CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Monday, June 11, 2001
7:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Hansen, Councilmembers Grossman, Lee, Montgomery and Ransom
ABSENT: Councilmember Gustafson
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exception of Councilmember Gustafson.
Councilmember Montgomery moved to excuse Councilmember Gustafson. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and Councilmember Gustafson was excused.
Mayor Jepsen recognized that Councilmember Lee received a Master's Degree in Business Administration from the University of Washington. He commended her for this accomplishment while serving on the City Council.
(a) Proclamation of High School Fastpitch Softball Week
Mayor Jepsen proclaimed the week of June 10, 2001 as High School Fastpitch Softball Week to recognize that the Shorecrest Women's Fastpitch Softball Team won the State Championship May 26. He presented the proclamation to Coach Kristie Oglesby and members of the team. A video reprising the championship game was played.
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
City Manager Steve Burkett recommended the following changes to the agenda:
1) change Item 7(f) from a consent calendar item to an action item; 2) postpone item 8(a) for two weeks; and 3) if Council wishes, change item 8(b) from an action item to a consent calendar item.
Mr. Burkett discussed the June 14 Aurora Corridor Project Open House.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Bill Bear, 2541 NE 165th Street, provided copies of the Briarcrest Neighborhood Association newsletter. He encouraged Council to continue to listen to the community.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Lee moved to approve the agenda with the following changes:
1) postponement of Item 8(a) for two weeks until June 25; 2) removal of Item 7(f) to become a new Item 8(a); and 3) placement of Item 8(b), Ordinance No. 275, on the consent calendar. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the agenda, as amended, was approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Montgomery moved approval of the consent calendar as amended. Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the following items were approved:
Minutes of the Dinner Meeting of May 29, 2001
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 29, 2001Approval of expenses and payroll as of May 25, 2001 in the amount of $ 629,764.03
Resolution No. 174 approving a §401 Money Purchase Plan under ICMA Account Number 7576 for the City Manager
Resolution No. 175 approving an amendment to the §401 Money Purchase Plan established for all employees under Nationwide Life Insurance Company Contract No. 013-05329 to provide loans
Ordinance No. 274 granting Shoreline Water District a franchise to operate a water system within the City of Shoreline
Ordinance No. 275 revising regulation of security devices (alarms); and repealing Shoreline Municipal Code 9.10.360
8. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a supplement to the existing Design Services Contract with CH2MHill for final design of the first phase of the Aurora Avenue Corridor Project in an amount not to exceed $2,100,000 and to authorize the City Manager to execute contract change orders up to 10% of this amount
Mr. Burkett reviewed the history of the Aurora Corridor Project, which has included ten meetings of the Citizens Advisory Task Force (CATF), seven open houses, four block meetings and discussions during 13 City Council meetings. Staff anticipates that final design will run through October 2002. He explained staff’s intent to coordinate the final design with the additional environmental review and not to proceed past the 60 percent design portion of the project if environmental issues arise that are not resolved as part of the design.
Public Works Director Bill Conner reviewed the staff report. He said the Aurora Corridor Project will be about a $75 million project, with the first phase being about one-third of the cost. He noted that staff submitted the documented Categorical Exclusion (CE) to the Local Programs Agency at the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) on May 11. He went on to discuss the schedule for the environmental process of the Aurora Corridor Project. He said the biological assessment under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is running concurrently with the start of the final design process—as are the right-of-way coordination and the beginning of utility design. He explained the plan to begin right-of-way acquisition in July with completion in January 2003. Right-of-way acquisition is contingent upon sufficient environmental analysis and final design work.
Mr. Burkett discussed comments about the Aurora Corridor Project that he has heard during his first month as City Manager. He noted support for the project among Council of Neighborhoods representatives.
Continuing, Mr. Burkett discussed input he received from representatives of the Aurora Improvement Council (AIC) and Concerned Citizens for Shoreline during a meeting June 5. The groups assert that the City is not listening to their concerns. Their key issues include: opposition to the proposed 12-foot width of the sidewalks and landscaping; a preference for a continuous two-way left-turn lane to the proposed continuous landscaped median; and impacts to businesses and the City. Mr. Burkett said Walt Hagen advises that 72 businesses along Aurora Avenue between 145th Street and 165th Street oppose the Aurora Corridor Project.
Mr. Burkett asserted a lack of significant environmental impacts of the Aurora Corridor Project. He said staff intends to meet with each business and property owner who may be affected by the project. He encouraged business and property owners to contact Project Manager Anne Tonella-Howe.
Finally, Mr. Burkett referenced additional language that staff has proposed as part of the motion to authorize the supplement to the existing design service contract.
Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.
(1) Myron Phillips, Richmond Highlands Veterinary Hospital, 18019 Aurora Avenue N, identified himself as AIC Co-Chair. He read a letter that AIC received that was written by Elizabeth Healy, Transportation and Environmental Engineer, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to Douglas B. MacDonald, WSDOT, noting that the FHWA is requiring a public hearing on the project and considering "whether it is appropriate to change [the project] from a Class II project to a Class III project as a result of public controversy."
(2) John Chang, Quest Inn, 14817 Aurora Avenue N, opposed the Aurora Corridor Project as designed. He said he has visited 36 merchants, all clearly against the project. None of them have been visited by the City, including himself. He said business, government and citizens must work together, and he hoped Council would take this approach.
(3) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Avenue N, discussed a map showing Aurora Avenue business owners opposed to the Aurora Corridor Project as currently designed. He stated that lack of opposition is a prerequisite for a CE. He asserted that the CE is inappropriate given the significant opposition.
(4) Cindy Ryu, Allstate Insurance, 15215 Aurora Avenue N, opposed funding of the final design of the Aurora Corridor Project at this time. She said she dislikes the proposed design, especially the 15-foot median.
(5) Dennis Lee, 14547 26th Avenue NE, identified himself as President of Concerned Citizens for Shoreline. He advocated that Council table the vote for funding the final design. He said the City has not contacted businesses on Aurora Avenue. He questioned preparation of the final design while the City is still accepting comments from the public. He urged Council to consider statistics concerning traffic flow, traffic accidents, pedestrian safety and bus ridership.
(6) Randy Ferrell, Ferrell-Penning General Contractors, 17510 Aurora Avenue N, recommended an independent study of the economic impacts of the proposed design. He advocated that Council postpone further funding for the proposed design until after Council and citizens have considered such a study.
(7) Kevin Reeve, General Manager, Carter Suburu, 17225 Aurora Avenue N, said his business could lose all of its new car display space and as much as 20 percent of its used car display space, depending upon the final design of the Aurora Corridor Project. He said the resulting decrease in car sales will result in job losses. He expressed concern about the cost of maintaining the proposed landscaping.
(8) Kristina Stimson, 2155 NW 201st Street, asserted safety as the most important priority for improving Aurora Avenue. She commented that the proposed design does not improve the poor safety ratings of the intersections on Aurora Avenue. She advocated grade separation of north-south and east-west traffic at least at one or two intersections.
(9) Bill Bear, 2541 NE 165th Street, discussed the environmental impact of accommodating more traffic on Aurora Avenue. He questioned the representativeness of the Council of Neighborhoods. He said many of the representatives on the Council of Neighborhoods have not interacted with their neighbors for a long time.
(10) Rick Stephens, 18005 Aurora Avenue N, said the City has ignored the concerns he has raised about the Aurora Corridor Project. He commented that he and other business owners support the improvement of Aurora Avenue but oppose the proposed design.
(11) Jerilee Noffsinger, 14731 Aurora Avenue N, represented businesses in her complex in opposition to the proposed design of the Aurora Corridor Project.
(12) Claudia Newman, Bricklin and Gendler, LLP, 1424 4th Avenue, identified herself as the attorney for the AIC. She stated the AIC request that Council table the decision on the final design contract. She said approving the final design contract before obtaining input contradicts the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
(13) Patty Crawford, 2326 N 155th Street, represented Twin Ponds Fish Friends. Referring to the SEPA Threshold Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the Walgreens at 14510 Aurora Avenue N, she said the Aurora Corridor Project will affect Thornton Creek. She stated that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) considers Thornton Creek a Chinook salmon stream. She asserted that the Aurora Corridor Project must take Thornton Creek into account.
(14) Clark Elster, 1720 NE 177th Street, stated that CH2MHill has based studies on incomplete traffic data from WSDOT. He said the proposed Aurora Corridor Project will result in worse levels of service at key intersections on Aurora Avenue. He advocated the separation of east-west and north-south traffic.
(15) Tim Crawford, 2326 N 155th Street, opposed funding the final design of the Aurora Corridor Project before considering the environmental impacts of the project.
(16) Edsel Hammond, 18541 Burke Avenue N, opposed the proposed design of the Aurora Corridor Project and expressed concerns about traffic flow.
(17) Walt Hagen, 711 N 193rd Street, asked who at WSDOT received the CE from the City. He disputed the assertion that the Aurora Corridor Project lacks significant environmental issues and said there is no mention in the CE of traffic impacts on any street other than Aurora Avenue. He stated that the addition of four traffic lights on Aurora Avenue will slow traffic and that drivers will seek faster routes using neighborhood side streets. He said Council is failing the primary directive of the Comprehensive Plan to maintain the quality of Shoreline’s neighborhoods. He questioned whether public input will matter at the Aurora Corridor Open House.
(18) Russ McCurdy, 17532 Aurora Avenue N, said the AIC has repeatedly stated its willingness to support a more modest version of the Aurora Corridor Project. He reiterated the AIC recommendation of an independent study of the economic impacts of the project, including the costs to acquire and relocate businesses and lost jobs and tax revenues. He felt such a study will disclose costs in "millions of dollars" that have been "hidden from the taxpayers." He requested that Council vote to table the motion to fund the final design.
(19) David Carver, 18526 Burke Avenue N, asked how the proposed design will affect the ability of the fire and police departments to respond to emergencies. He opposed the proposed project design.
(20) Janet Way, 940 NE 147th Street, represented Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund and supported the suggestion that Council table the motion to fund the final design. She disputed the assertion that the Aurora Corridor Project lacks significant environmental impacts.
(21) Julia Elster, 14721 1st Avenue NE, stated that Council should listen to Shoreline residents and business owners about what needs to be done in Shoreline.
Councilmember Montgomery moved to authorize the City Manager to execute a supplement to the existing Design Services Contract with CH2MHill for final design of the first phase of the Aurora Avenue Corridor Project in an amount not to exceed $2,100,000 and to authorize the City Manager to execute contract change orders up to 10% of this amount. Councilmember Grossman seconded the motion.
Councilmember Lee disputed the assertion that the City does not care about existing businesses on Aurora Avenue. She requested information about the CE submission. Mr. Conner discussed the three levels of environmental review under NEPA. The most stringent review, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), is required in cases of clear, direct impact on the environment. The second level of review, an Environmental Assessment (EA), occurs when the environmental impacts do not clearly merit an EIS but do merit significant environmental analysis. A CE, the least stringent review, is allowed in cases of minimal environmental impact. Mr. Conner acknowledged the validity of concerns about stream basins. He said the first phase of the Aurora Corridor Project will primarily affect the Boeing Creek basin, which already has erosion and water quality issues. He explained the basic analysis that the project will enhance the environment by increasing the amount of pervious surface by approximately 12,000 square feet, by replacing the center continuous left-turn lane with landscaped median strips, and by replacing concrete and asphalt on the shoulders of the roadway with landscaped sidewalk areas.
Councilmember Ransom asked what the City will do to address storm water runoff from Aurora Avenue. Mr. Conner said some storm water runoff will permeate the ground in the new landscaped surfaces, but most of it will continue to run off. He explained that the City could address storm water runoff from Aurora Avenue in projects in conjunction with the Aurora Corridor Project. He said the City has not planned any such projects at this point.
Councilmember Ransom noted the continuing concern of a large number of Aurora Avenue businesses (he has talked to as many as 80 businesses on Aurora Avenue) about the current design. He mentioned that business concerns about street improvements in Lynnwood continued until the City of Lynnwood negotiated an agreement about medians and sidewalks. He suggested that Council postpone final design of the Aurora Corridor Project until the City can negotiate an agreement with the majority of Aurora Avenue businesses.
Councilmember Ransom moved to table the motion. There was no second.
Councilmember Lee noted that traffic concerns were a major impetus for the project and that WSDOT provided data on the number of accidents and the dangerous condition of Aurora Avenue. Mr. Conner responded that the WSDOT data is from 1996 and that the City has since been using a manual tracking system maintained by the Police Department. He acknowledged that the figures may include some inaccuracies, but he questioned whether anyone believes the Corridor to be safe currently and therefore requires no action to make it safer.
Deputy Mayor Hansen asked to whom the CE had been submitted and under what circumstances. Mr. Conner responded that he signed the CE on May 11 and turned it in to WSDOT. He did not know who specifically received the document, but when he met with WSDOT last week Maureen Sullivan, Dave Scott, and Terry Paananen all were aware of the submittal.
Noting that the project has been controversial from the beginning, Deputy Mayor Hansen questioned the statement that "there is no opposition." Mr. Conner did not understand the genesis of those comments. He said it is clear the project has been opposed from the beginning by certain individuals. The confusion may be that staff has asked that the project be treated as two projects for environmental purposes (Phase 1—145th to 165th; Phase 2—165th to the county line). The rationale for this was that Phase 1 has an insignificant amount of environmental impact; whereas, for the second phase, staff did not feel as sure this was the case. Perhaps the statement that Phase 1 has no significant environmental impact was construed as meaning there was no opposition to the project.
Deputy Mayor Hansen emphasized his view of the positive environmental impacts of the project. Doing nothing will continue the runoff that occurs now. He noted his previous suggestions to build vaults or to use runoff in other ways.
Councilmember Montgomery responded to the issues raised by the speakers, noting that Council decision making has not occurred in a vacuum. On the contrary, there has been a great amount of public input. Those speaking tonight represent one viewpoint, but there are many others who have expressed support to individual Councilmembers for moving forward with improvements to the Corridor. Councilmember Montgomery assured the audience that when necessary Council will continue to solicit more information but, she pointed out, Council has already listened to many experts. She noted that a representative from WSDOT encouraged Council at a meeting to do something about safety issues along Aurora Avenue.
Continuing, Councilmember Montgomery said she has looked at medians in other communities, and they do not seem to impact business access. She felt that the continuous left-turn lane on Aurora Avenue does not guarantee easy access to businesses. Besides, safety is as important as economic impacts—although she would not support something that would have a negative impact on the City. She mentioned that she felt the criticism of the Council of Neighborhoods was unfair. She concluded that Council must represent the whole City, not just those speaking tonight.
Councilmember Grossman thanked speakers for continuing to make their voices heard. He pointed out the difference between "not listening" and "not agreeing." He concurred with Councilmember Montgomery that many individuals have expressed a desire to move forward on the project. He said part of the problem is the ambiguity of the design. The only way to get clarity is to move to the 60 percent design point.
Mayor Jepsen noted a petition signed by a number of business owners and employees along the Corridor who oppose several components of the design, including the width of the sidewalks and landscaping and the continuous center median. Petitioners felt the loss of left-turn access will affect visibility of and accessibility to Corridor businesses.
Mayor Jepsen pointed out that Council has listened to business concerns and some compromises are represented in the "32 Points" Council adopted on August 23, 1999. He highlighted points 7, 8, 9, 21 and 22 from that document.
Mayor Jepsen said a final design is necessary in order to move forward with these items. He concluded that #3 ("Twelve foot sidewalks will be provided on both sides of Aurora the entire length . . ") has since been moderated by a policy that an interim standard of less than twelve feet is acceptable if needed to minimize impacts on existing businesses.
To formalize this policy and other Council direction regarding the design contract, Mayor Jepsen moved an amendment to the motion to have staff do the following as part of the design contract:
Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the amendment.
Mayor Jepsen clarified that the contract under consideration will run for 15 months, so the final design will not be completed until October 2002. He felt action tonight will help in discussion of the project.
Councilmember Lee clarified that if a business is sold, the new owner will not have to meet the sidewalk width requirements unless there is a major renovation of the property.
Deputy Mayor Hansen said he might support an over/underpass at 185th or possibly at another intersection. However, at this point only Phase 1 is under consideration, which should be the easiest part of the project. Once the first section is completed, the City will have a lot of information about how to go about completing the remaining Corridor. If the design doesn’t work, something else will have to be considered. However, he felt that once Phase 1 is completed, those along the rest of the Corridor will like what they see and be more enthusiastic about the process. He concluded by disputing the assertion of "hidden costs" in the project.
Mr. Conner said the original assessment of the design was that three or four properties would have to be bought. With the reduction of the sidewalk widths and the other adjustments Council has agreed to over the past year, no properties must be purchased. He assured Council that as far as he knew, no costs have been left out of the estimate of $25 million for Phase 1.
Mr. Burkett added that pinning down costs is one of the outcomes of the design contract. Once the design is done, the project can be bid and all the costs defined.
Deputy Mayor Hansen said it should be recognized that something could be discovered through the design process that would force the City to rethink the process. The contract does not commit the City to the complete $25 million, but it indicates a belief that that is where the City is going.
A vote was taken on the amendment to include in the design contract the following: 1) setting the total width of sidewalk and landscaping strips at 11½ feet; 2) case-by-case, considering the reduction of the sidewalk widths on an interim basis to mitigate land impacts and acquisition; and 3) incorporating issues from the environmental review into the final design work and returning to Council at the 60 percent design state with proposed additional design changes. The amendment carried 6 – 0.
Councilmember Ransom commented on personal experience with how dangerous Aurora Avenue is and people are concerned about safety on Aurora Avenue. He noted the split CATF vote on recommending the 32 points, with one more vote for 12-foot sidewalks than for eight-foot sidewalks. He said the question is ultimately whether Aurora Avenue can be made into a boulevard, Main Street, Shoreline. He said Council must remember that most of Shoreline’s businesses are along the Corridor and business revenue pays about 70 percent of Shoreline’s income in one way or another. Many of these businesses have been in the community for 30 or 40 years and are part of the Shoreline family. He emphasized that the City needs to work even harder to create "a united house" by coming to an acceptable compromise with the business community.
Councilmember Lee concurred with Councilmember Ransom’s comments. She said as a small business owner herself, she knows exactly what the small business owner goes through.
Mayor Jepsen did not think 70 percent of Shoreline’s revenue comes from businesses. He felt Council is doing its best to moderate differences of opinion.
A vote was taken on the motion, as amended to include the three points, which carried 6 – 0, and the City Manager was authorized to execute a supplement to the existing Design Services Contract with CH2MHill for final design of the first phase of the Aurora Avenue Corridor Project in an amount not to exceed $2,100,000 and to execute contract change orders up to 10 percent of this amount.
9. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(1) Bill Meyer, 358 N 189th Street, said he did not think the Council was "putting Aurora together right." He referred to the original Aurora Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC), which made recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan, noting 14 of the 19 members did not want wider sidewalks or bus lanes on Aurora Avenue. He referred to Ordinance Nos. 31 and 128, which contained design guidelines for Aurora Avenue. He said the Aurora Avenue businesses are fragile and will fail if they lose parking, access, etc.
(2) Walt Hagen, 711 N 193rd Street, referred to his request to Mr. Conner for certain documents, including the CE document. He protested that the CE was submitted on May 11 but was not available to citizens until May 18. He said "something is wrong. I don’t know who is paying who—I don’t even like to imply that—but I asked Terry Paananen if he’d seen the document. No!" (He acknowledged that Mr. Paananen might have meant he hadn’t looked at it yet.) Then Mr. Hagen made the following points: 1) he was unaware that the Council of Neighborhoods supports the Aurora plan; 2) the original CPAC did not give the City the "answers it wanted," so the City established the CATF to do so; 3) most Asian business owners do not know what is going on because of the language barrier; and 4) the City’s Economic Development Plan is about getting new development into Shoreline and not helping current businesses.
(3) Kenny Coulter, 16720 Linden Avenue N, said the house across the street is dealing heroine on a regular basis. He described an incident that occurred the previous Friday. He complained that he was unable to reach the appropriate person. He said he needs to know who to call about such drug-related incidents.
(4) Rick Stephens, 18005 Aurora Avenue N, commented on storm water runoff into his building. He said the City’s storm drains do not work. The project and landscaping plans will impact his business because the water will pool in the hardpan and create pressure to push his building out of alignment. He emphasized the effort that has gone into developing his land. Now the City is not considering his interests. He said people won’t walk along Aurora Avenue even with 12-foot sidewalks.
(5) Edsel Hammond, 18541 Burke Avenue N, suggested meeting with business owners. Noting that the continuous median will cause traffic backups, he urged a study to determine what the impacts will be.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:00 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Grossman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
(6) Mr. Limm, employee of Aurora Cold Storage, did not think wider sidewalks would result in people walking along Aurora Avenue.
(7) Joe Farris, 16739 Linden Avenue N, commented on illegal activities at the property mentioned by Mr. Coulter. He said nothing happens when neighbors complain, and he asked Council to do something.
(8) Roberta Farris, 16739 Linden Avenue N, also commented on the drug house problem, which she said has been going on for 20 years.
(9) Amy Stapleton, 17820 Palatine Avenue N, said she is a former neighbor of the residence mentioned by previous speakers. She asked the police to take care of the problems there.
(10) Cindy Ryu, 15215 Aurora Avenue N, said the City needs to do a better job communicating with people. She mentioned concerns about the costs of watering the landscaping and doing tree maintenance.
(11) John Chang, 16229 Sixth Avenue NW, felt that the Aurora process has not been a dialogue and that the City government is being arrogant. He asked Council to name one thing it has done to help the merchants. He expressed his anger that Council will not recognize that all of the businesses between 145th and 155th oppose the project and asked Council to produce one person who supports the project. He said he would try to convince that person of his perspective, which is what dialogue is about and what must be done to bring the community together.
(12) Daniel Mann, 19926 Aurora Avenue N, said this issue has brought people along the Corridor together who did not know each other before. He respected Council’s desire to find a middle ground, but said this has not yet been achieved. He said the people he talks with are not aware of the extent of the width of the project. Everyone wants something done along the Corridor, but not the current design of 12-foot sidewalks and the continuous median. He hoped the City would not squander the opportunity to work together with businesses for the benefit of the whole community.
(13) Jerilee Noffsinger, 17431 Aurora Avenue N, said businesses want to see progress on Aurora Avenue, but they also want to feel like they have been heard.
(14) Claudia Newman, 1424 4th Avenue, Seattle, emphasized that the City is not following the proper process. She said the City must do a threshold determination in this situation regarding environmental impacts. She disputed that the project qualifies for a CE and said it is not exempt from SEPA. She urged the City to look carefully at the governing laws.
Responding to public comment, Mayor Jepsen noted that the Police Chief left the meeting to talk with the neighbors about the drug house. He also wanted to clarify that a public hearing will be held as required on the Aurora Project. He said the City is not ignoring the environmental process.
Mr. Burkett assured everyone the City will follow all the laws, including environmental laws.
Mayor Jepsen concluded that there is a lot of emotion around the issue of redeveloping the Aurora Corridor. He said the City also wants to partner and dialogue, but at that same time it is important that everyone is dealing with the facts.
Councilmember Lee added that as an Asian-American business owner she is aware of the communication issues. She said the City is trying to reach out, and she expressed her hope to act as a liaison with the Asian-American community.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:21 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.
________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk