12/10/01 City Council Minutes

CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

Monday, December 10, 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.

Judge Richard Eadie swore in John T. Chang, Linda Montgomery, Scott Jepsen and Ronald B. Hansen to four-year terms on the City Council beginning January 1, 2002.

Mayor Jepsen presented a plaque to outgoing Councilmember Cheryl Lee in appreciation for her role as one of the original City Councilmembers, for her leadership in developing the original police services contract with King County and for her two terms of service to the City.

Councilmember Lee thanked the citizens of Shoreline for providing her the opportunity to serve the community. She thanked her family members for their support, and she thanked City staff.

RECESS

At 7:55 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:05 p.m.

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 mentioned a memorandum in response to questions Council raised regarding traffic signals on N 205^th Street at its December 3 workshop. He noted a second memorandum regarding a revised Resolution No. 182.

Mr. Burkett introduced new Neighborhoods Coordinator Sandy Chastain.

Finally, Mr. Burkett announced that Assistant to the City Manager Kristoff Bauer is leaving the City to become Assistant City Administrator in Billings, Montana.

4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Les Nelson, 15340 Stone Avenue N, represented a group of residents concerned about the proposed expansion of the N 155^th Street Safeway store. He questioned the lack of City notification of neighboring property owners. He noted concern about an electrical transformer within the 20-foot setback. He said residents advocate the undergrounding of utilities as part of the project.

(b) Bob Lohmeyer spoke as Director of the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Senior Center. He reported that the Senior Center has lost approximately $33,000 in funding. He said the center has raised $17,000 by developing new services, eliminating cost-of-living increases for staff and cutting staff hours. He explained that further cuts in staff hours will require the center to close one day each week. He asked Council to consider helping the Senior Center to close its budget deficit of $16,500.

Planning and Development Services Director Tim Stewart explained that the City does not issue public notice of Type A ministerial decisions (e.g., building permits). He assumed that the N 155^th Street Safeway project falls into this category. He agreed to research the issue and report back to Council.

Mayor Jepsen asked about enforcement of covenants on property involved in the Safeway project. Mr. Stewart said the City does not enforce private covenants. City Attorney Ian Sievers said staff will need to research County records to determine the conditions imposed on the plat in question.

In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart said staff relies on information in permit applications as "accurate and true." He explained that staff conducts a more detailed level of review if it receives conflicting information.

Mr. Burkett said staff will work with Mr. Nelson and other residents neighboring the N 155^th Street Safeway and report to Council as soon as possible.

In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Stewart said he needs to research the issue of undergrounding utilities as part of the N 155^th Street Safeway project.

Deputy Mayor Hansen advocated that Council reconsider public notice requirements for Type A permits if such permits include the modification of building footprints.

Mayor Jepsen commented that Council will address the request for additional funding for the Senior Center when addressing the 2002 City budget later in the meeting.

6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Councilmember Lee moved approval of the agenda. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion.

Councilmember Ransom requested that Council pull agenda item 7(i), Resolution No. 182, from the consent calendar and make it agenda item 8(f).

Councilmember Gustafson moved that Council move agenda item 8(d) to the consent calendar. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

A vote was taken on the motion to approve the agenda, as amended, which carried unanimously.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

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

Minutes of Special Meeting of November 13, 2001
Minutes of Special Meeting of November 19, 2001
Minutes of Dinner Meeting of November 26, 2001
Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 26, 2001

Approval of expenses and payroll as of November 30, 2001 in the amount of $1,110,308.42

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a solid waste collection service contract amendment

Ordinance No. 291 approving a special use permit for the purpose of constructing an emergency generator building for the Fircrest Campus located at 15230 15^th Avenue NE

Motion to authorize the City Manager to sign a purchase order in an amount not to exceed $213,517 with Ikon Office Solutions to purchase 12 copiers

Motion to approve $25,000 in mini-grant funds for the Echo Lake, Hillwood, North City, Richmond Beach and Richmond Highlands Neighborhood Associations

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Red Carpet Building Maintenance for an amount not to exceed $137,515 and to sign change orders that do not exceed 10% of the contract amount

Resolution No. 184 approving a restated Social Security replacement §401(a) Qualified Retirement Plan

Ordinance No. 296 extending the franchises under which the Ronald Wastewater District (formerly known as Shoreline Wastewater Management District) is authorized to provide sanitary sewer services within the City of Shoreline

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for 2002 – 2003 prosecution services with the Law Office of Sarah Roberts

Motion to authorize the City Manager to sign an agreement with WSDOT transferring ownership to the City of Shoreline of two traffic signals located on N. 205^th St. at the intersections of Aurora Avenue N. and at the Home Depot entrance

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Bi-Tech for acquisition of payroll/Human Resources software in the amount of $159,203

8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARINGS

(a) Ordinance No. 290 amending the City of Shoreline 2001 budget to delete the Recreation Superintendent classification, reclassify the Health and Human Services Manager to Assistant Director, reclassify an Administrative Assistant III to Administrative Supervisor and add positions in the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department

There was a motion on the floor, made on November 26, 2001 by Councilmember Montgomery, seconded by Deputy Mayor Hansen and postponed until this meeting, to adopt Ordinance No. 290.

Mr. Burkett reviewed the staff report.

Councilmember Ransom discussed three concerns. First, he objected to "the trend of reclassifying positions upward." Second, he noted inconsistencies in the classification and salaries of the two reclassified positions. He described the proposed Administrative Supervisor position as a "clerical office manager," and he stated that the top salary in the proposed range for the position (i.e., approximately $47,000) is "exceedingly high" compared to typical pay rates for such positions in Washington State. He stated that the proposed Administrative Supervisor position will be supervising a small staff. He went on to discuss the proposed reclassification of the Health and Human Services Manager to Assistant Director of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services. He noted that the Recreation Program Manager position is classified 15 percent higher than the subordinate Recreation Coordinator position and that the Health and Human Services Manager position is classified 15 percent higher still. He asserted that the classification of the Health and Human Services Manager position (Range 55) is high enough to accommodate the duties of the assistant director position. He pointed out that the proposed classification (in Range 61) will result in a 50-percent salary differential between the assistant director position and the subordinate positions.

Finally, Councilmember Ransom objected that the proposed ordinance violates the intent of the City personnel policy by creating new positions and promotions without an open recruitment. He noted that the City is not allowing other City employees or people outside the City to compete for the new positions.

Councilmember Grossman asserted his understanding that the role of Council is to provide policy direction. He expressed concern that Council discussion of the proposed ordinance seems like micro-management.

Noting that the new assistant director position seems to combine two positions, Council-member Gustafson expressed concern that it "could be an overwhelming job." He supported the proposed classification of the position in Range 61.

Continuing, Councilmember Gustafson stressed his desire to insure the effectiveness of both health and human services and parks, recreation and cultural services. He noted the importance of both areas to Council. He said he found the information on the "tremendous amount of overlap" between Health and Human Services and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services to be persuasive. He noted that other cities (e.g., Bellevue, Kirkland) have positions that combine parks and recreation and health and human services. He supported the proposed ordinance.

Councilmember Lee said she can see the proposed ordinance as a policy issue, as well as an organizational issue. She said the City identified desired outcomes when it developed the Health and Human Services Needs Assessment. She questioned how effective the proposed reorganization will be in reaching those outcomes and addressing needs.

Continuing, Councilmember Lee said the City must be diligent about opportunities for grant funding, especially during the current economic downturn. She expressed concern that all City departments have access to the services of the Grants Specialist. She noted that the City of Tukwila has a grant writer in each division. She suggested an assessment of City efforts to secure grant funding during 2002 as one way to measure the ongoing effectiveness of the Grants Specialist position.

Mayor Jepsen said it is up to the City Manager to implement Council policies and goals and to determine the organization of the City. He asserted the responsibility of Council during each budget process to assess the effectiveness of the organization. He advocated that Council carefully determine during the next budget process how money is spent and whether the City is achieving desired results. He supported the proposed ordinance.

Councilmember Ransom said the promotion of staff into new positions, instead of filling such positions through open, competitive recruitments, creates "a strong image of a special kind of patronage." He stated that the proposed ordinance sets a bad precedent. He said the proposed ordinance concerns the policy issue of whether the City fills positions through open, competitive recruitments.

Mayor Jepsen asserted that the proposed ordinance does not set an "overwhelming precedent."

A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 290, amending the City of Shoreline 2001 budget to delete the Recreation Superintendent classification, reclassify the Health and Human Services Manager to Assistant Director, reclassify an Administrative Assistant III to Administrative Supervisor and add positions in the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. The motion carried 6-1, with Councilmember Ransom dissenting, and Ordinance No. 290 was adopted.

(b) Ordinance No. 294 adopting the annual budget of the City of Shoreline for the Year 2002

Reviewing the staff report, Mr. Burkett highlighted the "Summary of Changes to Proposed 2002 Budget" (pages 200-201 of the Council packet). He expressed concern that the State will eliminate in 2003 the funding the City receives to offset the loss of sales tax equalization revenue that resulted from passage of Initiative 695 (I-695). He recommended the proposed 2002 City budget.

Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to approve the 2002 Budget Ordinance No. 294, appropriating funds for the operating and capital budgets of the City for the 2002 budget year. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion.

Councilmember Ransom moved to amend the budget to allocate $100,000 of gambling tax revenue from the capital budget to the General Fund for distribution for health and human services.

Councilmember Ransom went on to state the following five suggestions for consideration in the distribution of the $100,000: 1) $5,000 each to the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Arts Council and the Shoreline Historical Museum; 2) additional financial support for human services; 3) funds for senior citizens (e.g., to finance transportation to activities or to backfill lost funding at the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Senior Center); 4) matching funds to the Shoreline Historical Museum for roof replacement; and 5) the creation of a Teen Program Advisory Board staffed by youth.

Councilmember Lee seconded the motion.

Councilmember Grossman supported the amendment. He said Council has identified "a number of areas" important to the community that have not received funds from other sources. He noted that staff can use already-established criteria to distribute one-time allocations. He said organizations likely to receive the funds can benefit from even a one-time distribution. He expressed his hope that Council will consider during 2002 new ongoing funding strategies for health and human services.

Deputy Mayor Hansen described the amendment as the establishment of a $100,000 contingency fund. He asserted that the City already has sufficient contingency funds within its budget. He advocated the preparation of an allocation proposal. He said then, if Council cannot use other contingency funds, it can consider adopting a supplemental budget in the spring. He expressed concern about sending "any messages out to any of the other governmental bodies."

Councilmember Montgomery concurred. She asserted the availability of funds if Council identifies serious needs for Shoreline citizens. Noting the economic downturn and voters' recent rejection of taxes, she said governments must either reduce the cost of providing services or reduce services. She expressed discomfort with the amendment as too general.

Councilmember Lee said she does not support the use of funds from the capital budget for the proposed allocation. She noted the availability of "a minimum of $100,000" from the changes Mr. Burkett highlighted earlier. She advocated that Council set these funds aside to address emerging health and human service needs. For example, she asserted the "need to take care of our senior citizens, who have given all their lives and taken care of us."

In response to Mayor Jepsen, Councilmember Ransom clarified that his amendment represents one-time funding.

Mayor Jepsen asked if allocating funds from the capital budget to the General Fund is the best way to dedicate one-time funding for health and human services. Mr. Burkett explained that staff would reduce the transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Fund and that this would require minimal changes to the budget document. Noting that gambling tax revenues are "earmarked" for public safety, he said the money designated would not be gambling tax revenues but other general funds.

Councilmember Gustafson noted his concern about "soft funding kinds of things," but he supported the proposed amendment as a way to help Shoreline citizens for a specific period of time. He asserted that the City should consider specific details of what to expect of programs that may receive the one-time funding. Expressing concern that financial constraints will tighten in the future, he clarified that he views the proposal as a "one-time funding option."

Mayor Jepsen expressed ambivalence about the proposal. He said he would like to increase City funding for health and human services, but he does not want County officials to perceive the City action as a reliable response to County cuts in funding for health and human services.

Councilmember Grossman said the use of already-existing criteria to allocate the funds will further City objectives regardless of County actions. He mentioned that the County has found funding for many of the human services about which he has been concerned.

Mayor Jepsen asked Councilmember Ransom to distinguish his suggestions for distributions of the one-time funding from his motion to allocate the funding. He favored the use of the already-established criteria for allocating the funding. Councilmember Lee agreed.

Councilmember Ransom expressed concern that previous awards have been oriented to social services; whereas, his suggestions illustrated a broader distribution. For example, he noted that the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Senior Center is often seen as a recreation program and funded by cities as such.

Mayor Jepsen asked Councilmember Ransom if he expected passage of his motion to result in $5,000 City contributions to the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Arts Council and the Shoreline Historical Museum and City funding for a Teen Program Advisory Board. Councilmember Ransom said he intended his suggestions as illustrations only.

Mr. Burkett suggested that staff review the previously-established criteria with Council to ensure Council direction for the distribution process.

Councilmember Lee expressed concern that widening the scope of the distribution criteria will require that staff spend more time preparing a recommendation. She said the funding is meant to address emerging needs. She said the use of the existing distribution process, including the established criteria, will result in faster and more efficient distribution of the funds.

In response to Councilmember Grossman, Mr. Burkett confirmed staff intent to use the existing distribution process, including established criteria and staff.

A vote was taken on the motion to amend the budget to allocate $100,000 in one-time funding from the capital budget to the General Fund for distribution for health and human services. The motion carried 5-2, with Deputy Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Montgomery dissenting.

A vote was taken on Ordinance No. 294, appropriating funds for the operating and capital budgets of the City for the 2002 budget year as amended. The motion carried 7-0, and Ordinance No. 294 was adopted.

(c) Ordinance No. 295 approving and adopting the 2002-2007 Six-Year Capital Improvement Program

Mr. Burkett noted his intent to review the entire Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and to present modifications for Council consideration at its February 19 workshop. He said he anticipates changing schedules, not projects. He recommended that Council adopt the CIP as proposed, with the understanding that it will adopt a revised CIP after staff proposes changes in February.

Mr. Burkett mentioned two adjustments to the 2002-2007 CIP previously proposed: 1) the reduction in the amount of the swimming pool improvements project from $100,000 to $10,000; and 2) the inclusion of the $100,000 of funding for the Additional Space Renovation Project in the City Hall project.

Councilmember Grossman moved to adopt Ordinance No. 295, approving and adopting the 2002-2007 Six-Year Capital Improvement Program. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion.

Councilmember Ransom suggested that Ordinance No. 295 include language stating that staff will review the CIP and present modifications for Council consideration by a certain date. Mr. Burkett said it would be appropriate to state that Council will address the CIP as part of the agenda for its February 19 meeting. Councilmember Ransom said a record of this commitment in the meeting minutes is sufficient.

Mayor Jepsen noted his assumption that the City will not publish the CIP until after Council has considered and decided on modifications in February. Mr. Burkett agreed. He mentioned that the City will need to comply with statutory requirements to submit the CIP to some State agencies. Finance Director Debbie Tarry said the City must include the CIP in the adopted budget, which will be printed and published by February 19. She commented that the CIP is subject to future amendment.

Councilmember Gustafson asked why the proposed CIP does not include the reconfiguration of the traffic signal at 3^rd Avenue NW and Richmond Beach Road. Mr. Burkett explained that staff excluded the project because the City lacked funding to accomplish it. Councilmember Gustafson acknowledged this explanation, but he asserted the importance of the project. He suggested that staff and Council reconsider it for inclusion in the CIP. Councilmember Montgomery mentioned that she previously asserted the importance of this project.

Councilmember Lee commented that the results of the citizen satisfaction survey may be helpful to staff and Council reconsideration of the CIP.

A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 295, approving and adopting the 2002-2007 Six-Year Capital Improvement Program. The motion carried 7-0, and Ordinance No. 295 was adopted.

(d) Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Bi-Tech for acquisition of payroll/Human Resources software in the amount of $159,203 (moved to the consent calendar)

(e) Motion to authorize the City Manager to release the grant funds totaling $534,292 back to the WSDOT and WTSC Target Zero Grant Program

Mr. Burkett reviewed the staff report.

Councilmember Montgomery moved that Council authorize the City Manager to release the grant funds totaling $534,292 back to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) Target Zero Grant Program. Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion.

Noting the current economic outlook, Councilmember Ransom questioned whether the City will be able to obtain grant funding again to design the bridge for bicyclists and pedestrians. He went on to question whether the City will be able to obtain $2.3 million more in grant funding to construct the bridge if it accepts the Target Zero Grant Program funding for the design. He indicated that construction of the Interurban Trail is more important to him than construction of the bridge.

Mr. Burkett commented that the preliminary design of the south section of the Interurban Trail, which is now nearing finalization, includes a pedestrian crossing of Aurora Avenue at N 155^th Street.

Councilmember Lee commented that a key element, when Council and staff first discussed this grant, was trying to tie in with the historic bridge structure. She asserted the need for additional research. She questioned the $3.5 million estimated cost to construct a pedestrian bridge.

Councilmember Gustafson discussed his conception of a pedestrian bridge from the abutment west of Aurora Avenue at N 155^th Street to an economically-developed Aurora Square north of N 155^th Street and from there across Aurora Avenue to the south-central segment of the Interurban Trail. He said he does not want to lose this vision. He expressed regret at having to return the Target Zero Grant Program funding. He also questioned the $3.5 million estimated bridge construction cost. He said he would support the staff recommendation to return the grant funding.

Mayor Jepsen asked if the grant agreement the City received from the State stipulates that the City must build a bridge. Mr. Burkett said the City's grant application specified a bridge. Mr. Bauer explained that the State awarded the grant based on the elements City staff included in the application.

Noting that the City has not used much of the grant funding it has received from the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), Mayor Jepsen expressed concern that returning the Target Zero Grant Program funding as well will affect the perception of the City's ability to use the grant funds it obtains. He asked about the impact of returning the grant funding.

Speaking from his experience, Mr. Burkett said an organization with a reputation of not completing projects for which it has received grant funding will be less competitive for future grant funding. He asserted that is not the situation in this case. He said the City would need to divert staff resources from work on the Aurora Corridor and Interurban Trail Projects—for which it has also received grant funding—to complete the grant agreement for the Target Zero Grant Program. He questioned the commitment of resources to a bridge that may not be cost effective and may not be built.

Councilmember Grossman acknowledged that the bridge will be extraordinarily expensive, and he asserted that it will be worth the expense. He noted that it will be part of a "vast regional (trail) system." He described an at-grade crossing of eight lanes of traffic as "a huge interruption." He said the bridge structure will be a landmark in the region. He acknowledged that staff resources are limited. He suggested that the City contract out work that does not have to be completed internally. He indicated his dissatisfaction at returning the Target Zero Grant Program funding.

Mr. Burkett explained his primary concern that the City has not done enough planning about the concept of a bridge spanning Aurora Avenue across the Seattle City Light right-of-way and transmission lines. He expressed concern that the City may be unable to realize the bridge that it has proposed to design.

Reiterating his regret at having to return the funding, Councilmember Gustafson asked if the City: can obtain a one-year extension on the Target Zero Grant Program requirements; can use the funding to consider a tunnel under 175^th Street; or can use the funding to upgrade the existing pedestrian bridge across Interstate 5. He expressed concern that returning the funding will make the City less competitive for other grants.

Councilmember Ransom commented that the City has already had problems "with trying to rush through with projects." He said he does not want the City to rush into something and make another mistake. He agreed with Councilmember Grossman about wanting to proceed, but he asserted that caution is the wisest course.

MEETING EXTENSION

At 9:58 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

Deputy Mayor Hansen asserted that the bridge will be a tremendous attraction to Shoreline. He questioned the projected bridge construction cost. He commented that, without the bridge, Shoreline will have a series of trails and that the Interurban Trail Project will have much less impact. He said the bridge will not necessarily be a part of the Seattle City Light right-of-way because most of it will cover City property.

Mayor Jepsen expressed his inclination to vote against the motion. He said he is not convinced the City knows that the terms of the grant commit the City to build a bridge or whether the City can negotiate an alternative. He expressed concern about losing the opportunity to plan the Interurban Trail and the Aurora Corridor together. He said the bridge is a critical element to the simultaneous progress of the two projects. He asked if the City can "negotiate around the grant" and use the funding to identify design solutions to enable the projects to proceed together. He asked if the City can determine the validity of the $3.5-million cost estimate for the bridge without spending $800,000 (i.e., the grant funding plus the City's 50-percent matching funds).

Mr. Burkett said staff recommends work with a consultant to assess the options for crossing Aurora Avenue and to determine the validity of the $3.5-million cost estimate. He reiterated the problem posed by the January 31^st deadline for the execution of the grant agreement. He said staff will determine whether WSDOT and WTSC can make an exception or extension on the grant. He pointed out that the south section of the Interurban Trail Project and Phase I of the Aurora Corridor Project are funded and that the bridge is not. He said the City will build the trail and rebuild Aurora Avenue before it builds the bridge unless it receives funding for the bridge very soon.

Mayor Jepsen expressed support of the staff recommendation to return the grant funding if there are no other options than to design and build a bridge. He asserted staff uncertainty about the availability of other options.

Councilmember Gustafson agreed. He advocated that staff investigate the availability of other options.

Councilmember Ransom said he had misunderstood that the City would need to issue a request for proposals for the bridge design by January 31, which seemed rushed. He supported the use of the grant funding to explore design solutions, if possible.

After consulting with staff, Mr. Burkett advised that use of the Target Zero Grant Program funding commits the City to build a bridge. He said the City must reapply and compete again for funds to do something else (e.g., construct a tunnel).

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Burkett clarified that the City will have to refund the grant funding if it chooses an alternative to building a bridge.

Councilmember Grossman said he is "okay with that exposure." He asserted that the geography at N 155^th Street and Aurora Avenue N makes a tunnel unworkable. He reiterated the importance of the bridge.

In response to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Burkett agreed that staff can discuss the Target Zero Program Grant funding with the WSDOT and the WTSC and report back to Council.

Councilmember Gustafson moved to postpone this motion until the regular meeting of January 14, 2002. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

(f) Resolution No. 182 establishing new Rules of Procedure for hearings before the Hearing Examiner and the Planning Commission

Councilmember Ransom said the proposed resolution concerns an important issue to some members of the public. He requested a brief explanation of the changes in the rules for hearings before the Hearing Examiner and the Planning Commission.

Mr. Sievers explained that Resolution No. 182 updates City administrative hearing rules to conform with procedures the City implemented upon adoption of the Development Code (e.g., the elimination of closed record hearings). He went on to discuss the format of the new rules of procedure.

Councilmember Ransom moved to adopt Resolution No. 182, establishing new rules of procedure for hearings before the Hearing Examiner and the Planning Commission and repealing Resolution No. 130. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, and Resolution No. 182 was adopted.

9. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT: None

10. ADJOURNMENT

At 10:22 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.

__________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk