CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

Monday, October 22, 2001

7:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Hansen, Councilmembers Grossman, Gustafson, Lee, Montgomery and Ransom

ABSENT: None

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.

3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER

City Manager Steve Burkett reported that he met October 16 with the Aurora Improvement Council (AIC) and Concerned Citizens for Shoreline (CCFS) to discuss ideas raised during the Central Shoreline Design Charrette. He said the AIC has approved a resolution in support of the relocation of the proposed northbound Business Access Transit (BAT) lane from Aurora Avenue N to Midvale Avenue, including the relocation of Ronald Place south of 175^th Street and the preservation of Ronald Place north of 175^th Street. He provided copies of the AIC resolution and cover letter.

Mr. Burkett presented a new street sign design, including the City logo, which the City will use to begin replacing King County street signs in Shoreline.

Mr. Burkett discussed joint enforcement activity by the City and Burlington Northern along the railroad tracks in Richmond Beach. He mentioned a memo from Shoreline Police Chief Denise Pentony which outlined the goals of the activity, and he provided statistics of citations and warnings issued between May 1 and October 1.

Mr. Burkett mentioned his October 16 meeting with the Shoreline Water District.

Finally, Mr. Burkett distributed copies of a letter from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) clarifying WSDOT requirements for the Aurora Corridor Project.

4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Jerilee Noffsinger, 14731 Aurora Avenue N, discussed an October 18 Shoreline Enterprise advertisement that questioned "the origin" of some of the supporters of her campaign for City Council.

(b) Wally Crow, 19025 9^th Place NW, questioned Council consideration of traffic lights on Aurora Avenue scheduled for later during the meeting given Councilmember comments at a recent candidate forum that traffic lights on Aurora Avenue are not an issue.

(c) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Avenue N, thanked Mr. Burkett for meeting with the AIC October 16. He expressed appreciation for the Central Shoreline Design Charrette. He asserted the intent of the AIC "to have a productive, successful, better Shoreline, not to be obstructionist."

Mayor Jepsen said Council has frequently stated the flexibility of the Aurora Corridor Project. He expressed appreciation for the AIC letter and resolution. He advocated continued progress on all three phases of the Aurora Corridor Project.

6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Councilmember Lee moved that Council approve the agenda. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the agenda was approved.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Councilmember Montgomery requested the revision of the October 8 Dinner Meeting Minutes to show that she attended approximately the last ten minutes of the meeting.

Councilmember Gustafson moved that Council approve the consent calendar. Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the following items were approved:

Minutes of Dinner Meeting of October 8, 2001 (as amended)
Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 8, 2001

Approval of payroll and claims as of October 12, 2001 in the amount of $1,216,465.22

8. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS

(a) Motion to support the removal of the proposed pedestrian-only signals from the Aurora Project

Aurora Corridor Project Manager Anne Tonella-Howe introduced consultants Tim Bevan of CH2MHill and Jim Dale of Innovative Transportation Concepts. Ms. Tonella-Howe went on to review the staff report. She distinguished the pedestrian-only signals that the Citizens Advisory Task Force (CATF) proposed in the vicinity of 149^th, 170^th, 180^th and 202^nd Streets from the signals the WSDOT plans to install on Aurora Avenue at N 165^th and N 170^th Streets as part of a pedestrian safety demonstration project.

Continuing, Ms. Tonella-Howe explained that the amount of pedestrian traffic at N 149^th, N 170^th, N 180^th and N 202^nd Streets is not likely to meet WSDOT thresholds (100 or more pedestrians for each of any four hours, and 190 or more pedestrians during any one hour) and that the WSDOT is, therefore, not likely to approve the proposed pedestrian-only signals. She said staff recommends the exclusion of the pedestrian-only signals from the scope of the Aurora Corridor Project and the consideration of other pedestrian crossing applications, such as the enhanced crossings of the WSDOT pedestrian safety demonstration project.

