CITY
OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 2, 2004
Shoreline Conference Center
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 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Hansen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor
Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll call
by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE
AGENDAS
Steve Burkett, City Manager,
responded to questions from last week relating to the intersection at 15th
Avenue NE and NE 170th Street.
He read a letter from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) stating
that it reviewed the intersection and determined that Shoreline has exceeded
the minimum requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) for pedestrian/traffic safety.
He added that the new three-lane configuration has dramatically improved
safety along the corridor as well. He
said staff would return with further recommendations on a possible
pedestrian-activated signal in that area.
Responding to Councilmember
Ransom, Mr. Burkett clarified that FHWA inspectors have seen 15th
Avenue NE since the three-lane configuration was implemented.
Tim Stewart, Planning and
Development Services Director, responded to questions from last week relating
to Development Code definitions, Twin Ponds playground equipment, parking at
the Aegis development and Twin Pond Park, and Planning Commission directives to
staff regarding the stream inventory.
He said based on his investigation of aerial photographs and current
regulations, parking on the east side of 1st Avenue NE is
permissible, unless restricted by sign or statute. He said the City has the option of posting the area as a No
Parking zone. Regarding the concern
about overflow parking at Twin Ponds Park, he said there are no regulations prohibiting
the use of public parking by members of the public. He explained that while the Planning Commission did not review
the recommended definition for Reasonable Use, it was clearly delineated in the
staff report as a change from the Planning Commission report to the
Council. He said the Planning
Commission Chair was at the Council meeting when the ordinance was passed and
indicated that he had no concern about the changes. He explained that the play structure at Twin Ponds Park was
located on land that had previously been a grass playfield and that has
identical drainage characteristics. He
said outdoor recreational activities that do not have an adverse effect on
Critical Areas are exempt from the code.
He added that minor activities determined by the City to have a minimal
impact are also exempt from Critical Areas regulations.
Finally, Mr. Stewart
responded to the comment that staff is ignoring Planning Commission directives
regarding artificial open watercourses in the stream inventory. He said staff takes Planning Commission
recommendations very seriously. He
explained that the Council was informed in December of the intention to delete
the artificial open watercourse and substitute that with open watercourses
throughout the report. He concluded by
stating that after the stream inventory is completed, it will be submitted to
the Planning Commission and Council for review.
Councilmember
Fimia felt the staff report left the false impression that the Thornton Creek
Legal Defense Fund (TCLDF) agreed with the changes made to the Reasonable Use
definition.
Mr.
Stewart said he did not intend to leave the impression that the TCLDF agreed
with all changes made to the Development Code. He pointed out that there were many discussions about contentious
issues over several months between the City, TCLDF, and Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife. He said the
discussions culminated in the staff report of June 23, 2003 that clearly
outlined the changes from the Planning Commission and identified a new
definition for Reasonable Use. He said
the staff report and meeting minutes indicate that Reasonable Use was clearly
articulated.
Councilmember
Fimia emphasized that the TCLDF would not support a less stringent definition
for Reasonable Use as the staff report seems to convey.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Gustafson reported on his attendance at
the Partnering for Success Conference, which focused on the effect of parental
involvement on academic achievement. He
hoped the City could perhaps look at ways to get parents more involved in the
schools.
Councilmember Grace thanked the City Manager and staff
for the orientation he received at City Hall.
He reported that he and Councilmembers Fimia and Ransom met to discuss
issues relating to community input, and that their recommendations would be
coming forward soon.
Councilmember Ransom reported on the Association of
Washington Cities Legislative retreat in Olympia, and on a particularly helpful
session about influencing the legislature.
He reported that even though the issue of city
annexation was resolved through the courts, the legislature did not seem to
want to deal with it. Cities can again
use annexation petitions, although some still have concerns about the
practice. He expressed concern that
other than using some reserves, the legislature is not adequately addressing
the $500 million budget shortfall this year.
He was also concerned about how the legislature would deal with a
deficit of $1 billion projected for 2005.
He said cutting reserves to a proposed 1% level would not maintain a
sufficient buffer for necessary expenditures.
Councilmember Fimia thanked Councilmember Grace for the
effective planning meeting. She also thanked
City staff for her tour and orientation at City Hall.
Responding to Mayor Hansen, Councilmember Chang reported
that a teacher and his student from Boryeong, South Korea are currently
visiting Shoreline. The student plans
to stay in Shoreline for the next several years and attend Shoreline Community
College.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen reported on the Sister Cities
Association’s planning sessions in anticipation of a reciprocal visit from
Boryeong City delegates this spring.
Another planning meeting will be held this Thursday. He also reminded the Council about the
Top Foods Grand Opening on Wednesday, February 4.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Janet
Way, Shoreline, described the efforts of the TCLDF to oppose unrestricted
development along Thornton Creek, and said TCLDF will challenge anyone who
refutes the viability of Thornton Creek.
She said TCLDF chose not to fight the Reasonable Use issue but was not
made aware of any changes to the definition.
She said there is a “perception of deception” because the City makes it
appear that the TCLDF agreed with the change.
She said the only reason “artificial watercourses” was taken out of the
code is because the TCLDF, Twin Ponds Fish Friends, and other citizens were
forceful about that issue.
(b) LaNita
Wacker, Shoreline, addressed proposed Resolution No. 212. She explained the difference between
part-time Councilmembers (decision-makers) and full-time staff paid by tax
dollars to conduct City business. She
said the distance between workshop sessions and regular meetings allows
part-time decision-makers to do independent research, outreach, and think
independently. She asked Councilmembers
to ask themselves whether the staff serves the needs of the Council, or if
Council serves the desires of the staff.
She said if Resolution No. 212 is passed as proposed, Council will be
“rubber stamping” staff reports and waiving its right to independent thinking
and outreach.
(c) Ginger
Botham, Shoreline, was pleased that “artificial watercourses” was taken out of
the Development Code amendments. She
cautioned that the proposed changes to the zoning variance regulations do not
specify that variances should be the minimum necessary to grant relief to the
applicant. She suggested that the City
research how other jurisdictions handle zoning variances. She said her biggest concern with Resolution
No. 212 is that it eliminates the practice of noticing for special meetings.
She said she relies on special meeting notices to alert her to action
items.
(d) Patty Crawford,
Shoreline, said she also relies on a mailed agenda to inform her of potential
Council action. She asserted that the
City is spending money to attack citizens such as herself and Janet Way. She said it is not the citizens’
responsibility to take the City to court, but it is the City’s responsibility
to follow its development requirements.
She said the ordinance that adopted the new Development Code
requirements is misleading because there was no public discussion about the
changes to the Reasonable Use definition.
She requested more time to respond to Mr. Stewart’s report.
(f) Barbara
Lacy, Shoreline, reminded Council that the City assured the Echo Lake
Neighborhood Association that it would take water quality samples of Echo Lake
during fall/winter. She said the timing
is still excellent because of the high water level.
(g) Pat
Murray, Shoreline, asked that the warning signal for public comment be set to
allow more time for speakers to formulate concluding remarks. He said the Aegis development should not be
allowed to work on its south site because it is contested. He warned that Shoreline could face legal
challenges similar to Seattle if it permits development in hazardous areas,
such as the Casper development in Richmond Beach. He said Shoreline should not try to protect applicants from
their own mistakes because it will assume legal liability. He felt public input would be reduced by
Resolution No. 212 because citizens would not be allowed to comment at
appropriate times.
(h) Cindy
Ryu, Shoreline, noted that the money allocated for gateways ($100,000 each year
for 2004 and 2005) could be better spent on essential items such as sidewalks,
road maintenance, and traffic safety improvements. She said the City should opt for less elaborate designs. She also asked for assurances that the City
would not tear out and reinstall gateways at additional costs.
(i) Bob
Barta, Shoreline, described his proposal for developing the Dayton Triangle
property into a City gateway. He noted
that other jurisdictions erect monuments to establish desired values and to
inspire. He said the site could include
a large, multi-sided monument embedded with the inspirational messages of hope,
respect, and civic responsibility. He
felt that inspiring people is part of what government should do.
(j) Tim
Crawford, Shoreline, reminded Council that there is a buffer-averaging suit
against the City for the Aegis south site, and that the City has not yet
measured the ordinary high water mark.
