CITY
OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
Mt.
Rainier Room
Monday,
October 3, 2005
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 with the exception of
Councilmember Fimia, who arrived shortly thereafter.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Steve Burkett, City Manager,
reported on the formation of a business advisory group for Aurora Corridor
Phase II and on improvements made to Paramount Park as a part the Public Works
Department’s team-building event. He
reported on the progress of the Aurora Corridor Project, noting that crews are
working on installation of water treatment devices, catch basins, underground
conduit, and utility vaults. He
commented on the rapid response to a broken gas line on 15th Avenue
NE as part of the North City Project.
Additionally, the contractor mailed cards to the business owners
apologizing for the service interruption.
Public Works crews also cleaned out sediment and blackberry bushes and
established a primary drainage route to open the drainage flows from Boeing
Creek at Darnell Park.
4.
COUNCIL REPORTS: none
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Stan
Terry, Shoreline, commended the Council on their decision to reduce the
gambling tax on card rooms. He approved
of Mayor Hansen’s questioning of the Council pertaining to the acceptance of
campaign donations. He believed if
casinos are making large contributions to either councilmembers or candidates
for City Council, the contributions should be scrutinized. Therefore, he concluded, Council members and
Council candidates should review the source of campaign contributions and act
responsibly.
(b)
Bronston Kenney,
Shoreline, refuted the assertions in campaign literature that Councilmember
Chang’s business is “crime-ridden.” He
explained that the vast majority of police calls to the Quest Inn were for
traffic stops and routine business checks, and it is unclear whether the police
calls were actually at the business or in the general vicinity. The Police Department website crime maps, he
asserted, do not show any particular concentration of crime near the Quest
Inn. It was his belief that Mr.
Burkett’s call reports were designed to be unfavorable to Mr. Chang while
providing no real information. He contended
that Mr. Burkett has not provided the information the Council requested, and he
is unconcerned about Mr. McGlashan’s unfair use of City statistics. He said Mr. Burkett has not issued a
repudiation or qualification as to what conclusions are supported by his
reports.
(c)
Cindy Ryu, Shoreline,
President of the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce, invited the community to a
Chamber-sponsored candidate forum on October 6 at the Shoreline Conference
Center. The Chamber will also be hosting
its Annual Auction and Dinner on October 15th at the Shoreline
Community College. The money raised at
the auction goes directly to the Dollars for Scholars program. She reported that this year the Dollars for
Scholars awarded $14,750 in scholarships to sixteen Sherwood and Shorecrest
High School Seniors, ranging from $500 to $2,000 each. Thusfar, she said, the Chamber of Commerce
has provided 47 scholarships in the first three years of the Dollars for
Scholars program.
(d)
Beverly Meln, Shoreline,
stated the Blue Heron Reserve is a critical, sensitive area with wetlands, a
stream, steep slopes, and evidence of past erosion. Over 300 trees over the past three and a half
years have been cut down, severely pruned, or coppiced in this area and the
three Reserves that drain through Blue Heron.
All of the City permits granted were for one small area at a time. She emphasized the importance of considering
all the “piecemeal” cutting on adjacent lots because of the impact it has on
the reserve as a whole. She displayed a
map of the Reserves and Innis Arden and described the cutting that has been
taking place. She urged the Council to
factor the cutting on abutting residential lots into its critical areas
ordinance, enlarge the buffer zone and enforce it, and increase the standards
for hazardous trees. She also urged the
City to perform inspections after projects are completed.
(e)
Dan Mann, Shoreline,
responded to comments made last week about the Aurora Improvement Council
(AIC). He assured the Council that there
is no undue control by any one group that comprises the AIC. The AIC represents dozens of legitimate
businesses in Shoreline who are concerned about getting their voice heard in
Shoreline city government. The AIC was
formed to facilitate a rational, respectful process for merchants to express
their concerns to the City. When
candidates receive money from the AIC, he explained, they are receiving money
from a broad spectrum of Shoreline businesses.
He believed that comments directed against individuals or organizations
from people who speak at the podium are inappropriate, and speakers need to be
respectful of other residents and the Council.
(f)
Dan Thwing, Shoreline,
concurred with Mr. Mann’s comments and said he would like to see Councilmembers
finish their responses and be able to talk without interruptions. Accusations, he concluded, do not need to
happen, noting that the Council should continue working towards positive
results in the City.
(g)
Elaine Phelps,
Shoreline, stated she was upset with the City’s Hearing Examiner process. She said she had a pre-conference hearing and
the appeal was dismissed during the conference.
The reason for the meeting, she stated, was to clarify the issues
related to her appeal. However, at the
pre-conference the Hearing Examiner made a decision before all the information
was submitted. The Reserves in Innis
Arden are all connected, and tree cutting anywhere disturbs the entire Reserve. The Hearing Examiner did not receive any
information on cumulative impact. She
urged the Council to look into the system because it is broken and it needs
repair to avoid this kind of contentiousness.
(h)
Dale Wright, Shoreline,
commented on the process used to evaluate whether or not the Council listens to
the residents. He asserted that the
Aurora Corridor Plan is the example he would like to use. He said the Aurora Corridor Plan was a result
of a five-year public process where the views in the community were heard and
seriously considered through discussion.
Consensus was achieved by the community which resulted in the goals and
plan for the reconfiguration of Aurora Avenue.
The Council accepted the community consensus, adopted the community’s
plan, and has worked diligently to implement it. In contrast, opponents of the plan delayed
the project by a minimum of two years, resulting in a minimum cost of $5
million to the City. He said opponents
of the Aurora Corridor Project include the Shoreline Merchants Association,
Maggie Fimia, Marilyn Chase, Walt Hagen, John Chang, Cindy Ryu, and George
Mauer.
(i)
Janet Way, Shoreline,
commented on two issues: cumulative impacts and unintended consequences. She pointed out that residents of the North
City, Ridgecrest, and Briarcrest neighborhoods are very anxious about the North
City Project due to the impacts of construction and the overwhelming traffic
increases. On another topic, she
concluded that runoff and flooding from tree cutting will cause downstream
damage to the Puget Sound. She urged the
Council take responsibility for its actions.
(j)
Fran Lilliness,
Shoreline, urged the opposition to the Aurora Corridor Project to observe
Federal Way’s improvements to Highway 99.
On another topic, she said that Innis Arden is a covenanted,
mutual-easement community and views are to be preserved. Innis Arden, she continued, was platted
parallel to the sound to maximize and afford the most views. One can still have beautiful trees at roof
height, she said, as enforced in Innis Arden.
She noted that the roads have a greater impact on drainage than homes,
because roads separate these Reserves from the continuous flow down to the
Sound. She said prior speakers have
absolutely no views and have not paid the premium prices for their homes.
Mr. Burkett responded to Mr. Kenney’s assertions, noting that
supporting or opposing candidates would be a serious violation of the code of
ethics for the International City Management Association. Additionally, he said
it would be stupid to do that since he works for all of the Council
members. He emphasized that he does not
conduct independent research of the crime data, noting the reports passed on to
the Council at the request of the Council came directly from the King County
Sheriff’s Office Records Management System.
He said those reports are
available to anyone who wants to review, analyze, or as Mr. Kenney did,
interpret the data. He concluded it is
not his job to analyze or interpret the reports.
Councilmember Fimia stated the Council has asked for clarification of
the reports because they are not internally consistent. There are three different reports that have
different numbers with no context to them. She said Mr. Wright is entitled to his
opinion, but there was not many facts in his statements. She clarified that people are not opposed to
the Aurora Corridor Project, but they are opposed to its scope. She noted that because we don’t agree on how
to do it doesn’t mean we don’t want to see it done.
Councilmember Chang stated his business has been the target of the
public, and he would like to meet with the City Manager to resolve this
issue. He stressed that he has been in
the Enterprise several times receiving praise for his efforts by police
chiefs. The Motel Trespass Program is
now widely used throughout King County and needs to be used the way it was
intended. He noted that Mr. Wright has
not spoken to businesses, experts, and the Planning Director as he has about
the Aurora Corridor project. He
concurred with Mr. Mann’s comments that this is not the forum to be making
false statements about the AIC.
Councilmember Ransom noted that a Shoreline Enterprise article of
September 30, 2003 described how the Motel Trespass Program has successfully
decreased crime at all motels in Shoreline.
