CITY
OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
PRESENT: Mayor Ransom, Deputy Mayor Fimia, Councilmembers Hansen,
Gustafson, McGlashan, Ryu, and Way
ABSENT: None
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Ransom led the flag
salute. Upon roll call by the City
Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Bob Olander, Interim City
Manager, noted that the long range agenda planner is now published on the
City’s website. He responded to an
inquiry from the previous Council meeting from Mr. Mascott and stated the
4.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Deputy Mayor Fimia thanked staff for the tour
of the Aurora Project given by staff. She
also commented on the presentation at the King County Town Hall Meeting on
Emergency Preparedness. She emphasized
the need for regional coordination and ensuring families meet 72-hour preparedness
guidelines.
Councilmember Gustafson added that the
Council of Neighborhoods has had several meetings with the Emergency Management
Preparedness Team concerning Shoreline’s preparedness.
Councilmember McGlashan commented on the AWC
Conference in
Mayor Ransom announced the National League of
Cities appointments. He said
Councilmember McGlashan is on the Community and Economic Development Committee
and Steering Committee. He also
announced that Councilmember Gustafson was selected for the First Tiers Suburbs
Council Steering Committee. He also
stated he was selected for the First Tiers Suburban Cities Planning Committee
and the Human Development Planning and Steering Committees. He then read the guidelines for the public
comment period.
5. PUBLIC
COMMENT
(a) Bob Barta,
Shoreline, commented that at the Vision Shoreline meetings there was discussion
about making Shoreline a “people-friendly place.” He advocated for more opportunities for public
visioning, noting that the City charrettes seemed “set” or “final” rather than
being more flexible. He said there are
three “villages” of
(b)
Ken Cottingham,
Shoreline, thanked Mr. Olander for writing him a letter outlining the Aurora
Corridor Project. He said the infighting
on the Council needs to stop. The
Council needs to work out their problems and not waste time during Council
meetings. He thanked Mr. Olander for
responding to his inquires.
(c)
Dom Amor, Shoreline, spoke
on behalf of Citizens for Shoreline Schools and encouraged everyone to vote on
the bond and levy issue. He thanked the
community organizations that have supported the bond and levy. He said he likes to see positivity in the
City, noting that the schools have united people. He thanked the 32nd District
Democrats, the 32nd District Republicans, and all the Rotary
organizations and volunteers for their work and support. He regretted that the City Council was not
able to formally endorse it.
(d)
Dot Brenchley,
Shoreline, said her son resides at Fircrest and she is a member of Friends of
Fircrest, which has a long history of working in the best interest of the
community. She said former Councilmember
Chang had dreams for Fircrest, and there will be a time for public input once
the plan for the Fircrest Foundation is drafted.
(e)
Jerome Burns,
Shoreline, commented that an article from the New York Times, titled “The Next
Retirement Time Bomb” stated that Governmental Standards Board Ruling #45
requires governments and school boards with health and benefit obligations to
retirees to report overall benefit costs in 2007. He expressed the opinion that cities are under-budgeting
future pension plans.
(f)
Les Nelson, Shoreline,
commented on the improvement in driving conditions on
Mr. Olander responded to public comments, noting that the City Attorney
sent a legal opinion regarding the levy endorsement. He said if the Council were to endorse the bond
they would have needed a public hearing prior to their endorsement. Knowing this, he said, there was not enough
time to advertise the meeting according to public notice requirements. Responding to comments on pensions and health
care costs, he said the City doesn’t provide retiree health benefits. A much larger issue, he said, is that the
State has been under-funding their portion of the employee pension systems. As far as pothole issues on
Mayor Ransom added that there are only eleven states that have pre-funded
retiree health benefits.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to revise the agenda and move item 8(a) to
6(a). Councilmember Ryu seconded the
motion, which carried 7-0.
Councilmember Hansen moved to approve the revised agenda. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion,
which carried 7-0.
6. ACTION ITEM
(a)
North Central Interurban Trail – Additive Elements
Dave Buchan, Capital Projects Manager, said
the responses to the Council inquiries are included in the staff report. He noted that this revised additive elements
plan is roughly $250,000 less than the original plan.
Councilmember Gustafson inquired what the
recommendation was from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Committee.
Mr. Buchan noted that the Committee
unanimously recommended this modified package.
Mr. Olander pointed out that this reduces the
number of pedestrian lights, however, the infrastructure would still be in tact
and more lights could be added at a later date.
