___________________________________________________________________________________
By Pauline Masson –
All bets are off on a whole range of issues as the new board of aldermen flexes its muscle.
The first full meeting of the new board of aldermen lasted for three and a half hours, telegraphing that the days of discouraging discussions in favor of short meetings is over.
And that’s not all.
Aldermen listened attentively as speakers, most representing busnesses in the industrial park, created a new playing field in the question of closing off workers’ access with a gate across Candlewick Lane.
In another hot button issue, aldermen said charging citizens the full $6 million cost of a new city swimming pool with higher property taxes was not the most fair use of tax money the city collects – and the citizens need to have a voice in selecting which fancy amenities go into the expanded aquatic complex.
The mayor’s appointments to boards and commissions also took a hit, as two appointments to the planning and zoning commission were rejected and it was revealed that aldermen, not the mayor, are authorized to make some appointments.
Even downtown parking came under the scrutiny of the board, when one new alderman said ticketing motorists for parking on a stub street that goes nowhere is an unfair use of enforcement.
In a three-three vote, with the mayor breaking the tie, the board approved the preliminary plan for Pacific Logistics Park, the ten-lot industrial subdivision on the former Barb Alt farm.
Opponents of approving the plan said there were too many unresolved issues on the development to go forward. But proponents said those issues could be resolved when individual firms buy the lots for new businesses and apply for plan approval. The mayor agreed and voted to approve the preliminary plan.
It was not explained why the Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation to re-install a gate between Candlewick Lane and the Dailey Industrial Park did not appear on the meeting agenda as an action item. But the crowded council chamber and the speakers’ overwhelming objections to the gate proved that replacing a gate – that many speakers could not remember – was not in the best interest of the industrial park workers, and might not be in the best interest of the city.
Tom White, owner of Aurora Technologies that sits just inside the park entrance and employs 450 workers, offered a couple of not so veiled threats. The City of Washington is wooing his company to relocate its industrial complex of buildings and big ticket taxes to that city. And he has been talking with lawyers and other business owners about the future of a proposed closed road.
White said he does not want to move out of Pacific and he does not want to sue the city, but a gate closing off his employees from a quick dash to a local restaurant for lunch was not something he was willing to accept.
One after the other, representatives of industrial park workers offered perspective on pitting the concerns of residents of 17 homes on Candlewick against the needs of (one speaker estimated) 700 workers who eat in local restaurants, and shop for groceries in local markets.
The number of workers in the park is probably much higher. Aurora’s 450 employees and Husky Corporation’s 200 employees represent only two of the 34 businesses in the park
Aldermen took no action on the P&Z recommended gate, but Alderman Scott Lesh, acting president of the board, said he was grateful for the speakers who took the time to come to a meeting and share their views on a much debated issue with the board.
When the mayor asked for a motion to approve placing a $6 million bond issue before voters in the August 8 election to pay for a new swimming pool, Alderman Debbie Kelley said the measure was moving too fast and she asked that bond issue be sent to an aldermanic committee.
Mayor Filley said time was of the essence in planing for a new pool. She said any delay could mean that a new pool could not open for the 2025 season. There could even be a two or three year delay for a new pool.
Kelley stood her ground, saying she was in favor of a pool but placing the bond issue on the August ballot would cost the city and she wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page. If a committee addressed the issue, she said, the public would have an opportunity give their views on what is built.
Alderman Lesh also said more consideration should be given to the citizens in regard to a new pool. He also thought the citizens should be involved in the design of the pool. More importantly, he questioned the language of the bond issue placing the entire burden of the construction cost on the taxpayers in the form of higher property taxes. He said he would like to review a funding method where some of the bonds would be retired by the city sharing in the cost of the pool with other taxes it collects.
He asked whether the city could repay part of the bond debt from the general fund and not place the entire cost on the citizens in the form of higher taxes. City Administrator Steve Roth said it was possible but the language in the ballot would need to reflect that.
In a 6-0 vote, the swimming pool and bond issue was sent to committee. The date of the meeting will be announced so citizens can attend.
In the biggest surprise of the evening, aldermen rejected the mayor’s re-appointment of Stephen Flannery and Jerry Eversmeyer to the planning and zoning commission. Lesh also challenged the mayor’s authority to appoint the board liason to P&Z. Citing city codes, Lesh said the board of aldermen, not the mayor, is authorized to select the board liason to P&Z.