Ms. Tonella-Howe went on to discuss existing traffic conditions at five intersections on Aurora Avenue: N 145^th; N 152^nd; N 155^th; N 160^th and N 165^th Streets. She then discussed projections of future traffic conditions at the same intersections with and without construction of the Aurora Corridor Project.

Mr. Dale presented traffic models of future traffic conditions on Aurora Avenue. The models represented conditions of "no action" (no improvements on Aurora Avenue), Alternative A (improvements similar to those of the CATF preferred alternative) and Alternative B (improvements consistent with Alternative A, except no amenity zones and less wide sidewalks). He showed that traffic signals on Aurora Avenue create gaps in traffic during which vehicles on intersecting streets can access Aurora Avenue.

In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Ms. Tonella-Howe said construction of the Aurora Corridor Project without additional traffic signals would result in traffic delays similar to or greater than those in the model representing "no action." She explained that vehicles on intersecting streets would need to wait for even larger gaps in traffic to cross the greater distance of the additional traffic lanes. Mr. Dale agreed.

Mr. Dale said the general conclusion from simulation and modeling is that the addition of signals at 165^th and 152^nd Streets increases east-west capacity with minimal impact to traffic on Aurora Avenue.

Councilmember Montgomery responded to Mr. Crow's comment earlier in the meeting. She said the Councilmember who spoke at the candidate forum on the issue of traffic lights on Aurora Avenue was responding to a statement in an AIC brochure that the Aurora Corridor Project will result in 16 traffic lights on Aurora Avenue. She said the Councilmember explained that the original proposal included 16 traffic lights, that the project will not include 16 traffic lights and that this is, therefore, not an issue.

Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.

(1) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Avenue N, said dividing the Aurora Corridor Project into separate phases prevents the analysis of the cumulative impact of the entire project. He advocated that the project: address Aurora Avenue between 145^th Street and 205^th Street; incorporate the results of the Central Shoreline Design Charrette; include the analysis of BAT lanes the full length of Aurora Avenue in Shoreline; and include an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addressing the entire project.

(2) Wally Crow, 19025 9^th Place NW, questioned whether the traffic models of future conditions on Aurora Avenue simulated traffic at peak hours. He advocated such analysis. He asserted that the Aurora Corridor Project will not work.

(3) Kellie Swenson, 2308 N 149^th Street, expressed appreciation for the presentation. She advocated that the Aurora Corridor Project proceed.

In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Ms. Tonella-Howe said the traffic models simulated future conditions on Aurora Avenue during the afternoon hour of peak traffic volume (approximately 4:45-5:45 p.m.).

Deputy Mayor Hansen said dividing the Aurora Corridor Project into phases that the City can design, assess and construct separately makes sense. He stated that the City would otherwise evaluate many things that would not prove possible over time. He pointed out that the traffic signals were part of a pre-design study proposal. He said Council has approved the concept of the Aurora Corridor Project, not an actual design. He supported removal of the proposed pedestrian-only signals from the Aurora Corridor Project scope for the purpose of clarification.

Assistant City Manager Larry Bauman said the draft EIS the City is preparing will assess cumulative impacts for the entire three-mile corridor. He explained that the draft EIS concentrates on the portion of the project between 145^th and 165^th Streets because this is the section of the project for which the City has the most detailed design and about which it knows the most.

Councilmember Ransom expressed concern about crossings at N 170^th and N 165^th Streets. He said residents of the Richmond Highlands neighborhood have contacted him to oppose a pedestrian signal at N 170^th Street. He said the residents believe a pedestrian signal will create more traffic in the neighborhood. He asserted that the traffic created by such a signal would be minimal. He said the Shoreline School Board considered constructing an overpass at N 170^th Street during his time on the board to address concerns that Meridian Park and Parkwood residents raised about Shorewood High School students crossing Aurora Avenue there. He asserted that the area between N 167^th and N 170^th Streets is the most dangerous on Aurora Avenue in Shoreline. He noted a bus stop and two mini-casinos in this area, as well as proposals for a third mini-casino and a hotel. He said he has not heard safety complaints about Aurora Avenue at N 165^th Street but he has heard frequent complaints about Aurora Avenue at N 170^th Street. He expressed very serious concern about excluding the proposed pedestrian-only signal at this location.

In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Burkett confirmed that WSDOT has approved an enhanced pedestrian crossing at N 170^th Street. Mr. Bauman identified the crossings that WSDOT plans to install at N 170^th Street and N 165^th Street as "motorist warning systems." He explained that the crossings will include a pedestrian refuge island in the middle of Aurora Avenue and warning lights. He said similar crossings elsewhere have improved pedestrian safety. He said WSDOT intends to leave the crossings in place if they prove successful during the initial demonstration.

Councilmember Montgomery moved to remove all of the pedestrian-only signals adopted as part of the 1999 Aurora Pre-Design Study from the scope of the Aurora Corridor Project. Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion.

Councilmember Ransom moved to amend the motion to include a proposed pedestrian-only signal at N 170^th Street in the scope of the Aurora Corridor Project. Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion.

Noting that he has worked at Shorewood High School, Councilmember Grossman expressed appreciation for Councilmember Ransom's concerns about pedestrian safety on Aurora Avenue at N 170^th Street. However, he questioned whether the amount of pedestrian traffic at N 170^th Street will meet the WSDOT threshold. He stated his interest in reviewing accident statistics on Aurora Avenue at N 170^th Street. He asserted that the enhanced pedestrian crossing that WSDOT plans to install at N 170^th Street is "an appropriate way to go at this particular time."

Councilmember Montgomery said she received phone calls from citizens in support of the staff recommendation. She went on to say she has not received public or School District input about retaining a pedestrian-only signal at N 170^th Street in the scope of the Aurora Corridor Project.

Councilmember Ransom said he was representing the concerns expressed over many years about pedestrian safety on Aurora Avenue at N 170^th Street. He advocated the inclusion of a pedestrian-only signal at N 170^th Street in the scope of the Aurora Corridor Project as a way to require future staff and Council consideration.

In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Mr. Bauman confirmed that WSDOT intends to make enhanced pedestrian crossings part of its uniform code, and to recommend their inclusion in the federal code, if they prove successful in the demonstration project on Aurora Avenue at N 165^th and N 170^th Streets.

Deputy Mayor Hansen expressed concern about pedestrian safety on Aurora Avenue at N 170^th Street. He supported the proposed amendment. He acknowledged the concerns that neighborhood residents have raised about cut-through traffic, but he asserted pedestrian safety as a higher priority. He said he would support a pedestrian-only signal at N 170^th Street if the WSDOT demonstration project proves unsuccessful. He noted that a pedestrian-only signal could be synchronized with traffic signals.

Mayor Jepsen said he would like to learn from the WSDOT demonstration project. He opposed the proposed amendment.

Councilmember Lee said she shares the concerns that Councilmember Ransom raised about pedestrian safety on Aurora Avenue at N 170^th Street. She noted that Aurora Avenue is a State highway and that WSDOT has established strict guidelines for pedestrian-only signals. She said the WSDOT demonstration project will show whether the crossing at N 170^th meets those guidelines. She asserted that the concerns about pedestrian safety at N 170^th Street will continue to be addressed.

Mr. Bauman advised that in 2000, there were 15 accidents on Aurora Avenue at 165^th Street and 16 accidents at 170^th Street.

In response to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Bauman said WSDOT intends to install the enhanced pedestrian crosswalks for the demonstration project by March 2002.

Councilmember Ransom reiterated his support for the motion as a way to focus attention and require further consideration.

Mayor Jepsen said he and Deputy Mayor Hansen have requested that staff begin measuring traffic volumes on side streets to provide data against which to assess the impact of the enhanced pedestrian crossings on traffic in the neighborhoods.

A vote was taken on the amendment to include a pedestrian-only signal at N 170^th Street in the scope of the Aurora Corridor Project. The amendment failed 2-5, with Deputy Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Ransom voting in the affirmative.