Councilmember Ransom said some residents allege that City employees are
removing campaign signage. He said it is
legal to place campaign signs in the right-of-way, and City staff should only
remove those that are not in the right-of-way.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Gustafson moved to approve the
agenda. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion. Item 7(d) was pulled and moved to Item 8(b). Deputy Mayor Jepsen pulled the minutes of
August 22 for approval at the next regular meeting.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt the
agenda with revisions, which carried unanimously.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Grace moved approval of the
consent calendar. Deputy Mayor Jepsen
seconded the motion and the following items were approved unanimously:
Minutes of Dinner
Meeting of
Minutes of Regular
Meeting of
Approval of expenses
and payroll as of September 15,
2005 in the amount of
$1,900,257.84
Motion to approve
$5,000 in Mini-Grant funds for the Richmond Beach Community Association
8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING
(a)
Public hearing to receive citizen’s comments on the
proposed
use of 2006 Community Development Block
Grant
(CDBG); and
Motion
to adopt the 2006 CDBG Plan and authorize the
City Manager to enter into agreements for
implementing the
funded projects.
Mayor Hansen opened the public hearing at 8:09 p.m.
and asked City staff to introduce the item.
Robert Beem, Human Services Manager, introduced the
annual review of the recommendations for use of Federal Community Block Grant
money. Each year the Council is required
to adopt a plan. This year’s plan
recommends the expenditure of $406,000 in Block Grant funding. This represents new funds the City would
receive and loan repayments through the Home Repair Program. The funding recommendation follows a formula
by King County and the Federal Department of Housing and Urban
Development. He continued by outlining
where the specific funds will be allocated in Human Services programs.
Seeing no one wishing to provide public comment,
Mayor Hansen closed the public hearing.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to
adopt the 2006 Community Development Block Grant Program in accordance with
Attachment A and authorize the City Manager to enter into agreements for
implementing the funded projects.
Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Councilmember Chang moved to
postpone this item until after the 2006 budget hearings. Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion. After it was determined that
capital expenditures are decided on an annual cycle,
and these are the same activities that were funded last year, Councilmember Chang withdrew the motion.
Councilmember Fimia stated items like this should be
scheduled much earlier for the public and the Council to comment and deliberate
on. She continued by inquiring if the
$114,000 allocation was going to either the Aurora or North City projects. Mr. Beem responded that it was a part of the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Sidewalk Repair and Replacement Program.
Councilmember Fimia supported the motion, but felt
the Council should give more direction to the Citizen Advisory Committee on
scope of services in the future. In
turn, the committee can refine their process and present their decision to the
Council so a final decision can be rendered.
Councilmember Grace inquired about the certainty of
the 10% decrease from 2005.
Mr. Beem responded there are two versions of the
Federal budget which outline a 6% or 7% reduction and the other is a 10%
reduction as adopted by the House and the Senate. It is our estimated that 10% would be the minimum
reduction.
Councilmember Grace asked how many planned curb
ramps still need to be constructed, not including the 65-75 curb ramps planned
for construction in the City. He also
inquired about the Home Repair Program.
Mr. Beem stated that Public Works could provide the
data on curb ramps. He explained that
the Home Repair Program allows a homeowner to repair or improve major systems
(i.e. roofs, heating systems, bathrooms) using low or zero-interest loans. This program is administered by King County
staff in Shoreline. The Minor Home
Repair Program is a new program administered by Senior Services of King County
which provides handyman services at a rate of $10/hour plus the cost of
materials. The City, through the Block
Grant Program, pays the remainder of the contractor costs.
Councilmember Gustafson noted that in June of 2005
the City entered into a three-year interlocal agreement with King County.
Mr. Beem said there are three parts of the
interlocal agreement. The first is the
Major Home Repair Program, to which the City allocates 25% of the block grant
money. The second is the Housing
Stability Project, which provides emergency assistance such as rent and
utilities for people who are facing eviction.
The third is for capital project administration, which uses 2% of the
funding for overall program administration.
Councilmember Gustafson asked whether or not the
fund allocation for human services was at the same level it was last year. Mr. Beem responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Gustafson stated his support for the
motion, noting that the City has benefited from a number of the programs and
King County does a great job with it.
Mayor Hansen wondered if the Council should consider
an amendment that any reduction in the program would be compensated by the City
budget.
Councilmember Fimia questioned if King County’s cost
for program administration was 2% or $40,658.
Mr. Beem explained that the County’s cost for administering the capital
projects is 2%, and the cost for overall program administration is 10%. Therefore, the total cost for the County to
manage the block grant program is $48,000.
Councilmember Fimia expressed concerns with the
amount the City is paying King County for administering this program.
Councilmember Grace replied these same percentages
and costs to administer the program were approved by the Council in June 2005.
Mr. Burkett commented that the City will continue to
challenge King County on how much it charges to administer these programs.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen pointed out that there are
government limits on how much can be spent on administration, capital, and
“soft dollars.”
Mr. Beem answered that the block grant has a public
services spending ceiling of 15% of the total grant amount per month. The cap for planning and administrative
spending is 20%.
A
vote was taken on the motion to adopt the 2006 Community Development Block
Grant Program in accordance with Attachment A and authorize the City Manager to
enter into agreements for implementing the funded project, which carried
unanimously.
(b) Motion to accept the State of Washington proposal for
janitorial services and authorize the State of Washington
to execute a contract with Advantage Building Services
for
the City’s 2006 janitorial services in the amount of
$103,924.18.
Councilmember Gustafson
moved to accept the State of Washington proposal for janitorial services and
authorize the State of Washington to execute a contract with Advantage Building
Services for the City’s 2006 janitorial services in the amount of
$103,924.18. Deputy Mayor Jepsen
seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom expressed concerns about the
quality of service the City would receive if this bid is significantly lower
than next lowest bidder. He asked how close
this bid was to our current contract price.
Paul Haines, Public Works Director, explained that
the current contract the City has is with the same contractor, and the current
contract is $95,868.83. There is a 3%
markup which is remitted to the State for winning the bid. The process to rate the bidders was
confidential. He said City staff
recommends approving the alternate bid because it will ensure a higher level of
service.
Mayor Hansen inquired why the City is contracting
through the State.
Mr. Burkett
replied that the contractor identities are not known and there is a larger pool
of contractors responding if you utilize the State.
Councilmember Fimia wondered if the winning bidder
has a unionized labor shop.
Mr. Haines said there is no need to be unionized
because it is a public works contract, however, the City is required to pay
prevailing wage.
A vote
was taken on the motion to accept the State of Washington proposal for
janitorial services and authorize the State of Washington to execute a contract
with Advantage Building Services for the City’s 2006 janitorial services in the
amount of $103,924.18, which carried unanimously.
9.
ACTION ITEMS: OTHERS ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Mediation of View Preservation Issues
Matt Torpey, Planner II,
said there are two issues in the proposed Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) that
will be brought to the Council in October which staff is proposing be taken out
and mediated. The first item is the
Critical Areas Stewardship plan, which would allow for the cutting of trees in
the City as long as they would preserve wildlife habitat, groundwater
protection, stormwater runoff prevention, and preserve soil stability. Under existing Code, cutting is allowed in
slopes less than 40% through the State Environmental Policy Act and
geotechnical engineering reports. This
legislation will continue under the proposed CAO. The Planning Commission reviewed the
stewardship plan and concluded that no amount of discussion would lead to
consensus between the parties involved with trees and views in Innis
Arden. The second item proposed for
removal from the CAO is the definition of hazardous trees, because currently is
it too broad and open to interpretation.
The Planning Commission did recommend approval of a narrower version of
the definition of hazardous trees, however, it felt that mediation would still
be a better solution to resolve the issues.
Funding for the mediation is available in the Comprehensive Plan/Master
Plan Project Budget.
Bob Olander, Deputy City
Manager, said the whole issue of cutting, trimming, or coppicing trees is very
complex and the existing system does not work well. The City is under a State deadline to
complete the CAO by December 1st, and this proposal would allow the
rest of the CAO to move forward. This
trees and critical areas issue is a citywide issue, so any resolution to this
problem would have to apply to all of Shoreline. A structured, voluntary, non-binding
mediation which would not affect private covenants would address amendments and
proposed amendments to the CAO.
Councilmember Ransom
questioned whether or not the parties had agreed to mediation already.
Mr. Olander responded there
is no agreement to mediate at this time.
Councilmember Grace asked
that speakers address the mediation question when they speak this evening.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia, Mr. Olander replied that the Planning Commission recommendation included
a more restrictive definition of hazardous trees, and it deleted the City staff
recommendation on the Vegetative Management Plan. Additionally, there was no change in the
current code restricting the cutting of trees on a slope greater than 40%.
Councilmember Fimia felt
that it was premature to discuss mediation prior to the Council being able to
revise this legislation. She felt that
the Council makes the decisions and they are elected to do that. She concluded there are several steps that
haven’t been taken, including listening to both sides of the issue before
passing legislation that hasn’t occurred yet.
Mr. Olander said he
understood that the parties involved wanted to wait until an ordinance came to
the Council before presenting their information at a public hearing.
There was Council consensus
to allow previous speakers to address this item. Mayor Hansen called for public comment.
(a) John
Hollinrake, Shoreline, said the primary issue in Innis Arden is view
preservation, noting that he has spent $50,000 in legal fees to try to resolve
disputes. He said he supports the
mediation and the Critical Areas Stewardship Program. He urged the Council to vote in favor of the mediation.
(b) Alan
Schmidt, Shoreline, voiced his appreciation for the Council’s effort to
consider mediation. He favored mediation
and the preservation of the views and the environment, and urged Council’s
support.
(c) Beverly
Meln, Shoreline, also supported mediation.
She felt this issue has torn the community apart and has caused many
residents to move. She asserted that the
original covenants never included a view provision. She reported that in 1955 the lots were
clear-cut, but the Reserves were not because they were too steep to cut. In 1985, she continued, the view amendment
was added to the covenant.
(d) Elaine
Phelps, Shoreline, pointed out that she served on the committee that came up
with the Vegetation Management Plan, which she said was a compromise plan. However, the current tree cutters do not
recognize this plan. Mr. Hollinrake, she
asserted, has made many people in Innis Arden unhappy by cutting down
trees. She said her philosophy is view
maintenance, not view creation. She
clarified that she speaks as a resident of Shoreline, not as a member of the
Association for the Responsible Management (ARM) of Innis Arden. She felt mediation might succeed as long as
it remains voluntary and non-binding. She noted that every time the City makes
a decision on a critical area issue, someone appeals it. She said she appreciates the efforts of the
City in proposing this solution.
(e) Janet
Way, Shoreline, speaking for herself and on behalf of the Thornton Creek Legal
Defense Fund (TCLDF), explressed concern about the implications of mediation
and how it might impact other areas of the City. She believed there are no other parties in
the City that are aware of this issue.
She said she would appreciate notification being sent to Thorton Creek
Alliance (TCA), Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), the Lake Forest Park Stewardship
Foundation, and other organizations that have legal standing or are parties of
record on this issue. She requested an
explanation of the mediation strategy parameters, the rules, and the binding
status of any outcome to the CAO.
(f) Al
Wagar, Shoreline, said as an Innis Arden boardmember that the Board supports
the mediation process. He said mediation
will provide the Council with politically and environmentally sound advice and
research to consider before creating legislation. He felt there was a middle ground to this
issue.
Mr. Burkett clarified the mediation is voluntary and
non-binding to either party.
Additionally, it is non-binding to the Council. The Council will make the final decision on
this issue regardless of what comes out of the mediation. There may be an agreement which comes out of
the mediation, but the Council can accept it, change it, or reject it.
Mr. Olander added there would be opportunity for
recommendations to go to the Planning Commission process, then to the Council.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to direct City staff to start the mediation process as proposed by the
Planning Commission and staff, to be funded by the Comprehensive Plan/Master
Plan budget. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Councilmember Grace said he favors mediation, but
he is concerned how the City moves forward.
The two major parties, he outlined, ARM and the Innis Arden Club, have
not confirmed whether or not they wish to participate. If mediation is agreed to, the participants
have to be the parties to the dispute, not just individuals. He clarified that if a settlement is reached,
the settlement is a recommendation to the Council. The City needs to ensure the mediator is
skilled in environmental mediation to reach a settlement and solve this
contentious issue.
Mr. Olander stated the City will hopefully
receive a formal agreement from the parties to participate in mediation.
Mayor Hansen added that even if the mediation does
not result in a settlement, there will be alternatives to assist the Council
with the issue.
Councilmember Ransom inquired whether paying for
this mediation, as the City did with Shorewood Hills, would constitute a gift
of public funds.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, responded that this
issue was different from the Shorewood Hills situation. He specified that the litigation from that
issue had named parties on each side, and the City was also a party of the
litigation. The current situation, he
outlined, represents another avenue for public participation in the legislative
process.
Councilmember Gustafson supported the mediation,
noting that the Council will make the final decision. He was hopeful that mediation would effect a
positive outcome.
Councilmember Fimia said there must be some kind
of resolution of this issue, but the City should not use public funds to
mediate between two private entities.
She pointed out there are two separate issues: 1) how to resolve the
Innis Arden problems; and 2) the CAO and whether or not the Council will be
amending the tree subject. She agreed
the City should help mediate the problems, but it should not spend public money
for the mediation. She felt it was not a
good precedent to bring in a mediator on a civil-legal matter when it is the
Council’s responsibility to listen to the parties and the tree issue in the CAO
and make a decision. The Council should
not abdicate the responsibility of revising the CAO to someone who is not
elected. She felt if the motion passes,
the decision from the mediator will be what is adopted in the CAO. She said that the Council should attempt to
resolve this first and that mediation paid for by the parties should be
considered only as an alterative.
Councilmember Chang concurred. He felt the City
should spend money wisely and apply the settlement of this mediation to the
entire City.
Councilmember Grace clarified that the mediator
does not make a decision, rather, a settlement would come before the
Council. At that time, the Council would
decide whether to include all, none, or some of the settlement proposals in the
CAO. He noted the impropriety of a
Councilmember serving as a mediator in this process. He noted that people speak openly and
candidly during mediations, and this will be a private forum for these parties
to progress towards a decision.
Councilmember Chang stated the Council heard
there was a compromise at one point in time, but it does not exist any
longer. He felt there was a lack of City
direction in this matter and the City has not established the proper
rules. Once the CAO is in place and
legislation is passed, this issue will go away.
The Council, he said, needs to take a leadership role in this matter.
Councilmember Fimia said the Council has to
decide what is right for Shoreline’s CAO, and the Council can figure out what
is best through the legislative process.
Taking this issue through mediation is a “backwards way” of making law,
because the CAO needs to be removed from site-specific and vested interests. The CAO should be based on science, public
comment, model legislation, best available science, and “what’s right for
Shoreline.”
Deputy Mayor Jepsen pointed out that the
stewardship plan and the hazardous tree definition are the only items that will
be mediated, not the entire CAO.
Referring to Ms. Phelps’ comment, he noted that the City’s decisions get
appealed by both sides of the issue.
Therefore, it is costing the City time and money. He expressed support for the motion.
Councilmember Chang inquired if City staff could
return with mediation goals and rules to include whether or not both parties
are going to participate. Then, he said,
the cost could be determined. He felt
there was too much uncertainty at this time.
Councilmember Fimia felt the results of this
mediation will not protect the City from future appeals of our code or
CAO. The Council should be considering
and passing a defensible, solid CAO that is binding.
Mayor Hansen stated he is in favor of the parties
getting together so they can come to a common resolution, which will save the
City money in the long run.
Councilmember Ransom noted that one of the other
related incidents was the Bluff Trial. He
reminded the Council that a formal mediation was held to resolve this
issue. Issues related to the CAO are
definitely the Council’s responsibility; however, if it will resolve some of
the issues between the parties and the City Attorney is in favor of it, then it
is worth it.
Councilmember Fimia moved to amend the motion
to require that the parties reimburse the City for mediation costs. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion. Councilmember Fimia was opposed to
merging the CAO with the mediation decision, since the CAO is a separate
decision and process. She said if the
parties are responsible for reimbursing the City for mediation, they will be
much more likely to abide by the results.
A vote was taken on the motion to require the
parties to reimburse the City for mediation costs, which failed 1-6, with
Councilmember Fimia voting in the affirmative.
A vote was taken on the main motion, which
carried 5-2, with Councilmembers Chang and Fimia dissenting.
8. ADJOURNMENT
At 9:01 p.m., Mayor Hansen
declared the meeting adjourned.
/S/ Scott Passey, CMC, City Clerk