Mayor Filley said the failure of the appointments could pose a problem, leaving P&Z with only four members, which might affect its ability to conduct meetings at a time when there are issues that need to be reviewed. She said she and the board need to act quickly to fill the P&Z vacancies.
In another unexpected measure, new alderman Anna Meadows asked her fellow aldermen to change the status of the half-block long stub of North Second Street, between St.Louis Street and the railroad right of way. She said motorists who park there are being ticketed. She asked whether the area could be designated as a public parking area not a city street. City Attorney Bob Jones said the city could vacate the street, but would need to assign ownership to someone. Jones was asked to review the process relegating the area for parking.
All in all, the meeting was a sea change in how the city conducts its business. The crowded chamber, the lengthy discussions, and the assertion of aldermanic power, combined to give the players a promising season as the final score in each of these issues plays out.
Stay tuned.
Several times recently things have been decided by ‘ no second’ or no sponsor on requested motions by the Mayor. Almost looks like Board members are meeting ‘ unofficially’ to pre- decide an issue. Questionable or maybe illegal ?
Looks like some of the ‘ puppet strings’ got a little tangled- a good thing.
Board should stay on guard on actions on the new Logistics Park, because staff has been known to ‘ sneak things through’ because they feel certain things ‘ just fit the zoning’.
Mayor is quickly learning that the job is not so easy, two tough tie breakers this meeting, and several in the last few months.
The proposed features for the new pool are a compromise of price and features requested in last years survey. All these financial experts that they brought forward should be able to write a ‘ shared cost’ ballot issue . The issue hinted at but not openly discussed was do we really want to have a significant School tax issue AND the pool tax levee on the same August ballot.
I found it disappointing that the gate between Candlewick Lane and the Dailey Industrial Park action item did not appear on the meeting agenda and that the motion to amend and add it to the agenda was denied by alderman Presley. It was clear by the number of speakers attending the meeting, that the action was expected to be discussed. Is there a way to find out why it was not added and the motion to add it to the agenda was denied? The citizens of Pacific deserve “transparency”? The speakers do appreciate that the board and the mayor took the time to listen to the speakers. Thank you.
Roger,
Thanks for bringing this out, Roger. It is my belief as a veteran reporter that the board of aldermen has the responsibility to act on every planning and zoning commission recommendation and vote it up or down. I could not understand how the P&Z recommendation on the gate could be set aside and relegated to a discussion item for the May 2 meeting – which the city administrator said the mayor called for – but that too was left off the agenda. It is my belief that someone is asleep at the switch here.
P&Z is an official entity of city government and it is my belief that their recommendations are official city actions. This is not the first time that a P&Z recommendation failed to make it to the board of aldermen agenda. I am doing some research on who has standing to question or challenge this practice of setting aside P&Z recommendations.
Curious on why my comment did not get posted on the topic? Do you have an agenda to?
Your comments on Alderman Meadows’ father texting her and the pair making eye contact was interesting and a fair observation of an alderman’s style, but you went much farther and your comments became a personal attack. The mission of Hometown Matters is to reflect the community, as Winston Churchill said, warts and all. But it is not a site for personal stone throwing.
I do have personal views on every issue and sometimes write opinion pieces, sharing my views on a particular act or event, but I try to stick the process of government and not attribute motives to individual officials even when I completely disagree with their position. I appreciate you interest in Hometown Matters and I hope you give us another try.
interesting reply. You allow Henry to say his thoughts and opinions but deny others. Hometown matters must only matter if the hometown agrees with you and you opinions. I noticed you dismissed the texting of her dad and did not address that he is not the alderman. Since your response, I did some research on you and discovered you were for Alderman Meadows. Therefore, wanting to defend you poor decision. You should change the name to “Only Pauline’s opinion matters” You should allow any opinion especially because I based my thoughts on facts that did not agree with your agenda and you wanting to defend Alderman Meadows and her lack of knowledge and care for her ward 2.
Henry can be bit testy but usually offers intelligent points on issues. Your piece was a personal diatribe against Meadows, Cleeve, Lesh, and now me. You are correct, I was for and do support Anna Meadows and James Cleeve – my ward 2 aldermen. I’ve had some critical back and forth with Cleeve about things I thought he got wrong, which were posted. But it was always about his actions on city business. I absolutely trust his motives.
And George, it is my web site. I’m not obligated to post everything that is submitted. You sound pretty smart. Write something about the issues aldermen are wrestling with, why you think they are wrong and what you think they ought to do. I think readers would be interested in your views on city issues. Who you like or don’t like is your personal business – it is hardly a hometown matter.