Mayor Jepsen explained that Council adopted a concept for Aurora Avenue that included the potential for four new traffic signals and four new pedestrian-only signals. He said Council needs to take action to modify the concept. He stated that Council will continue to have the flexibility to modify the concept as the design process for each segment of the Aurora Corridor Project continues. For example, he said the signals proposed at 182^nd Street and at 195^th Street may not be installed.

Councilmember Lee said business owners in Parkwood Square (immediately south of Safeway at 155^th Street and Aurora Avenue) are very excited about the traffic signal proposed at 152^nd Street and Aurora Avenue.

Councilmember Montgomery noted her experience that well-placed traffic signals improve traffic flow.

A vote was taken on the motion to remove all of the pedestrian-only signals adopted as part of the 1999 Aurora Pre-Design Study from the scope of the Aurora Corridor Project. The motion carried 7-0.

(b) Ordinance No. 287 establishing benefits for City Councilmembers

Mr. Bauman reviewed the staff report.

Councilmember Gustafson moved that Council adopt Ordinance No. 287 establishing benefits for City Councilmembers in the amount of $350 per month effective January 1, 2002 for Council positions 1, 3, 5 and 7 and on January 1, 2004 for Council positions 2, 4 and 6. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion.

Councilmember Montgomery expressed her strong opposition to the establishment of a salary commission. She said Council should have to make decisions regarding its salary and benefits itself, in public discussion. She supported Option 1.

Councilmember Ransom said recent studies of a large group of cities showed an average monthly councilmember salary of approximately $900 with approximately half the cities providing full benefits. He mentioned the following specific findings on councilmember salaries: the City of Edmonds pays $750 per month and $50 per meeting, to a maximum of $1,100 per month, plus full benefits; the City of Lynnwood pays $1,000 per month, plus full benefits; and the cities of Everett and Bellevue paid $1,000 per month, plus full benefits, 20 years ago, when they were the size that Shoreline is now. He asserted that Councilmember salaries of $1,000 per month plus full benefits are not unreasonable. He referred to monthly benefits of $350 per month as "a compromise position." He recommended that the benefits amount for Councilmembers be designated as a percentage of that provided to full-time City employees.

Continuing, Councilmember Ransom said the State Legislature created the salary commission mechanism earlier this year to address the issue of how to adjust salaries for councilmembers. He explained that councilmembers may adopt higher salaries but that they cannot receive them until they win reelection.

Councilmember Ransom said other cities (e.g., the City of Seattle) have adopted cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for council salaries of three percent per year. He noted that City Attorney Ian Sievers and the State Attorney General question this practice. He reiterated his recommendation to designate benefits for Councilmembers as a percentage of the amount provided to full-time City employees. He said a flat monthly benefit amount of $350 will "decrease proportionally over time" in comparison to the cost of medical insurance.

Councilmember Ransom moved to amend Ordinance No. 287 to set the benefit level for Councilmembers at 60 percent of the annually-adjusted amount provided to full-time City employees. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.

Councilmember Grossman said a salary increase "doesn't fit quite right" in the current uncertain economic situation. He supported the proposed pro-rated benefit level in light of the compensation that councilmembers at cities of similar size receive.

Councilmember Lee said she views her Councilmembership as community service, not a full time job. She stated that she cannot support the amendment. She advocated a "set amount" for Council benefits subject to periodic review.

Councilmember Gustafson said he spends between 15 and 20 hours per week on Council activities. He supported the consideration of council compensation at other cities of similar size. He asserted that compensation for Shoreline Councilmembers "should be in at least the top one half of comparable cities." He supported the amendment.

Deputy Mayor Hansen agreed with Councilmember Lee that Councilmembership is a "volunteer job." He questioned whether it should be a volunteer job and whether this limits who can afford to run for election. He advocated the inclusion of benefits in Council compensation. He said low compensation that limits those who can afford to run for Council is unfair.

Mr. Sievers said the State Attorney General issued an opinion that any adjustment based on a market index that increases the absolute amount of money or benefit to an elected official during his or her term violates the Constitution. He acknowledged that the Attorney General has not prosecuted cities that use COLAs to determine council salaries. He asserted that Council could amend Ordinance No. 287 to designate Council benefits as a percentage of the amount provided to full-time City employees. He indicated that the City can revisit the issue if further research or evolving case law warrants doing so.

A vote was taken on the amendment to set the benefit level for Councilmembers at 60 percent of the annually-adjusted amount provided to full-time City employees. The amendment carried 4-3, with Mayor Jepsen and Councilmembers Lee and Montgomery dissenting.

Mr. Burkett pointed out that Ordinance No. 287 will only apply to Councilmembers elected after the October 30, 2001 effective date.

A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 287, as amended to establish benefits for Councilmembers at 60 percent of the annually-adjusted amount provided to full-time City employees, effective January 1, 2002 for Council positions 1, 3, 5 and 7 and on January 1, 2004 for Council positions 2, 4 and 6. The motion carried 5-2, with Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Montgomery dissenting.

9. NEW BUSINESS

(a) Transmittal of proposed 2002 Budget

Mr. Burkett provided a presentation on the 2002 Proposed Budget. He summarized the process the City followed to develop the proposed budget, and he discussed the schedule for Council review and adoption. He highlighted the following "Guiding Principles" in the 2002 Proposed Budget: consideration of the long-term financial condition of the City; maintaining and improving City parks, roads and drainage systems; working within City fiscal capacity constraints; and acknowledging future economic uncertainty.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Burkett explained that the majority of the "Non-Retail" portion of City sales tax revenues pertains to construction-related activity.

Mr. Burkett went on to discuss City property tax revenues and the projected impact of passage of Initiative 747 (I-747). He said the City will collect $1.7 million less in property taxes from 2002 through 2007 under I-747 than if it adopts the Implicit Price Deflator each of the five years. He noted that the City receives $337, or 10.8 percent, of the $3,130 in property taxes that the owner of a median-priced ($222,000) home pays.

Continuing, Mr. Burkett discussed the following major operating budget changes:

• moving City road overlay and sidewalk program from the operating budget to the capital budget—$800,000;
• increase in public safety costs—$502,000;
• increase in personnel costs—$420,000;
• increase in liability insurance—$83,000;
• park and facility maintenance for completed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects—$187,000;
• Spartan Gym—$57,202;
• Right-of-Way Management Program—$63,127;
• tree and street maintenance enhancements—savings of $36,000 annually;
• part-time finance technician—$24,004;
• reorganization contingency—$70,000;
• relocation of and improvements to Shoreline Parade—$5,000;
• Legal Department intern—net cost of $14,000; and
• microfilming of essential records—$7,500.

Mr. Burkett highlighted the following major one-time projects:

• federal lobbyist contract—$25,000;
• road maintenance equipment—$200,000 (creates annual ongoing savings of $36,000);
• purchase copiers—$211,047 (creates annual ongoing savings of $20,500);
• response to the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act—$437,920 ($312,000 carried over from 2001 budget);
• Development Services process review—$50,000;
• Geographic Information System (GIS) improvements to accommodate right-of-way information—$119,500;
• tree maintenance program—$26,000;
• improvements to City web site—$20,000;
• Gateway Master Plan—$50,000; and
• equipment for Spartan Gym—$26,000.

Finally, Mr. Burkett reviewed the following major capital projects for 2002:

• storage building for Parks & Public Works—$315,000;
• complete Spartan Gym renovations—$630,000;
• complete Paramount School Park improvements—$375,000;
• master plans and initial design for Richmond Beach Saltwater Park and Cromwell Park—$158,000;
• annual Road Overlay, Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Program—$900,000;
• Interurban Trail—$2.7 Million;
• Pedestrian Improvement Program—$393,000;
• Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program—$160,000;
• Aurora Corridor Project—$3 million;
• North City Business District—$1.4 million;
• Ronald Bog drainage improvements—$415,000;
• 3rd Avenue NW drainage improvements—$1.6 Million;
• small projects—$50,000; and
• stream rehabilitation improvements—$25,000.

Councilmember Ransom asked about potential "soft spots" in City revenue projections. In addition to the volatility of sales tax revenues, Mr. Burkett mentioned State-shared revenues as an area of risk. He noted projections of a shortfall of up to $1 billion in the State budget, and he commented that "cities are not at the top of their priority list." He said staff has reduced long-term revenue projections from State backfill funding.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Burkett said the City has already received State backfill funding for 2002. He mentioned a common concern among city officials about backfill funding for 2003.

Mayor Jepsen asserted that gambling tax revenue is always provisional because the gambling industry lobbies the Legislature every year to reduce the maximum tax rate that local jurisdictions may levy. Mr. Burkett said the City transfers the amount it collects in gambling tax revenue to fund capital improvements. He also noted that the City has designated only a portion of State backfill funding to its operating budget.

Deputy Mayor Hansen mentioned the County plan to stop providing human services to residents in incorporated areas. He pointed out that the County receives a larger portion of Shoreline property tax revenues than the City. He asserted that City capacity to absorb revenue and service reductions is limited. He said the City is likely to face more pressure to increase human services at the same time that its budget is shrinking.

Continuing, Deputy Mayor Hansen questioned plans for microfilming of essential records. He asserted that document imaging is a "more cutting-edge technology," that it is likely to be less expensive and that it will make documents easier to access. Mr. Burkett said document imaging is more expensive. City Clerk Sharon Mattioli said microfilming obviates the need to migrate electronic files to succeeding technologies.

Mayor Jepsen suggested that Council defer consideration of agenda item 9 (b), "Municipal Services Inventory," until a Council workshop.

MEETING EXTENSION

At 9:58 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 10:20 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 5-2, with Councilmembers Gustafson and Montgomery dissenting.

There was Council consensus to defer consideration of agenda item 9 (b).

Mr. Burkett acknowledged Deputy Mayor Hansen's comment about County cuts in human services. He noted County plans for cumulative cuts in human services over the next several years. He said the County receives approximately $6.5 million annually in property tax revenue from Shoreline property owners. He estimated the County portion of local sales tax revenues at almost $1 million annually.

On another issue, Mayor Jepsen requested clarification of which members of the AIC are authorized to sign for the group. He said the members who signed the AIC resolution are not the same as those listed with the State Public Disclosure Committee (PDC).

10. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Gretchen Atkinson, 2148 N 183^rd Place, described County maintenance of Shoreline roads before the City incorporated. She went on to review the accomplish-ments of the City Road Overlay, Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Program. She asserted the importance of such improvements to the transition of Shoreline from a suburban community to a city. She said developers choose to invest in areas where infrastructure is maintained. She thanked the City for a well-organized plan of infrastructure improve-ments.

(b) Stan Terry, 15811 28^th Avenue NE, read a response he wrote to an electronic message he received from an individual associated with the AIC. He noted the high number of accidents on Aurora Avenue, and he stated that the Aurora Corridor Project is designed to improve the safety of the corridor. He mentioned compromises proposed at the Central Shoreline Design Charrette (e.g., the relocation of the proposed north bound BAT lane from Aurora Avenue N to Midvale Avenue from 172^nd Street to 182^nd Street). He asserted the potential for other compromises if both sides are willing to work together. He said City Council has, on numerous occasions, directed staff to modify the project design to reduce impacts on existing businesses. He stated that he is "not willing to subsidize artificially low commercial rents, allow private use of public right-of-way and maintain the status quo in order to preserve marginal businesses at the continued cost of lives, personal injuries and millions of dollars in property damage."

(c) Jim Shea, 16309 Interlake Avenue N, expressed concern about the money the AIC has spent on the City Council election. He asserted that "it's time to improve our City." He said "the AIC Band-Aid approach is shortsighted and self-serving." He described five-foot-wide sidewalks with no setbacks and continuous left-turn lanes as unsafe and irresponsible.

11. ADJOURNMENT

At 10:14 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.

_________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk