in the City and an
Adopt-a-Road program. She expressed
concern about the amount of litter in the City.
Councilmember
Gustafson added that the City should also consider an Adopt-a-Park program.
Mayor
Hansen reported that the Spring/Fall Clean-up program was hugely successful,
but the City also needs to address the litter problem on the streets.
Councilmember
Ransom commented that community service crews are more effective than handing
out fines.
Ms.
Tarry noted that the budget for the Police Department is $8.1 million dollars,
which represents a $272,000 (3.5%) increase from 2005. $7.8 million is for a contract the City has
with
Referring
to page 164, Deputy Mayor Jepsen asked for explanation on the drop in the
revenues for traffic enforcement.
Mr.
Burkett said the drop is related to negotiations with
Mayor
Hansen commented that the feedback he is getting from the residents is that
enforcement needs to be increased.
Councilmember
Grace inquired what the cost would be for another full-time traffic enforcer.
Chief
Burtt replied it would cost $128,000 for a fully-equipped officer with vehicle.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen stated that one of the things that is not in the contract is the
ratio of administrative FTEs to contract FTEs.
He said it appears based on the funding that the City has six
administrative FTEs to 42 patrol officer FTEs.
He requested that the staff clarify if this ratio is correct. He also pointed out that last year during the
budget process he suggested the City need to revise the way it handles traffic
enforcement. He said last year he wanted more emphasis on
speeders in the neighborhoods but did not get any support from the
Council. He urged the Council to support
him this year and wondered if the number of administrative FTEs are
appropriate.
Mr.
Burkett commented that other cities have higher ratios than we do. He said he will provide information on the
FTEs to the Council.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen asked about the School Resource Officer Program funding and
confirmed it was split with the school district.
Chief
Burtt noted there were five contract administrative FTEs in the Police
Department.
Councilmember
Chang confirmed that the biggest issue in Shoreline is speeding in all
neighborhoods. He asked if all 42 FTEs
can serve as traffic control officers.
He felt there are few people speeding all of the time, and reasoned that
maybe the officers can rotate between their duties and patrol. Perhaps after the Council and the Police
Department target this as a priority issue it will stop being a problem.
Mr.
Burtt said the dedicated traffic unit prioritizes areas and tries to minimize
traffic accidents. He has noticed that
traffic complaints have gone up significantly in terms of the amount of time
spent in neighborhoods. The patrol unit
is equipped with radar and has been emphasizing traffic enforcement as much as
possible in these neighborhoods.
Councilmember
Ransom inquired what the line item “teen recreation” was for in the Police
budget.
Chief
Burtt replied it is for the overtime expenditures for the officers that staff
the various teen program events.
Councilmember
Ransom pointed out that there used to be two dedicated traffic motorcycle
officers. He felt there is not enough
neighborhood traffic enforcement.
Mr.
Burtt said whenever there is a traffic complaint the officers try to make three
separate visits to the neighborhood in question and spend at least 30 minutes
each visit. Frequently, there is little
speeding going on but the department still tries to be responsive. He felt there should be a balance between
officers’ responsiveness to neighborhoods and spending time in high-volume
trouble areas by reducing accidents, slowing people down, and being active in
school zones.
Referring
to page 167, Councilmember Ransom noted there is no target for measuring
effectiveness. There have been a higher
number of complaints that the police are unapproachable and not customer
service-oriented. He agreed with Deputy
Mayor Jepsen that the City needs another officer in the traffic unit. He noted that 185 drug houses were closed
when the street crime investigations unit had 4.5 officers. The unit also lowered burglaries. Currently, the burglaries and auto thefts
have increased. Just recently, he said
he received a statement from Carol Cummings, Chief of Transit Police in the
Sheriff’s Office, that outlined the State of
Councilmember
Fimia commented that the Council can make amendments to this administrative
proposal. The level of discontent with
traffic safety is serious in the City and there is more we can do about it. She agreed that Council needs to take some
action, possibly issuing a proviso, and letting the neighborhoods know that the
Council is taking this seriously.
Councilmember
Ransom added that speed bumps might resolve some of the speeding issues.
Councilmember
Gustafson pointed out that he received a call last week from a resident that
was upset that an officer was conducting radar enforcement near his house
instead of by the school zones.
Ms.
Tarry commented that the Criminal Justice budget pertains to jail and public
defender costs, noting that the 2006 budget shows these costs are
declining. However, there is an increase
in the number of jail days the City has been billed for compared to the
previous two years. The City may need to
revisit the 2006 jail costs projection.
The transition from King County Jail to Yakima Jail is occurring and the
City is utilizing the minimum days in
Councilmember
Ransom expressed concern about bed days and the costs at the Yakima Jail. He said the costs in
Mr.
Burkett replied that there are other options, but the City committed to 18 beds
for the costs outlined in the contract.
Mr.
Olander stated the Yakima County Jail Administrator did a study of the process
and agreed to honor their obligations with the City.
Councilmember
Fimia questioned why crime in Shoreline is increasing when it is not occurring
in cities adjacent to Shoreline. She
felt if social services are not funded then crime rises, and there is a
correlation between poverty and crime.
Mr.
Olander said that jail days were fairly constant over the past seven years and
the City is not arresting more people.
However, the seriousness of the crimes and the length of the sentences
are increasing.
Councilmember
Ransom inquired if there were new judges making decisions on the City’s
misdemeanant cases.
Mr.
Sievers replied the City has had and will have the same elected judges through
2006.
Mr.
Olander added that repeat offenders get longer sentences. He suspected that is what is occurring in
some of the cases.
Councilmember
Fimia felt that this means that somewhere in the system defendants are not
getting the assistance they need. If the
basic services aren’t there, then the City is spending more money putting them
in jail, and this need to be prevented.
Councilmember
Chang suggested the Council get the underlying data regarding the arrests.
Mr.
Olander stated that the courthouse information lags behind about 1-1.5 months,
so these statistics are relatively new.
Ms.
Tarry outlined that the Economic Development focus has changed a little due
to the emphasis on small businesses. A
proposed business licensing program, slated to be implemented in the second
quarter of 2006, should generate approximately $95,000 in revenue.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At
/S/