Councilmember Gustafson asked to see a
diagram of the pole lights to get a better idea what they would look like.
Mr. Buchan said the intent is to install the
standard Seattle City Light (SCL) fixture which removes glare for homeowners
residing along the trail, yet provides an element of safety along the corridor. Mr. Olander added that this will occur in the
area north of 185th on Midvale behind the nursery.
Councilmember Gustafson said he supported the
package, but said it should be done right the first time. He suggested that the Midvale lighting be retained
as an extra bid item. He reiterated that
he would like to see individual bids for the
Mr. Buchan responded that they were, but they
do not provide enough illumination to light the general area.
Councilmember
Gustafson moved to approve the North Central Interurban Trail – Additive
Elements package as presented with additional bid solicitations for
Deputy Mayor Fimia thanked City staff for
revising the package, noting it would possibly reduce the cost.
Councilmember Ryu appreciated the City staff
saving $240,000 because the City will be facing higher costs on the Aurora
Corridor Project and future projects.
Councilmember
Gustafson withdrew the original motion and then moved to approve the North Central Interurban Trail – Additive Elements
package as presented with additional bid solicitations for
Councilmember McGlashan asked if the
electrical infrastructure being placed along the entire length of the trail
included higher voltage lampposts. He also
asked whether the $31,000 for sidewalks at N. 185th & Midvale is
sufficient.
Mr. Buchan responded that the higher voltage
lampposts are not a part of the package, however, if Council wishes to pursue
the
A vote was
taken on the motion, which carried 7-0.
Councilmember
Fimia moved to allocate $200,000 for trail safety and user enhancements. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion,
which carried 6-0, with Councilmember Ryu abstaining.
(b)
Motion Authorizing Legal Defense of King et al. v. Fimia et al.
Mr. Olander stated this item
was postponed from the
Scott Passey, City Clerk,
pointed out there is a motion on the table to approve this item.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, commented
that all officials of the City are entitled to a determination of legal defense
when sued or a claim is brought against them.
The ordinance also covers indemnity and coverage for the defense of the
claim. The decision of the Council is to
determine if a claim or suit against the official or employee meets the
criteria of the chapter. The Council can
allow defense coverage under reservation of rights, which is the Interim City
Manager’s recommendation because the suit alleges intentional acts were made
knowingly in violation of State law. He noted that a draft letter is included
in the staff report if Council decides to provide defense under this ordinance. He cautioned the Council not to violate the
agreement not to discuss Steve Burkett’s performance or anything else leading
up to his voluntary resignation.
Mayor Ransom called for
public comment.
1)
Bob Barta, Shoreline, said the termination of Steve Burkett was not
done in malice. He supported the motion
to provide legal defense and urged the Council to get on with the task of
building and making the City better.
2)
Bronston Kenney, Shoreline, commented that the Council’s attention is
being diverted from City business to a lawsuit.
He said the Councilmembers acted appropriately, and he believed Progress
Shoreline launched a dirty campaign utilizing the threat of litigation. He said the lawsuit should cease because it
embarrasses Shoreline. He supported
defending the named Councilmembers because other Councilmembers may need legal
defense in the future.
3)
Ken Cottingham, Shoreline, noted that the City Attorney said the City
will defend those persons. He felt the
lawsuit will destroy the City and stop normal business and be a time-consuming
interruption. He supported eliminating
the time waste, add that residents want
progress on the Council.
4)
Sherry Marlin, Shoreline, said the Council should act as a group. She pointed out that the City Attorney said
there are five criteria for allowing the City defense of this lawsuit. Two of them, she said, do not fit. She highlighted that #1 does not fit because
the full City Council was not involved in this decision. Additionally, she said #5 does not fit
because the conduct was dishonest and intentional. Furthermore, she added, to include Ms. Ryu in
this process who was not a councilmember at the time was unethical. She concluded that there has been no
admonition of wrongdoing so she does not favor providing legal representation
for the named Councilmembers.
5)
Duane Wald felt the process in removing Mr. Burkett was the
problem. He said George Mauer is not
qualified to be the City Manager. He
thought the process is flawed and it needs to be fixed. He said if it takes a lawsuit, then so be
it. He supported the motion to defend
the Councilmembers.
6)
Vicki Westberg, Shoreline, urged the Council to support the City staff
recommendations on this item and in the future.
7)
Kevin Grossman, Shoreline, said that providing defense for
Councilmembers because of their work is a key role of city government, however,
they must be working in good faith and under state law for this to apply. They need to meet all five criteria, he said,
to be defended by the City. He felt the Councilmembers
were not working on behalf of the City, so their conduct does not meet the
criterion for defense. He said the four
Councilmembers were in violation of state law and the Open Public Meetings Act. He noted that there are admissions in the
Council meetings, publicly-available email, voicemail, and documents that the
four were dishonest with the public and other Councilmembers.
At
7.
ACTION ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING
(a) Public hearing to receive citizens’ comments on
Ordinance No. 407, adopting a
Moratorium and Interim
Controls to Regulate Tree Cutting
Joe
Tovar, Planning and Development Services Director, outlined the provisions of Ordinance
No. 407, which establish a moratorium and rules for dealing with the exemption on
the cutting of hazardous trees. Council options are to; 1) take no action, 2) repeal
Ordinance No. 407, or 3) amend the interim controls. He said the scope of the public hearing is
the moratorium and the interim regulations.
He said City staff is in the process of deriving permanent regulations
dealing with the cutting of trees and provisions for hazardous trees and
potentially other tree cutting provisions under our Code. These, he added, will be brought to the
Planning Commission in late March. He
urged the public to submit any comments or suggestions on the permanent
regulations to him or Matt Torpey in the Planning Department.
Mayor
Ransom read a statement on Ordinance No. 407 outlining the scope of the
hearing, adding that the moratorium expires on
1)
Wendy DiPeso, Shoreline, supported
the temporary moratorium. She said the
trees are deeply rooted and provide stability to embankments. Tree-cutters, she added, undermine the
viability and stability of their own properties by cutting trees. If residents are allowed to cut the trees,
then they will sue the City for damage to their properties even though they
caused the damage themselves. She
thanked the Council for giving the staff time to research the issue.
2)
Peter Henry, Shoreline, concurred
with the previous speaker’s comments, noting that tree-cutting had reached
emergency levels. Now, he said, the City
can come up with modifications to the existing Code without any cutting
continuing.
3)
Dennis Lee, Shoreline, supported
the moratorium and urged the Council to keep it in place to allow enough time
to revise the code and deal with this issue in a proper manner.
4)
Gene Maddox, Shoreline, thanked the Council for the moratorium. He felt the Reserves have been destroyed by
the Innis Arden Club (IAC) Board of Directors for the purpose of creating views
to enhance property values. The IAC has
lied to the City, he said, claiming trees are old, diseased, and/or
hazardous. This tree cutting is causing
erosion, land slides, and threatening the stability of homes. The goal of the IAC is to level a mile of
trees from
5)
Elaine Phelps, Shoreline, stated that Ordinance No. 407 serves the
community by giving the City staff a chance to look at the consequences of
current code. The Code needs to be
revised severely to allow the City to enforce cutting regulations. She said the IAC Board refuses to allow City
employees access to the properties to view the cutting and how they are
executing their permits. She said should
be independent City staff that can judge the affect the tree-cutting is
having. This moratorium, she concluded,
is exactly what the City needs to allow reasonable, careful consideration of
the code.
6)
Mike Jacobs, Shoreline, president of the Innis Arden Club, said the IAC
does not restrict City personnel on its property. The IAC Board is elected to manage the
fifty-two acres of reserve tracts which are private, park-like areas with miles
of recreational trails that are used by residents. The IAC has spent thousands of dollars to
manage the trees in the tracts for safety.
He felt Ordinance No. 407 prevented the IAC from removing known
hazardous trees and the IAC’s ability to manage the Reserves. He said there are five trees that have fallen
in the Eagle Reserve, so it has been closed.
It is critical, he said, that the IAC takes necessary steps to protect
its residents. He urged the Council to
repeal the ordinance because it will endanger the public. He said the least the City could do is add
the language “recreational trails” under Section 3.
7)
Tom Avril, Shoreline, said he has been residing in Innis Arden for at
least thirty-two years and the IAC doesn’t speak through one voice or through
the IAC president. He pointed out that the
term “hazardous tree” according to the IAC also refers to view-obstructing
trees. He said Innis Arden has done the
City a disservice by not enacting a reserves management plan. He asked the Council to leave the moratorium
in place and take time doing research and taking input to craft new language. He urged the Council not to take counsel from
Innis Arden residents but to utilize and formulate their own conclusions on
what to do about the issue.
8)
Nancy Rust, Shoreline, disagreed with Mr. Jacobs’ statements and said
the IAC are not stewards of the land.
She said the management plan for the reserves entails cutting trees for
private views for the increase of property values. She said she was one of the original sponsors
of the Growth Management Act and all cities were required to identify their
critical areas and adopt plans to protect them.
She felt Shoreline has failed to protect its critical areas by turning
the other way while trees have been cut.
She said you don’t need to drive into Innis Arden to view the damage to
the trees; you can look uphill on
9)
Richard Rust, Shoreline, said he resides in Innis Arden and felt
Shoreline has a plan already. He added
that the failure to be good stewards has resulted in the destruction of the
natural environment, as viewed by the instability of steep slopes in this
area. He urged the Council to enhance
and strengthen the Critical Areas Ordinance and continue the moratorium until
the revision process is completed.
10)
Erik Paulsen, Shoreline, thanked Shoreline for placing the school bonds
on the ballot. Families in Shoreline
make decisions about tree cutting in the City.
11)
Gery Nunilee, Shoreline, stated he is a twenty-one year resident of
Innis Arden. He stated he has tried to
keep the height of his trees no higher than his rooftop. He said that unfortunately the desire of some
residents to obtain a view of the water or to recover a lost view has caused
some serious problems in the community with no easy solution in sight. He said Blue Heron was a beautiful reserve,
but now many trees have been cut. He is
dismayed by the means used to gain permission to cut trees on steep slopes with
streams nearby. In his opinion the
system is flawed and the term “hazardous trees” has been greatly exaggerated by
members of the IAC Board and by the professional arborist hired to provide the
desired analysis. He pointed out that
there are several trees in the Blue Heron reserve that have been “topped” or
“hacked.” He said the people who did the
cutting live on top of the hill far away from the reserves and are not affected
by the change in noise level and loss of privacy caused by the cutting. He invited the Councilmembers to his home to
view the condition of Blue Heron reserve.
12)
John Hushagen, Shoreline, said
he also resides in Innis Arden and is an arborist by occupation. He asserted that Blue Heron reserve is a
mess. He said the moratorium needs to be
amended. As a certified arborist it is
his opinion that not all hazardous tree evaluations are done the same, neither
are the opinions of the arborists who conduct the evaluations. He said Shoreline needs to follow tighter,
industry-recognized standards for hazard tree evaluations. Unfortunately, he said he has colleagues in
his industry who will determine trees to be hazardous if the paying clients
agenda says to do so. He said this is
unethical and he wishes there is something he could do about it because soon
the term hazardous tree will lose its meaning.
13)
Fran Lilliness, Shoreline, said Innis Arden is a private
community. She said the trees were
originally logged when Innis Arden was platted and the founder of Innis Arden,
Bill Boeing, dedicated the reserves for parks, bridle trails, playgrounds and
other community purposes. She said only
the people in Innis Arden have the right to make those determinations on what
the land should be used for. She said
there have been no slides or washouts in the Reserves from
14)
Eva Sledziewski, Shoreline, said there is a misconception that all
trees have deep roots. Alders, she
added, have shallow roots. There have
been strong winds lately, she said, and several trees have been knocked
down. The moratorium bothered her
because
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to
close the public hearing. Councilmember
Gustafson seconded the motion.
Mr.
Olander explained that this public hearing is required for the moratorium only
and if it is closed and no action is taken the moratorium continues until
A vote was taken on the
motion, which carried 7-0.
Mr.
Tovar responded to Deputy Mayor Fimia stating the moratorium prevents the
removal of hazardous trees. He said
staff would concur with adding “recreational trails” to the list of
exemptions. However, there is a
provision in which a resident could contact the City’s 24-hour Customer Response
Team (CRT), which could inspect and give immediate authorization to cut the
hazardous tree.
Mr.
Olander read from Section 3, noting that authorization to cut hazardous
vegetation is only given if the City concludes the existing condition
constitutes an actual and immediate threat to life or property in homes,
private yards, buildings, public and private streets, driveways, improved
utility corridors, or access for emergency vehicles.
Councilmember
Hansen asked why a resident should notify the City if the tree presents an
immediate threat. He asked who would be
liable if the City didn’t give authorization and someone was injured.
Mr.
Olander replied that if the City does allow cutting without prior authorization
the City would be in the same situation prior to the moratorium.
Mr.
Tovar responded that the opportunity for abuse is lessened through this
moratorium. It simply affords the City the chance to look at the locations and
approved permits over the past five or six months to see what has been done.
Councilmember
Ryu felt the process of determining who would pay for the tree cutting would
take longer. She agreed with City staff
on adding the recreational trail exemption.
She supported the moratorium as revised.
Councilmember
McGlashan asked why a City arborist isn’t determining whether or not a
particular tree is hazardous. Also, he
asked who responds to a tree cutting call.
Mr.
Tovar stated that the City does not have an arborist on staff. CRT responds and is available 24 hours a
day. CRT gives the City better response
times and makes the City responsible for the actions taken. He said it’s better for CRT to act instead of
calling in an arborist to inspect.
Councilmember
McGlashan inquired whether or not the IAC bylaws state that they must maintain
the reserves. He added that there was no
reasoning given as to why Association for Responsible Management (ARM) of Innis
Arden withdrew from the mediation with the IAC Board.
Mr.
Tovar responded that a representative from ARM spoke to the Council and said
that ARM withdrew.
Councilmember
Gustafson supported the moratorium, but is concerned with the lawsuits that
have occurred over the years. He inquired
how the City deals with the IAC covenants.
The covenants, he said, allow them to have views and to mediate disputes
to ensure these issues remain as Innis Arden business. He said he will be seeking legal advice from
the City Attorney. He wanted language in
the moratorium to stipulate recreational trails and identify hazardous trees.
Deputy
Mayor Fimia pointed out that the moratorium and the critical areas ordinance
cover the City of
Mr.
Tovar concurred that state law directs the City to protect critical areas, but
cutting trees in private areas needs to be addressed also. These are some rights that the City ought to
respect, but the City still has to protect the environmental resources of
Shoreline.
Deputy
Mayor Fimia supported Ordinance No. 407 with the proposed revision.
Mayor
Ransom inquired about the certification standards for an arborist. He asserted that this is pertinent to the
discussion. He added that he would like
everyone to come to an agreement on this because it has been going on for some
time. He agreed to continue the
moratorium so staff can finish the research and bring forth a proposal in the
future.
Councilmember
Hansen complimented Mr. Olander for calling him and for the City’s state of
readiness last Saturday. He commended
CRT for a superior job. In general, he
said when a tree is partially down it shouldn’t be included in the ordinance or
subject to a moratorium.
Mr.
Olander agreed, but stated that once a tree is cut down it is hard to tell if
it was hazardous or not. He said there
have been instances when healthy trees were cut and the offender claimed the
tree was hazardous.
Responding
to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Tovar said a “special master” was a retired
judge, legal scholar, or an attorney who can look at the facts as directed by
the court to assist parties in coming to a solution to the issue. He said there have been arguments about the
special master and the conclusions of that person. This is another issue the City needs to
research and address in the regulations.
Councilmember
Gustafson added that the courts have refused to appoint special masters after
1992. He felt the City needs to adopt
the moratorium, and deal with the historical perspective and the covenants so
the City understands them.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to
amend Section 3 of Ordinance No. 407 to add the provision for recreational
trails. Councilmember Ryu seconded the
motion, which carried 7-0.
RECESS
At
Mayor
Ransom called for public comment on Item 6(b), motion authorizing legal defense
of King et al. v. Fimia et al.
(8)
Wendy DiPeso, Shoreline, said that if the Council decides not to
provide counsel for those in the lawsuit, then each named member may decide to
sue the City for lack of coverage.
Residents who have previously been ignored by the City are now being answered. She added that the street light issue has
been taken care of and residents no longer have to pay for them on public
streets. She said trust between the
residents and the City Council is being rebuilt in Shoreline and the Council
needs to be more supportive of one another.
She urged the Council to vote to provide counsel.
(9)
Fran Lilliness, Shoreline, outlined the awards, accomplishments, and
accolades that former City Manager Steve Burkett received in his tenure at
Shoreline. She added that Mr. Burkett
was instrumental in retaining good employees and keeping staff morale at a high
level. She stated he also increased tax
revenues and provided the best answer to the GMA housing density issue. Furthermore, she said, “Seattle Magazine”
named the City of
(10)
Stan Terry, Shoreline, on behalf of Progress Shoreline, said the
organization is not a party to the lawsuit.
He said he does not support the motion to defend the named
Councilmembers. The City has a
responsibility to defend them, but in this instance they are being sued for
violating the law and acting outside of Council guidelines; thus, the taxpayers
should not pay for their defense. He
felt if they are found innocent of violating the public meetings law then the
Council should revisit paying for their legal fees.
(11)
Peter Henry, Shoreline, thanked Mr. Olander for the new spirit of openness
and website enhancements. He felt there
is a faction of Councilmembers that want to deny the payment of legal
fees. If the voting Council denies them
legal fees, the members named in the suit will sue. He said the lawsuit has not been decided yet,
so it is wrong for an ex-Councilmember to testify there was something illegal
occurring. He said the suit was brought
because of who the meeting attendees were, not their number.
(12)
Dennis Lee, Shoreline, opposed the motion because it is politically
motivated. He felt the issue should be
decided in the court system.
(13)
Gene Maddox, Shoreline, said the IAC utilizes fear, intimidation, and
lawsuits to gain influential control. He
felt John Hollinrake and Michael Rasch have filed lawsuits against select
Councilmembers to regain control of decisions by City leaders. He urged the voting Council to support their
colleagues and vote in favor of the motion for defense.
(14)
Elaine Phelps, Shoreline, said providing legal defense for the
Councilmembers would benefit all of Shoreline.
She reminded everyone that a lawsuit can be brought by anyone at anytime
against anyone. She claimed that Ms.
King and Mr. Grossman engaged in secret meetings while on the Council. She said normal legislative behavior occurs
when ideas are passed around. Mr.
Hollinrake, she said, is the most litigious resident in Innis Arden. He and Michael Rasch oppose certain Councilmembers
because they wish to see as many trees cut as possible to raise property values
in Innis Arden.
(15)
Chris Eggen, Shoreline, felt there was no evidence in the lawsuit and
said the people who filed it are against environmental regulation in the
City. He felt it was a Strategic Lawsuit
Against Public Participation (SLAPP) to intimidate the Council.
(16)
Eva Sledziewski, Shoreline, said she is not in favor of paying for
legal defense. However, she felt that if
the named Councilmembers were found innocent of the charges then the taxpayers
would pay the bill. She said if found
guilty then they would have to pay for their own legal defense.
(17)
Raymond Collins, Shoreline, said it is dangerous not to defend the
Councilmembers because it will affect those who wish to serve in the
future. He felt Aegis was illegal. He said this is following the Carver Policy
Management Model where “the tail wags the dog.”
He urged the voting Council to defend the Councilmembers.
MEETING
EXTENSION
Councilmember Hansen moved
to extend the meeting until
City Clerk Scott Passey read
the motion on the table to authorize legal defense of King et al. v. Fimia et
al.
Councilmember
Gustafson said he agonized over this issue and consulted with other
councilmembers in other cities for guidance on the issue. He said he would vote for legal defense of
the four Councilmembers if the following amendment was introduced.
Councilmember Gustafson moved
to amend the motion to read that if the defendants accept the defense provided
by the City of Shoreline and if the judgment of the court determines that the
defendants are liable for knowingly, willfully, or intentionally violating the
open public meetings act as indicated by Shoreline Management Code
2.40.030(a)(1) then the defendants will be responsible for reimbursing the City
for any court legal costs that have been incurred from this date forward by the
City of Shoreline in the defense and resolution of this case. Councilmember
Hansen seconded the motion.
Councilmember
Gustafson explained that he would vote for legal defense, but if the court
finds them liable they should reimburse the taxpayers for their defense.
Mr.
Sievers thought that the amendment would be favorable to the defendants and didn’t
feel it will hinder the advancement of funds for legal defense.
Councilmember
Ryu asked Mr. Sievers if he felt the amendment would hold up in court if the
defendants challenge the amendment.
Mr.
Sievers commented that since Council has the authority to either approve or
deny legal defense, it also has the authority to impose conditions.
Councilmember
Gustafson said that if he was found guilty of willfully or intentionally acting
against the rules of the City, he would expect to reimburse the City of funds
utilized to defend him. The amendment,
he said, is consistent with Shoreline Municipal Code 2.40.030 and he would like
to see it added to the draft provided by Mr. Sievers.
Councilmember
Ryu announced that she became involved in the lawsuit on Friday when she received
a subpoena from Michael Rasch. She said
she met with Michael Jacobs, President of Innis Arden Club and David Fosmire, Vice
President, at their request. Unfortunately,
she said, she was served within 24 hours of that meeting. She said despite this, she is still focused
on representing the residents of Shoreline.
However, she is disappointed with what has happened.
Councilmember
Ryu suggested making a motion to change the term “defense” to “representation” in
the amended motion. She agreed with
providing representation to the defendants and expressed the need to excuse
herself from voting.
Councilmember
Gustafson pointed out that Councilmember Ryu is not involved in the lawsuit,
but she was aware of executive session information from December 5 to December
27.
Councilmember
Ryu responded that she is involved and affected and cannot vote on the motion
on the table.
Mr.
Sievers said the City code authorizing legal defense does address the issue of affected
members not being able to vote on the question of defense. However, he said affected members would have
to be named as a party in the claim or lawsuit, but Councilmember Ryu is not
named in the suit. However, the City
Attorney’s office does provide legal representation to councilmembers-elect
because staff provides councilmember-elects with a number of resources,
orientations, and council information prior to taking office.
Councilmember
Ryu appreciated the explanation, but said she would like the Council to decide
whether she is defended or not. She
recused herself from the vote.
Mayor
Ransom questioned the purpose of the amendment since the reservation of rights stipulates
that if the defendants are found guilty, they are to reimburse the City for
legal expenditures.
Mr.
Sievers responded that the point of the amendment is to reimburse the City for
attorney and court fees and the reservation of rights are applied to any monetary
judgments that may be awarded.
Mr.
McGlashan pointed out that this lawsuit is not based on the firing of Steve
Burkett. He noted that he requested the
two week time period to research and think about this item. He announced he did not like being threatened
with lawsuits.
Councilmember
Ryu asked if there was a quorum to vote on the amendment if she did not vote. Councilmember
Ryu stated she wanted to be recused from the vote and not abstain.
Mr.
Sievers said there is not a quorum, but if Councilmember Ryu abstained the
quorum is not defeated and a majority vote would be needed to adopt the motion.
Deputy
Mayor Fimia said the actions of the four Councilmembers were done in good faith
with legal counsel provided by the Washington Cities Insurance Authority
(WCIA). She pointed out that showing
support for an action is not taking legislative action.
MEETING
EXTENSION
Councilmember Hansen moved
to extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Ryu seconded the motion,
which carried 7-0.
Deputy
Mayor Fimia read a Seattle PI article pertaining to this issue. She reiterated that the four Councilmembers
never met together and believed the lawsuit is politically motivated. She read a letter to the editor. She commented that Councilmember Gustafson’s
amendment sounds reasonable, but the statements made in the lawsuit are not
truthful. Based on this, she felt the
four Councilmembers are entitled to legal defense. If legal defense is not appointed, the number
of people who run for office in the future will decrease.
Mayor
Ransom said he approached the legal authority (WCIA) for advice and did what
legal counsel told them to do. With
that, he felt that they followed the law.
He cited the
Councilmember
Gustafson stated he is voting for legal defense. If the defendants are found innocent then
legal fees will be paid. However, if
there is a finding against them and a penalty accessed, then the four
Councilmembers will have to reimburse the City.
At
Mr.
Sievers pointed out that in Councilmember Ryu’s absence, all Councilmembers can
vote on this issue. Councilmember Hansen
said that in the likelihood of a 3-3 vote, defense will not be authorized. Mayor Ransom said he wanted to discuss this
with his legal counsel before deciding what to do. Deputy Mayor Fimia inquired if the four
defendants would have to sue the City to be represented if the motion fails.
Mr.
Sievers responded that they could sue the Council’s decision, claiming that defendants
were entitled to coverage of the defense costs.
This would essentially be stating that the Council was incorrect in
denying that coverage.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to postpone
action on this item until the
Councilmember
Gustafson inquired about a document indicating that Mr. DiJulio was hired for
legal defense. Mr. Sievers said legal
work is being provided until the Council takes formal action.
Deputy
Mayor Fimia said she didn’t know why Councilmembers would want to put the City
in harm’s way by imposing conditions until a determination is made that the
defendants need to be covered.
Mr.
Olander said the staff recommendation is fairly narrow. Based on his opinion and the City Attorney’s
opinion, there is a basis for coverage, so it should be provided. He said the question of guilt or innocence is
irrelevant until the case is decided.
A vote was taken on the
motion to postpone action until the
10. ADJOURNMENT
At
/S/