Regarding the Reasonable Use definition, he said the Planning Commission
Chair does not represent a majority of Planning Commission members. He noted that the playground equipment at
Twin Ponds Park has more impacts than a grass field.
(k) Diane
Murray, Shoreline, asked Council to reconsider the amount of time it allows
citizens to comment at meetings. She
felt that agenda items are an implied invitation for citizens to offer their
input. She said letters written to
Councilmembers are not made public in the same way as comments at a Council
meeting. She said many people rely on
the replay of Council meetings in order to stay in touch with City
business. She said citizens deserve to
be heard.
(l) Richard Johnsen,
Shoreline, noted that no Councilmembers responded to his concerns expressed
last week regarding the closure of QFC.
He felt that the Council or City staff should do something to show some
concern and empathy towards citizens.
He characterized the sudden closure and decision by the ownership to
cancel lease agreements as “backdoor dealing.”
Mr. Burkett noted that staff
would follow up on Ms. Lacy’s request.
Mayor Hansen noted that
letters sent to individual Councilmembers become public documents and are
circulated to the entire Council. He
noted that the public currently has two opportunities to speak at workshop
meetings.
Councilmember Fimia asked
that staff responses to citizen questions be provided to the citizen prior to
any Council presentation. She was
disappointed that staff did not follow up with Ms. Crawford or Ms. Way prior to
the staff report on playground equipment and Reasonable Use. She requested that stakeholders be given an
adequate opportunity to respond.
Councilmember Chang commented
that the information he gets from staff, the public, and the Planning
Commission seems to be inconsistent. He
felt that all parties should be brought together to resolve issues in an honest
way. He wondered if staff is
adequately addressing Ms. Crawford and Ms. Way’s concerns.
Councilmember Ransom agreed
that he is hearing mixed messages. He
thought it strange that the water level at Peverly Pond has been reduced, even
though staff has stated that the dam is unchanged. He noted that Council is not well informed about the QFC closure,
primarily because it is private property issue. He also commented that the Council does not have a role in the
Critical Areas Reasonable Use Permit in Richmond Beach because the Hearing
Examiner is the decision-making authority on that issue.
Councilmember Chang felt the
City Manager or City Attorney need to respond to the question about parking at
the Aegis site.
Mayor Hansen explained that
the staff report was simply a response to citizen questions that were raised at
the last Council meeting. He noted that
there will always be differing opinions about whether issues have been
adequately addressed, and that it is unlikely such complex issues will be
resolved in a Council meeting during public comment. He said Council’s responsibility is to evaluate what staff says
and ensure that items are followed up appropriately.
Councilmember Grace felt that
as a matter of courtesy, staff should provide their reports to the members of
the public who brought up issues prior to the meeting so citizens have a chance
to prepare.
Councilmember Fimia agreed,
noting it also would not be fair to allow citizens to comment on the staff
report and then prevent staff from responding.
She agreed that while meetings should not be entirely devoted to public
input, citizens should have prior notice and be given an opportunity to
respond.
Mayor Hansen noted that while
public comment is one of several ways to communicate with the Council, it is
not necessarily the best way.
Councilmember Fimia felt the
City is inviting antagonism if answers to questions are not viewed as correct
or if there is no opportunity to respond.
Mayor Hansen said as a
Councilmember it is his responsibility to be an advocate if he feels someone’s
issue is not being adequately addressed.
He said he goes to the City Manager or staff with such issues but does
not necessarily address them at a Council meeting.
Councilmember Ransom pointed
out that public comment has increased from two minutes to three minutes, and
that other jurisdictions, such as King County, still only allow two minutes per
speaker. He felt that speakers should
be alerted when they have 30 seconds remaining instead of 15 seconds. He felt the Council is doing as much as it can
in terms of providing public comment opportunities.
Mayor Hansen pointed out that
he has not been enforcing the 30-minute time limit or the three-speaker
limitation on the same topic.
Councilmember Gustafson felt the
Council should consider strategies and guidelines for addressing these issues
outside of Council meetings. He agreed
with time limitations, noting there are many ways to contact Council. He suggested the Council continue to
consider ways to improve the process.
6. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a)
Boeing Creek Water Quality
Study
Bob Olander, Deputy City
Manager, introduced Mark Newman, from the Ronald Wastewater District, and
Alison Guise, teacher at Shorewood High School. Ms. Guise was accompanied by Chris Nordstrand and James Anderson,
who are part of a student club called Students Active for the Environment
(SAFE). They have been involved in a
project counting fish and testing water quality in Boeing Creek. Ms. Guise reported the results of their
four-year study, noting that water quality is in the tolerable range. She expressed interest in exploring ways to
allow fish further upstream through dam removal/reconstruction.
Councilmember Gustafson
thanked the participants for their efforts.
He pointed out that the Water Resource Inventory Area 8 committee
provides grant funding for projects such as dam reconstruction. Ms. Guise expressed interest in learning
more about what grants may be available.
She noted that removal of the dam would require a coordinated effort
with the Innis Arden Board.
Mayor Hansen commented on the
success of the fish hatchery on Deer Creek in Edmonds. He said it would be nice if Council had
technical information such as oxygen content and temperature in order to better
understand the quality of fish habitat in Boeing Creek.
Responding to Mayor Hansen,
Ms. Guise said any hatchery project would have to consider the particular
species of fish planted in a given watershed.
She noted that chum and coho salmon are the two species that return to
Boeing Creek. Mayor Hansen said his
brother, a fisheries biologist, felt that fish habitat could be supported as
far as Boeing Creek Park.
Councilmember Fimia asked if
SAFE has collaborated with either the Home Waters Project (North Seattle
Community College) or the Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund. Ms. Guise said SAFE mainly focuses on Boeing
Creek since not as much attention has been paid to it. She noted that Thornton Creek is a separate
watershed that goes in a different direction.
She also added there is no real threat of development along Boeing
Creek.
Councilmember Fimia noted the
passion in the community for watershed issues.
She felt the City should be consistent in its willingness to listen and
incorporate ideas.
(b)
Gateway Implementation Sites
for 2004
Mr. Stewart introduced this item and provided background on
the City’s adopted Gateway policy, including identification of several
“priority” locations for gateways.
Andrea Spencer, Planner, asked for Council input on the designs
of the next implementation sites and confirmation of which gateways would be
constructed in 2004.
She outlined the following three options organized by
staff:
Direct staff to proceed with construction of the 175th
& I-5 East (cost estimate $60,000).
Direct staff to proceed with 30% design of the
Westminster Dayton Triangle gateway.
Option B
Direct staff to proceed with construction of the
southern portion of the Westminster/Dayton Triangle gateway (cost estimate
$75,000 plus environmental remediation).
Provide feedback on the
designs for the identified gateway.
Direct staff to proceed with construction site(s) from the Gateway Manual Priority List as determined by Council.
She concluded by saying that staff seeks direction
to proceed with both the final design and construction of the gateway at East
175th & I-5 and 30% design of the Westminster/Dayton Triangle
gateway (Option A). Staff recommends Option
A because the City has already coordinated extensively with the Washington
State Department of Transportation on the I-5/175th site.
Responding to Councilmember Fimia, Ms. Spencer explained
that the City is about to sign a “turn back” agreement, which will return
ownership of the I-5 property to the City.
Councilmember Fimia emphasized the importance of getting public input in
the design of the Dayton Triangle gateway.
Mr. Stewart noted that public outreach is a part of the 30%
design process. He pointed out that 30%
is very preliminary, and any decisions on design would require Council approval
each step of the way.
Councilmember Grace supported the approach at the Dayton
Triangle of leaving space for potential reconfiguration of 155th
Street. He commented that clean-up
costs for the property should be kept separate from the design/construction
costs. He also emphasized the
importance of a consistent image at all the gateways.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen agreed that clean-up costs should not
come out of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget. He felt that there should be funding with
Option A to develop design concepts for the I-5 pedestrian bridge gateway. Councilmember Gustafson supported this. He also said the Council should discuss the
philosophical question of whether $100,000 per year should be spent on
gateways.
Councilmember Ransom expressed support for Option A. He agreed that design concepts for the
pedestrian bridge should be included if possible. He reminded Council of his recommendation to have a plaque with
the current City population at each gateway.
Councilmember Chang agreed that it is time to move
forward. He stressed the importance of
public participation in the design process.
Mayor Hansen asked staff to consider Mr. Barta’s idea for
erecting a monument at the Dayton Triangle.
He expressed interest in seeing the 30% design and what will be proposed
for that site.
There was Council consensus to move forward with Option A.
(c)
Interlocal Agreement for Jail
Administration
Bob Olander, Deputy City
Manager, reviewed the background on the issue of providing jail services for
Shoreline’s misdemeanant offenders. He
said the interlocal agreement provides the framework document for cities within
King County to work together to manage the King County and the Yakima County
jail service contracts, dispose of property held for jail purposes by the City
of Bellevue, and develop a plan to manage the city’s inmate population after
the termination of the King County jail contract in 2012. He said the agreement has been carefully
crafted and balanced to meet the needs of all participating cities. He noted that the Suburban Cities
Association has reviewed and approved agreement.
He said while the agreement does not decide the outcomes of future planning efforts or bind any city to participate in these efforts, it does establish a process for how these future efforts will be undertaken. The interlocal agreement creates three different committees with specific responsibilities, an annual budget and assessment method for all cities to pay for staff support, and a fiscal agent (currently Tukwila) to manage fiscal responsibilities. The three groups include:
He said Shoreline’s share of funding one position in the Jail Administrative Group totals $3,497, which is available in the City’s jail budget. Mr. Olander concluded by recommending that the City Council review and discuss the interlocal agreement and forward it to the next available Regular Meeting for adoption.
Mayor Hansen was glad the
agreement was finally reached, noting the challenges that have come up along
the way.
Councilmember Chang suggested
that Shoreline look into the Marysville model of building its own facility and
selling jail beds to surrounding jurisdictions. Mr. Burkett responded that it seems a better approach to share
the risk with a larger group. He also
commented on the difficulty of siting a jail in Shoreline.
Councilmember Ransom noted
that Lynnwood and Issaquah also have jails, so Shoreline should consider this
approach as a solution to contract termination with King County. He noted that the City of Lynnwood offered
to add 20 additional beds to their jail of 40 beds for Shoreline’s use. He also offered to serve as the SCA
representative on the Jail Administrative Group since he served on the jail
administration committee for five years.
Mr. Burkett pointed out that
the interlocal agreement is a ten-year commitment with Yakima County. Mr. Olander said one long-term solution to
managing the City’s inmate population might be to expand existing jails in the
area.
There was a brief discussion
of the possibility of using property in the City of Bellevue, which King County
bought for a jail site.
Councilmember Ransom raised
the possibility of reestablishing minimum-security jails in Shoreline (such as
the North Rehabilitation Facility at Fircrest).
Councilmember Fimia suggested
the use of the site of the North Rehabilitation Facility at Fircrest as a jail
facility. She thought the community
would support this as long as it included a drug treatment program. She also suggested implementing prevention/
treatment programs in Shoreline to try to reduce inmate populations.
After discussion about King
County’s reasons for canceling the contract with Shoreline, Councilmember Fimia
suggested that SCA request a performance audit of the County to determine why
its jail costs are so high.
Councilmember Ransom
theorized that the County is canceling the contract because it can keep more of
its own prisoners at the jail at a higher operating cost, rather than
contracting with cities for less money.
Councilmember Grace expressed
support for the agreement and for exploration of possibilities in the future.
There was Council consensus
to bring this item forward for action.
(d)
Resolution No. 212 amending
Section 5.5 and 5.7 of the Rules of Procedure for the City Council
Mr. Burkett summarized the
discussion from last week on this item and reminded Council that this change to
the Rules of Procedure allows Council the flexibility of taking final actions
at all four of its monthly meetings. He
distributed a new copy of the resolution containing the following changes made
by staff:
“3)
taking final action on items placed should only be placed on the
Workshop Agenda under Rule 3.2 for final passage when consideration at a
Regular Meeting would be detrimental due to time constraints, and no ordinance
shall be passed at a Workshop without a
Special Meeting notice of the agenda item.”
Mayor Hansen said he looked
very closely at the proposed changes and supports them as written. He noted that the revisions do not give the
Council any more rights than what already existed under Rules of Procedure
Section 3.2.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney,
pointed out that neither state law nor the current rules require that the
public receive notice of special meetings; past notices have been issued as a
matter of practice and fortunate circumstance.
He said typically most items have been added to the agenda with enough
time to include them on the agenda notice.
Councilmember Grace asked staff
to clarify what the practice has been regarding decisions made at workshop
meetings. Mr. Burkett explained that
when Council achieves consensus on a particular project or option, staff
interprets that consensus as direction, even though no vote is taken. He used the Gateways agenda item to
illustrate that there is consensus for proceeding with Option A.
Councilmember Grace asked for
examples of items that would be considered detrimental due to time
constraints. Mr. Burkett said although
it is rare, Council has identified deadlines for certain projects or actions in
the past that have required special meetings.
Mayor Hansen inferred that
the rule change would prohibit passing an ordinance at a workshop without notice,
which seems to be even more restrictive than current practice.
Mr. Sievers explained that
since workshops are considered regular meetings under state law, the real
conflict is in the City’s language that defines the scope of a workshop. He said the rules should reflect the current
practice that Council can give direction or make positive or negative
decisions. He felt that Council would
be less productive if workshops are made to be purely informational sessions
without any consensus-building or decision-making.
Mayor Hansen described
Bellevue’s process for taking action on time-sensitive items.
Councilmember Ransom
generally supported the proposed changes, noting that they seem to reinforce
the process Council has followed for the past eight years. He pointed out that other jurisdictions
actually have a longer process for proposing and passing legislation.
Councilmember Fimia
emphasized that the needs of Council and staff can sometimes conflict with the
public’s need for predictability, accountability, and due diligence. She suggested that the process should try to
balance the need to make decisions with adequate noticing and
predictability. She felt that only items
of an emergency nature should be added to workshop agendas, and then only by a
two-thirds majority vote of Council.
She said she would be proposing further amendments for next week’s
meeting. Deputy Mayor Jepsen asked that
the amendments be provided with enough time to allow Council and the public to
sufficiently review them.
Councilmember Gustafson felt
Councilmembers are not only elected to take public input, but also to conduct
City business and make decisions in a timely manner. He pointed out that the Council has always been able to add or
remove agenda items in the past based on Robert’s Rules of Order. He was supportive of the proposed changes
because they conform to current practice and state law.
7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a)
LaNita
Wacker, Shoreline, asserted that adoption of the Reasonable Use definition was
improper since there was no public comment taken on it at the Planning
Commission. She noted that the Council
meeting of May 12 did not include discussion of Reasonable Use, and that the
opinion of the Planning Commission Chair does not represent the opinion of the
entire Commission. She felt the City
Attorney should have explained the legal ramifications of the definition before
it was adopted. On the topic of
gateways, she pointed out that other cultures erect monuments for the sole
purpose of lifting the spirit.
(b)
Janet
Way, Shoreline, felt the City has been inconsistent in its approach to fish
habitat issues in Boeing Creek and Thornton Creek. She asserted that the City has sought to undermine the value of
habitat in Thornton Creek, and that the City even questions whether it is a
salmon stream. She said City staff has
been ignoring laws prohibiting inappropriate development along Thornton Creek
as well as court rulings. She felt
Gateway funding could be better spent on creeks, air quality, pedestrian safety,
and sidewalks. She characterized the
gateway program as “pretentious.” She
said the water level at Peverly Pond is significantly lower than it used to be.
(c)
Patty
Crawford, Shoreline, said the new play structure in Twin Ponds Park has a greater
impact on the environment than the grass that was there before. She noted that people continue to park
vehicles within the creek buffer along 1st Avenue NE. She said while the park is open to the public, the parking should
not be available for private businesses such as Aegis. She reiterated that there was no public
participation process for the Reasonable Use definition.
(d)
Richard
Johnsen, Shoreline, said the Council was elected to listen to the citizens, no
matter how long they may wish to speak.
He felt the Council should have provided more feedback when he commented
on the closure of QFC two weeks ago. He
also felt the City Manager or staff should have followed up on the closure of
the post office. Finally, he expressed
opposition to the design concepts proposed for the pedestrian bridge, which he
thought would serve as a distraction to motorists. He urged the Council to contact a citizen in the Ballinger
neighborhood who also opposes the design.
8. ADJOURNMENT
At 9:50
p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Sharon
Mattioli, City Clerk