CITY
OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
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) Proclamation
of Eagle Scout Week
Mayor
Hansen read the proclamation recognizing those who have earned the rank of
Eagle Scout and their contributions to the Shoreline community. Dick Deal, Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services Director, commended the scouts who have worked on service projects in
the parks for their efforts to make Shoreline a better place to live.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Steve Burkett, City Manager,
commented that this is the last scheduled Council meeting of the year.
Councilmember Grace thanked City staff for its assistance throughout the
year.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: none
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, agreed
with the Council’s decision to proceed with the feasibility study on the
(b) Caralee Cook, Shoreline, concurred with the previous
speaker regarding the
(c) Keith
McGlashan, Shoreline, thanked the Council for its
decision to pursue the
(d) Patty
Crawford, Shoreline, said everyone would be more supportive of the
(e)
Viola Gay, Shoreline, commented on the lack of accountability in the
King County Sheriff’s Office. She
explained that she has not received a response or acknowledgment of an official
complaint she filed with the Internal Affairs Department. She encouraged the City to consider having
its own police department with a civilian oversight review board to ensure
accountability to the public. She said
her requests for information have been denied numerous times, and that failure
to acknowledge receipt of her complaints or investigate her claims constitutes
police corruption. She said she has many
signed statements that demonstrate the King County Sheriff’s Department
believes it is above the law.
(f)
Tom Ruhlman, Shoreline, thanked everyone involved
in finding a solution to the flooding problem on
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Grace moved
approval of the agenda. Deputy Mayor Jepsen seconded the motion, asking that the minutes of the
regular meeting of November 22 be pulled.
A vote was taken on the motion and the amended agenda was unanimously
approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember
Grace moved approval of the consent calendar as amended. Deputy Mayor Jepsen
seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, and the following consent calendar
items were approved:
Minutes of Special Meeting of
Minutes of Dinner Meeting of
Approval of expenses and payroll for the period ending
Motion to authorize the City Manager to
executive a contract supplement for professional services for Phase II design
of the Richmond Beach Overcrossing Bridge Replacement
Project in an amount not to exceed $225,000; and to execute a local agency
agreement supplement to obligate federal grant monies for Phase II design
Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute
an Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement to join in a Shared
Architects and Engineers Roster with the City of Lynnwood
Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute
a contract with Onsite PC Care in an amount not to exceed $212,000 to provide
network and Help Desk services to the Information Technology Division through
December 2006
8. ACTION ITEM:
PUBLIC HEARING
(a)
Public hearing to consider citizens comments on the Comprehensive
Plan 2004 Update and the master plans for Transportation, Surface Water and
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Mr. Burkett noted that this
is the first of two public hearings scheduled for the Comprehensive Plan
update.
Tim Stewart, Planning and
Development Services Director, provided a brief background on the public
process involved in updating the Comprehensive Plan. He said staff expects the public hearing to
be continued into January, and that the plan would be updated with any
additional comments.
Mayor Hansen opened the
public hearing.
(a)
Virginia Paulsen,
Shoreline, commented that the Council’s closed executive session on the
proposed City Hall site was not a transparent process because residents and
business owners did not have a chance to provide input before the decision was
made. She said representative democracy
requires transparency with respect to decisions, policies, and projects funded
with taxpayer dollars. She said the
problem with the Comprehensive Plan is that there are major projects (
(b)
She
asked how City Hall, utilities, and other capital projects fit into the overall
plan. She noted that page 111 of the
matrix encourages “the use of ecologically sound site design in ways to enhance
the provision of utility services through measures such as drought tolerant
vegetation, natural buffer, and solar orientation,” but it does not
specifically refer to any particular project.
She feared the plan as written approves using huge amounts of taxpayer
money for undefined projects. She said
average citizens want to know where their money is going and have difficulty
understanding how all this information fits together in the plan.
(c)
Brian Derdowski,
(d)
Peter Henry,
Shoreline, commented on the ambitious scope of the Comprehensive Plan and on
the opportunity to provide comment on what the plan will look like. He was concerned that the plan is too general
and does not include long-term projects such as City Hall. He said he is not personally convinced that
the City needs to build a new City Hall. He felt the public should be the final
arbiter on the decision and scope of City Hall through the bond issue process.
(e)
Patty Crawford,
Shoreline, questioned the timing of these updates, noting that code changes and
Comprehensive Plan amendments always seem to be considered at the summer break
or winter holidays. She urged the City to
correct the mistakes it made in its code changes before considering the
Comprehensive Plan. She described
deficiencies in the public participation process that prevented citizens from
actively participating. She said
workshops were held at inconvenient times, and that citizen comments were not
considered during workshop business. She
said the matrix does not identify changes made by the public, emphasizing that
the public is supposed to be updating its Comprehensive Plan. She said the proposed changes to the
Comprehensive Plan conflict drastically with Superior Court orders regarding
Thornton Creek.
(f)
Mark Deutsch,
Shoreline, said he views the Comprehensive Plan update within the three-part
framework of a strong community (citizens), economic development (business),
and the environment. He said while he is
generally pleased with most of the changes, he would like to see more emphasis
on the natural environment. He felt
environmental goals should be reflected in the City’s critical success factors
and the Council work plan, commenting that the 2004 budget did not have such an
environmental focus. He said areas for
improvement include public participation and the sequencing of work. He felt
the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was not well integrated with the
Comprehensive Plan update to properly account for the public’s priorities
relative to the Transportation Master Plan.
He said it is difficult to understand the range and magnitude of such
projects when there is no subtotal of identified capital projects. He emphasized the importance of updating the
Development Code as quickly as possible after the Comprehensive Plan is adopted
so that the goals and policies are consistent with actual practice.
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor Jepsen,
seconded by Councilmember Gustafson and unanimously carried, the public hearing
was continued until January 10, 2005.
Councilmember Fimia commented
that she would likely request that the public hearing be kept open until
(b) City
Council Staff Support
Councilmember Ransom moved that the Council keep
the 8-hour rule which allows a Councilmember up to eight hours per month for
research on issues. Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion.
Councilmember Gustafson
wondered if other cities have a similar practice. Councilmember Ransom said the 8-hour rule is
based on
Councilmember Fimia supported
the motion, noting that eight hours per month is a reasonable amount of time
for preliminary research. She explained
that while she worked to reduce the overall amount of staff at
Mayor Hansen asked the City
Attorney if state law addresses the issue of staff support in a council-manager
form of government.
Councilmember Fimia said the
issue is whether Councilmembers should be required to get Council approval for
preliminary research, as the City Manager has suggested. She felt it would be unreasonable to require
Council approval for every minor research request. She emphasized the importance of timing,
noting that sometimes it would cause excessive delay to get Council approval on
every issue.
Mr. Burkett said the key
issue is the distinction between a routine request for information and a major
research effort requiring many hours of staff time. He noted that many issues have been
successfully researched in the past, so he did not especially feel there was a
problem with the current system. He
concurred that state law provides that staff work for the City Manager, who in
turn works for the Council in a council-manager form of government. He felt it would not be consistent with state
law if every Councilmember were contacting various City staff to do
research. He favored the one-page memo
approach that would notify the Council of the resources it would take to
fulfill a substantial request. He said
there have only been two cases in which he denied Councilmember Ransom’s
request because he felt they were substantial commitments of time and
staff. However, he would fulfill such
requests with Council approval.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen said he preferred to maintain the informal process
of having Councilmembers work with the City Manager. He believed Councilmembers could always bring
their issues to the full Council if they felt the City Manager was not being
responsive.
Councilmember Grace felt the
informal practice has worked fairly well to this point. He said making Council aware of more complex
research items not only allows it to decide whether the resources should be
used, but it also helps identify potential deficiencies related to staff
allocation.
Councilmember Chang supported
the motion, noting that the Council already knows the scope of work under the
8-hour rule, so anything above it would automatically come to the Council for
consideration. He agreed that timing is
critical, since it could take an excessive amount of time for four Councilmembers to approve a given request. He felt the 8-hour rule has not been abused
or misused in the past. However, he felt
there is a greater potential for abuse if it remains an informal process.
Councilmember Gustafson
supported an informal process, noting that the Council establishes goals and
gives the City Manager authority to work towards those goals. He felt the City Manager is the one to make
judgments about staff allocations. He
supported the one-page memo approach, emphasizing the importance of using
resources wisely and directing requests through the City Manager.
Mayor Hansen said he would
not feel comfortable asking staff to do substantial work without the support of
other Councilmembers.
He considered the separation between staff and the Council as very
important. He also felt that 8 hours is
an unreasonable amount of time for staff to research an issue without the
support of other Councilmembers. He said he has always been able to either get
information or support from the Council on important issues.
Councilmember Fimia clarified that the motion does not propose to
circumvent the City Manager’s office.
She identified two occasions in which her requests for draft language
for potential legislation were denied, explaining that she merely wanted to
offer them to the Council as potential agenda items. She pointed out that it sometimes takes two
weeks for Councilmembers to receive correspondence,
and often they only receive it after the Mayor has already sent a
response. She said staff has generally
been very helpful in providing Councilmembers with
information on issues that are “on the table,” but there are times when Councilmembers need assistance with new issues. She said she is not comfortable with the
informal process that leaves the City Manager vulnerable to charges that he is
not being fair. She urged the Council to
vote for the motion, noting that it would help clarify the process.
Councilmember Ransom pointed
out that the 8-hour rule was never formally adopted or written down, so it has
served primarily as an informal guideline.
He felt the rule should be formally adopted in order to clarify current
practice. He reiterated that he has
never used the 8-hour rule more than twice per year. He said the present system is deficient
because the City Manager can selectively approve or disapprove anything he
wishes. He reiterated that the 8-hour
rule allowed him to do the preliminary research that resulted in cost-saving
programs for the City.
Councilmember Chang brought
up the issue of whose judgment has more value, a member of the Council or the
City Manager’s. He felt that Councilmembers should be able to make the judgment when
they ask staff to look into something they believe will help the City. He affirmed his support of the motion.
Mayor Hansen said if the City
Manager denied his request, he would either try to get Council support for the
issue or assume his request was “out of bounds.”
Councilmember Ransom pointed
out that even simple requests can take several months to appear on a Council
agenda, noting that he requested this agenda item over three months ago.
Councilmember Fimia’s understanding of the original motion was that the
8-hour rule would apply to requests for initial research and drafting
legislation.
Mayor Hansen felt that
requests for draft legislation should require Council approval.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen noted that he receives Council correspondence well
before the Mayor drafts a response. It
was his understanding that this was the current practice.
Councilmember Grace said his
support of the 8-hour rule would be contingent upon all requests being directed
to the City Manager. He noted that the
City Manager is the City’s executive officer and staff supervisor, so it is
only proper to direct requests through him.
Councilmember Gustafson opposed
the motion, noting that the Council has always used the informal process
without difficulty. He felt that someone
on staff should be able to determine the appropriateness of requests, and that
person is the City Manager. He said each
Councilmember has received help on reasonable requests that are germane to the
City’s goals.
Mr. Burkett pointed out the
distinction between policy initiatives and requests for information. He noted that each year the Council has a
retreat to determine priorities and focus the agenda for the year. He said the reason for this approach is to
try and stay focused on issues the majority of the Council want
to pursue. He felt it would not be
effective if Councilmembers are directing staff to
pursue new policy initiatives that might possibly have conflicting
purposes. He felt the purpose of the
council-manager system is for the Council to set the policy agenda and for the
City Manager to implement it.
Responding to Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmember Ransom noted that in his experience,
almost all the correspondence he has received has already been answered by the
Mayor. He said usually he has no input
on the response, and sometimes it takes three weeks from the time a letter is
stamped-in at City Hall for him to receive it.
He said he would like to be able to send personal letters that address
the concerns he feels are important, but in almost no case does he get a letter
before it’s already been answered. He
recalled only one case in which he was able to change the content of a response
letter.
Mayor Hansen noted that each
Councilmember has a right to draft individual response letters. He pointed out that Councilmembers
receive their mail on Mondays, but they can retrieve their mail earlier at City
Hall if they wish. He said most letters
he receives are pre-screened by the City and include a draft response, which he
then modifies to fit his individual style.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen said he supports Councilmember Fimia
and Councilmember Ransom if they are not receiving letters when they first
arrive. He wished to ensure that all Councilmembers are getting the same treatment.
A vote was taken on the amendment, which carried
6-1, with Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen felt this would be more reasonable than seven Councilmembers making twelve requests per year.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia, Deputy Mayor Jepsen clarified that his motion
is for up to 16 hours per Councilmember per year, not necessarily a
predetermined number of requests.
Councilmember Ransom said
although his request was somewhat larger, he felt he could support the motion
in order to create a definite policy.
A vote was taken on the substitute motion, which
carried 5-2, with Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION
9. ADJOURNMENT
At
_________________________