HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM V
RESOLUTION NO. X X X X
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, CENSURING
COUNCILMEMBER VIRGINIA HAUGEN FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE WHEREAS, the City Council has promuigated Ru1es of Procedure that direct processes
for City Councils to address certain responsibilities dealing with both the City Council as a whole
and with the City Councilmembers among themselves; and
WHEREAS, City Council Rules of Procedure (ROP), Section 16.1, (G) (2) reads, in part,
as follows:
The Council Operations Committee shall evaluate and
recommend to the whole City Council any actions, responses or
sanctions for violations by Councilmembers of these Rules of
Procedure, which recommendations shall be considered, voted
and/or acted upon by the City Council in the noRnal course.
WHEREAS, City Council ROP, Section 16.1 (G), (3), as amended by Resolution 4686,
February 7, 2011, reads as follows:
In cases of alleged misconduct or violations of the City Council
Rules of Procedures (ROP), the person suspected of the alleged
misconduct or violation of the ROP shall be afforded the
opportunity to respond, which opportunity shall be given, with
advance notiae, in an open meeting of the Council Operations
Committee (COC) prior to the COC making any recommendations
regarding censure or reprimand or other disciplinary action.
It is noted that the Council Operations Committee is not an °ethics committee" but rather
it is a committee foRned by the City Council on February 2, 2004 in order to conduct City
Counal business in the most efficierrt way possible. Nor do the Rules of Procedure addres.,
"ethical behavior," they are simply procedural nales.
Resolution XXXX
March 21, 2011
Page 1 of 5
WHEREAS, nofinrithstanding efforts to coach and counsei Vrginia Haugen to comply `
, with the Rules of Procedures of the City Council, Virginia Haugen has persisted in her failure to
comply with those rules and-procedures; and`
WHEREAS, below are_ references to ROP sections that may`have been intentionally or
inadvertently violated by Councilmember Haugen:
Section 2, Council Meetings:
Reference to RCW 42.30.regarding.confidential executiv,e sessions. . . ,
' Section 6.3, Councilmembers, Obligation to the Public
Agency:: .
Notwithsfanding the right of Councilmembers to express. their
independent opinions and exercise their freedom of speech, "
Councilmembers should act in a way that reflects positively on the
reputation of the City and of the community. Councilmembers
shall also intecact with other members, of the City Council and City
staff, in waysthat promote effective local Governmenf. Section 6,4, Councilmembers:
Counalmember are expected to participate in training offered by
individuals, agencies,entities and organizations, including but not-
limited to the:Association of Washington,Cities,and the.State of
Washington, so as to afford the Counc'ilmembers the opportunity ~ to better understand their roles as City Councilmembers. -
Section 15.5, Council Relations with Staff:
Counalmember shall-not attempt_to change or interFere with the .
operating rules and practices of any City department. '
Section. . 17.41 Council Representation and Internal Communication:
Councilmembersshall not knowingly communicate with an opposing party or with an opposing attomey in connection with
any. pendrng or threatened Jitigation in which the, City is a party or
in connection with any disputed claim involving the. City without '
prior approval of.the City Attomey, unless the Councilmember is individually a. partyto the 1'~igation or is involved in the disputed -claim separate from the Councilmember's role,as a City offcial.
Primarily, Councilmember Virginia Haugen's:conduct relative to the Rules 'of Procedure .
of the City Council may increase the risk of higher litigation exposure and potential cosfs to the
City.
Resolution X)C)CX
March.21, 2011
Page 2 of 5
The re-occurring theme, in the following instances of alieged misconduct; is that
Councilmember Haugen appears to believe that she should be abie to make personal
statements and contacts without those statements and contacts being interpreted by others as
being made in her role as a Councilmember.
However, in order to effectively do her job as a Councilmember, that is, to act in the best
interests of the citizens of Aubum, she should not make personal statements and contacts that
damage those interests by increasing the risk of higher litigation exposure and potential costs to
the City.
Below are specific examples of Councilmember Haugen's conduet that have been of
concem:
(1) Councilmember Haugen testified without City authorization at a March 3, 2010, City
of Kent Hearing Examiner hearing on the Verdana development, where the City of Auburn was
involved in a lawsuit with the developers, saying, according to the Kent Reporter newspaper:
"This development will have a significant impact environmentally," potentially weakening the
City's position in the lawsuit. This issue had been discussed by Council in executive session
several times, as early as November 2, 2009, so she should have been aware of the sensitive
legal nature of the Verdana project. While she did not purport to be stating a position of the City
Council, but rather her own personal opinion, her statemerrts might be viewed by the others as
reflecting her role as a Councilmember. As noted on page finro, this is a re-occurring theme of
her conduct.
(2) In 2010, according to Jeff Tate, City Development Services Manager, he received a
call from Satpal Sohal, who had applied for permits to build a hotel in Aubum. Sohal said that
he had received calls from several local hotel operators who told Sohal that Councilmember
Haugen had called one of the local hotel operators to enc:ourage that local hotel operator to
oppose Sohal's project.
Resolu6on XXXX
March 21, 2011
Page3of5
,
(3) 'In 2010; Counaimember Haugen communicated with a citizen who had complained , .
to the City that the 8th & `R' Street NE project would reduce the safety of her:1ravel; implying
_ thaf this citizen .might file a lawsuit, and Counalmember Haugen was encouraging of the
citizen's complaint. ~ . (4) In 2010, according to Mayor Pete Lewis, Councilmember Haugen spoke with some
City labor union members who had approached her. The labor union members told Mayor .
Lewis that~ Councilmember Haugen had discussed wage and benefit issues, in violation of the Rules of Procedure and the City's labor negotiation process, undecmining the City's negotiation ~
position. , -
(5) In .2010, Councilmember Haugen violated City Council executive session privilegecl
communications with regard to waste collection contract negotiations in ways that were likely to
interfere with or have potential litigation implications. `(6) Councilmember Haugen has largely ignored mentoring by Deputy Mayor S'inger wittt
regard to improving her Councilmember skills through training opportunities.
(7) In 2009, Councilmember Haugen discussed, with the property owner, the City's plans ~
for aoquisition of his property for street improvements right-of-way at the comer of. 8tfi Street
NE and Harvey Road (M Street) undeRnining the Cify's real estate purohase negotiations.
(8) In 2009, Councilmember Haugen violated City Council executive session privileged
~ ; _
communication with regard to acquisition of the Manrel building by speaking to a newspaper
reporter about the City's plans.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FO THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Vrginia Haugen is hereby censured for.the violations of:the Rules of
Procedures idenfified herein above:
Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect upon the passage of this resolution. .
Resolution XXXX
March 21, 2011 : Page 4 of 5
CITY OF AUBURN
Councilmember Councilmember
Councilmember Councilmembec
Councilmember . Councilmember'
Councilmember
Resolution XXCX
March 21, 2011
Page 5 of 5
COUNC'II, OPERATIONS COMMITTEE (COC) MEEETING, MARCH 29, 2011
REVISED 3/19l11
COC MEETING AGENDA ITEM:
COUNCILMEMBER HAUGEN'S CONDUCT RELATIVE TO
CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE (ROP)
This document, regazding Virginia Haugen's conduct as an Auburn City Councilmember during the
years 2009 and 2010; was drafted in consultation with City Attorney Dan Heid, for discussion by the
Auburn City Council Operations Committee (COC), pursuant to one of the Committee's duties,
described in the City Council Rules of Procedure, Section 16.1, (G) (2), which reads, in part:
The Council Operations Committee shall also evaluate and recommend to the whole City
Council any actions, responses or sanctions for violations by Councilmembers of these Rules
of Procedure, which recommendations shall be considered, voted and/or acted upon by the
City Council in the normal course.
This document will be discussed at the COC using the process described in the City Council ROP,
Section 16.1 (G), (3), as amended by Resolution 4686, February 7; 2011, which reads:
In cases of alleged miscotiduct or violations of the City Council Rules of Procedures (ROP),
the person suspected of the alleged misconduct or violation of the ROP shall be afforded the
opportunity to respond, which opportunity shall be given, with advance notice, in an open
meeting of the Council Operations Committee (COC) prior to the COC making any
recommendations regarding censure or reprimand or other disciplinary action.
Note that the Council Operations Committee is not an "ethics committee" but rather it is a committee
formed by the City Council on February 2, 2004 in order to conduct City Council business in the most
efficient way possible. Nor do the Rules of Procedure address "ethical behavior", they are simply
procedural rules.
haugen031711.doc.doc 3/19/11 9:05 pm Page 1 of 3
Below are references to ROP sections that may have been violated by Councilmember Haugen:
Sectioa 2, Council Meetings: :
Reference to RCW 42.30 regarding confidential executive sessions. '
Section 6:3, Councilmembers, Obligation to the Public Agency:
. Notwithstaziding ttie right of Councilmembers to express their independent'opinions and exercise: theu freedom of speech, Councilmembers should act, in a way that reflects positively on the
reputation of the City and of the community. Councilmembers shall also interact with other
members of tlie City Council and City staff in ways that promote effective local Government.
Section 6.4, Councilmembers:
Councilinember are expected to participate ui tra.ining offered by individuals, agencies, entities
and organizatioris, including but aot limited to tlie Association of Washington Cities and tlie
State of Washington, so as to afford the Councilmembers the opportunity to better understand
their roles as City Councilmembers.
' r
Section 15,5, Council Relations With Staff:
Councilmember shall not attempt to change or interfere with the opera.ting rules and practices of
any City department. . .
;
Section 17.4, Council Representation and Internal Communicataon:
.
Couucilmembers sfiall not knowingly communicate with an opposing party or with an opposing attorney in connection with any pending or threatened litigation in which the City is a party or in
connection with any disputed claim involving the City without prior appmval of the City,
Attorney, unless the Councilmember is individually a party to the litiga.tion or is involved iri the`
disputed claim separate from the Councilmember's role as a City official.
<
Primarily Councilmember Virginia Haugen's conduct relative to the Rules of Procedure of the City
Council may increase the risk of higher litigation exposure and potential costs to the City.
The re-occarring theme, in these instances of alleged misconduct, is that Councilmember Haugen
appears to believe that she shonld be able to make personal statements and contacts withonf .
those statements and contacts being interpreted by others as being made in her rnle as a
Conncilmember.
However, in order to effectively do her job as a Councilmember, that is, to act in the best interests of
the citizens of Auburn, she should not make personal statements and contacts that damage those
interests by increasing the risk of lugher litigation exposure and potential costs to the City.
haugen031711.doc.doc 3/19/11 9:05 pm Page 2 of 3,
Below are specific examples of Virginia Haugen's questionable Councilmember conduct:
(1) Councilmember Haugen testified without City authorization at a March 3; 2010 City of Kent
Hearing Examiner hearing on the Verdana development, where the City of Auburn was involved
in a lawsuit with the developers, saying, according to the Kent Reporter newspaper: "This
development will'have a significant impact environmentally," potentially weakening the City's
position in the lawsuit. This issue had been discussed by Council in executive session several
times, as eazly as November 2, 2009, so she should have been aware of the sensitive legal nature
of the Verdana project. While she did not purport to be stating a position of the City Council, but
rather her own personal opinion, her statements might be viewed by the others as reflecting her
role as a Councilmember. As noted on page two, this is a re-occurring theme of her conduct.
(2) In 2010, according to Jeff Tate, City Development Services Manager, he received a call from
Satpal Soha1, who has applied for permits to build ahotel in Auburn. Soha1 said that he had
received ca11s from a local hotel operator who told him that Councilmember Haugen had called to
encourage him to oppose Sohal's project.
(3) In 2010 she communicated encouragingly with a citizen who had complained to the City that .
the 8t1i &`R' Street NE project would reduce the safety of her travel, implying that she might file
a lawsuit.
,(4) In 2010, according to Mayor Pete Lewis, she spoke with some City labor union members who
told him that she ha.d discussed wa.ge and benefit issues, in violation of the Rules of Procedure and
the City's labor negotiation process, undermining the City's negotiation position. This may have
been inadvertent on her part.
(5) In 2010 she violated City Council executive session privileged communications with regard to
waste collection contract negotiations in ways that were likely to interfere with or have potential
litigation implications.
(6) Councilmember Haugen has largely ignored mentoring by Deputy Mayor Singer with regard
to ;impmving her Councilmember skills through training opporhanities.
(7) In 2009 she discussed, with the property owner, the City's plans for acquisition of his property
for street improvements right-of-way at the comer of 8th Street NE and Harvey Road (M Street)
underinining the City's real estate purchase negotiations.
(8) In 2009 she violated City Council executive session priyileged commuiucation with regard to
acquisition of the Marvel building by speaking to a newspaper reporter about the City's plans. haugen031711.doc.doc 3/19111 9:05 pm Page 3 of 3
Rich Wagner_
From: Dani Daskam
Sent: Thursday; March 10, 2011 1:17 PM
To: _ Dan Heid . ~
Ccc Rich Wagner
Subject: FW: Executive Session(s) Regarding Verdana/Kent 160
Here is an updated email with Councilmembers' attendance included. Dani ~ .
From: Dani Daskam
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:58 PM • Ta Dan Meid
Cc: Rich Wagner
Subject; Executive Session(s) Regarding Verdana/Kent 160
Per the Council Operations Committee meeting on Tuesday, below are excerpts from the executive sessions that were
held from the time offiling of fhe Kent 160 (Verdana) suit and March 3, 2010,'wh'ich is the date that Councilmember
Haugen testified before the Kent Hearing Examiner. I don'f have any information on the item(s) discussed relating to
pending/potential lifigation, but the minutes do reflect who was in attendance. . ,
-Kent 160 LC v City of Auburn (and varioas.Auburn officials) filed y Groff Murph "y PLLC on 10/23/09;, RES 4640 .
Approving a settlement agreement with ttie Kent 160, LLC for the Verdana project, approved 9/712010
November 2, 2009 Councif Minutes: (aII Councilmembers present)
At 8:25, Mayor Lewis recessed the meeting to executive session for approximately fifteen minutes for the
purpose of discussing pending or potential litigation pursuant fo RGW 42.30.110(1)(i). Staff.members
required for the executive session. included City Attorney Qaniel B. Heid, Finance Director Shelley
Coleman, Public Works Director Dennis Dowdy, and Human Resources/Property and Risk Management
Director Heineman.
At 8:42, Mayor Lewis extended the executive session for an additional 10 minutes. At 8:52, Mayor Lewis reeonvened the meeting.
A. Resolutions
1. Resolution No. 4535
03:10:8 A Resolution of the Gity'Council of the City of Aubum, Washington; extending the moratorium
created and establishetl by Resolution No. 4416, as amended by Resolutions 4442 and 4476,
related to the filing, receipt, and approval of applications#or.development within areas ofthe City
located within, in whole orin part, floodplains as determined by the Federal Emergency
nnanagement Administration
November 16, 2009 Council Minutes: (all present) . II. EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 8:28 p.m., Deputy Mayor Singer recessed the meeting to executive session for fifteen minutes for the
purpose' of discussirig the sale and/or acquisition of real property pursuant to RCW 42:30.110(1)(b) and
. (c). Staff' members who attended the executive session included City Attomey Heid, Human Resources
and PropertylRisk Management Director Heineman, and' Finance Director Shelley Coleman. No action is
anticipated following the executive session.' .
Deputy Mayor Singer reconvened the regular meefing at 8:40 p.m. 1
,
December 7, 2009 Council Minutes (Backus excused)
III. EXECUTNE SESSION At 9:21 p.m., Mayor Lewis recessed the meeting for a five minute intermission and then to executive
session for approximately fifteen minutes to discuss pending litigation pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).
Staff members required for the executive session were: City Attomey Heid; Human Resources and
Risk/Property Management Director Heineman; Finance Director Coleman; Public Works Director powdy;
and Interim Planning Director Snyder. Mayor Lewis reconvened the regular meeting at 9:39 p.m. December 21, 2009 Council Minutes (all present)
IV. EXECUFNE SESSION
At 8:34 p.m. Mayor Lewis recessed the meeting to executive session for approximately fifteen minutes to
discuss potential or pending litigation pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). Staff members required for the
executive session were: City Attomey Heid, Human Resources and Risk/Property Management Director
Heineman; Finance Director Coleman; Public Works Director powdy; and Acting Planning Director
Snyder.
Mayor Lewis reconvensd the regular meeting at 8:53 p.m.
January 4, 2010 Council Minutes (all present)
V. EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 7:58 p.m., Mayor Lewis recessed the meeting for a five minute intermission and then to executive
session for approximately twenty minutes in order to discuss pending/potential litigafion pursuant to RCW .
42.30.110(1)(i). Staff members required for the executive session were: City Attomey Heid, Human
Resources/Property and Risk Management Director I-leineman, Public Worlcs Director powdy, and Acting
Planning Director Snyder. No action is expected following the executive session. At 8:26 p.m. Mayor Lewis extended the executive session an additional ten minutes. At 8:37 p.m. Mayor
Lewis extended the executive session an additional five minutes. •
Mayor Lewis reconvened the meeting at 8:39 p.m.
January 19, 2810 Council AAinutes
VI. Ezecutive Session
At 8:12 p.m., Deputy Mayor Singer recessed the meeting for a five minute intermission and then to
executive session for approximately thirty minutes for the purpose of discussing pending/potential
litigation pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). Staff members required for the execuave session were: City
Attomey Heid, Acting Planning Director Snyder, Human Resources and RisklProperty Management
Director Heineman, and Finance Director Coleman.
Prior to convening in executive session, Councilmember Hafugen was excused from the remainder of the
meeting due to illness.
Deputy Mayor Singer reconvened the meeting,at 8:38 p.m. City Attomey Heid read the title of Resolution No. 4563:
Resolution No. 4563
A Resolution of the Ciiy Council of the City of Aubum, Washington, authorizing the Mayor
to sign the 2010 Lake Tapps Area Water Resources Agreement
March 1, 2010 Council Minutes (Wagner and Backus excused from meeting)
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
. At 8:24 p.m., Mayor Lewis recessed to executive session for approximately five minutes in order to
discuss pending/potential litigation pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). Staff members requiced fior the
executive session were: City Attomey Heid, Human Resources/Property and Risk Management Director
Heineman, Public Worlcs Director powdy, and Acting Planning Director Snyder. No action is expected
following the executive session. Mayor Lewis reconyened the meeting at 8:29 p.m. -
~DgnieCCe ~Dgsf,am, C-MC
City Glerk
City of Auburn
-
25 West Main St
Aubum WA 98001
(253) 931-3037 -
3
' • . ~
. ' . . . • . Z> C~--l . . ~
From: Pete Lewis • • • . .
• Sent: Nionday, Noqember 01, 2010 10::07,PM •
To:Dan Heid; Rich Wagner; Sue Singer; Nancy Backue '
S'Ub j ect : Fw: sxecutive. '
Your.iziformation Counsel and Council '
. .
.Pete Lewis . • • 2$3=931-3041-' '
Oiiginal.Message 'From: Virgiaia.Iiaugen. • •
'Sent: 1-16nday,.2Jovember 01, 2010 09:52 PM . •
' To:' Pete. Lewis . . .
Subj ect : F'w: Executive ' • . .
Virgi_nia Haugen . '
Origiaal iKessage
• Frcm:' Virg~inia Haugen ' . . `
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 09:52'PM • ' To: Sue. Singer • • ' •
• S'iiti j ect s Executive . '
Came out of rest room tonight and Ron Gbnsanko ve.rbally attacked me about my opposit:ion tc .
•a La Qui:nta Znn at Highway le•exit anto 5tli St S 8? Generally people sead me- an e-mail oz•
call cne at my home:. I-f Pete didnIt•epend so much time with orator.y, on how hard council
• wurks. w. e.' d have * mora tiAie to. '.wo=k.: r k#aw pleiity about gar-bage ' ia Auburn Sue amd the .14MM •
. : cvntract zs.just a continuation of.the:monopoly M A Segale.had with Aubum for God oaly ,
. _
. ,
]on'_o`ws ~ioar loug, Was on Municipal sevices wbea Tony S wag cuttingi deals and what Vsaw .
• tiapgeii toni~ght is only differeat isi E1iat WM bought out M A and.the 'family~.. Don't get me
wroag._= love M A but I know how he woz7ked. He made Fred Poe look like Junior High School. .
, Virginia iiaugen ' • . . • .
• 1 • . • .
: gk and St Project
~
Subject: RE: 8th and R St Project
From: "V'uginia Haugen" <vhaugen@auburnwa.gov>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 19:24:07 -0700
To: "Pete Lewis" <plewis@aubumwa.gov>, "V'uginia Haugen" <vhaugen@auburnwa..gov>, "Rob
Roscoe" <rroscoe@auburnwa.gov>, "Sue Singer" <ssinger@auburnwa..gov> .
Julie..... Hope you folks are doing OK out there. Note the city is using safety .
grants all over Auburn in ways a lot of us hate. I was indeed involeed in reviews
of your project and even went with my committee to visit the site over a year
ago. We have had traffic issues on 8th for many years due to over-development of
the entire corridor. In the meantime the mayor has us involved in a denelopment
project with GReC that may bring even more traffic into your neighborhood. I too
am concerned that residents and businesses are°not given enough notice of planned
.projects and the work start times involved. Worst of all the council was taken
out of a part of the public hearing process because this administration was being
sued over land use issues. I feel King County and the City of Auburn have failed
to protect our residents from over-development and poor planning. I will try to._
follow the progress of the 8th and R St project and wish you and your neighbors
. the best. '
-----Original Message----- From: Pete Lewis
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 3:01 PM
To: Virqinia Haugen; Rich Wagner; Sue Singer; Nancy Backus
3ubject: FW: 8th and R St Project
As this citizen made perfectly clear in her e-mail she intends to build a record..
As a member of the PW Committee while this project was being approved and as a
current member l do suggest you talk to your committee chair and the Ops '
committee for appropriate behavior.
-----Original Message-----
From: Virginia Haugen
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 8:57 PM
To: Pete Lewis '
Subject: Re: 8th and R St Project
Just going over your e-mail to the mayor about eighth street traffic. I am so
concerned about how it will ef.fect you folks. Hope you will stay in touch with us
regard issue. .
.
Virqinia Haugen
Original Message
From: Pete Lewis Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 01:00 PM
To:Council Members
Subject: 8th and R St Froject .
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns. .
This project turned out to be one of Council's most deliberated projects. .
The reason this began was for pubic safety as the number and seriousness of
. accidents at that location continued to increase.
The city engaged in meetings, discussions and sent a number of flyers for different plans. ►f 3 3/10/2011 12:32 PM
8f and R,St Project .
. ; . ,
Council was indeed frustrated that they could not get united agreement by the'
communities in this area and after long deli.beration moved forward with a plan
with safety being their prime consideration.
Police and Fire have both.been involved and'the intersection meets„their .
requirements. . .
What you might have viewed as hesitation on the part of Council was actually
frustration at not being able to see all of the neighbors agreeing to a plan after the.Council.purposely delaying the start of what they felt was a badly
needed safety improvement. Staff did comment that the grant for a traffic signaT .
would run out soon and Council understood it was because they delayed so long to '
try for alternate plans:- ' - :
I am sorry if your time in the King County government system has alter'ed your
perception of your city. „ .
This isn't about saving.ETEs. Auburn began early and cut General Fund budget and
reduced the employment base not by freezin.g positions but a'ctual cuts of over ten'
percent in the last. year. Council works hard as does our-reinaining staff for a
stable.budget. This has been and continues to be a safety project. -
I hope that I have given you additional.information you might need and do
appreciate your comments.
Pete
Julie Fredrickson • Good day Mayor Lewis. I'am writing to you in order to submit my first five
official.complaints reqarding the 8th St NE and R St NE Sign,al Project that is '
currently underway in my immediate neighborhood.#1: The safety risk cited by the
City of Auburn was/is not sufficient to warrant the planned impacts to local
traffic and,elimination of left turning access (in or out) for two local resident
communities. Anyone who regularly drives on this road knows it is the drivers
who regularly speed on this arterial that is the biggest problem contributing to
accidents on record, not the people turning into their driveways on the"north.
side of 8th St NE. The proposed changes will restrict access.specifically to two
resident communities, and we believe in turn it will damage our ability to
rent/se1l our units.#2: As soon as we were aware of this impacting traffic signal
project, a raimberof local residents brought forth various ideas for alternate
configurations of this light signal project that would cause significantly less impact to the Regal Apartment and Rivers End Estate Condominium communities.
Regardless, the City of Auburn went ahead with the most severvely impacting. „
design to our homes, without cit9.ng any reason for the choice.#3: I personally
attended two city council meetings where this traffic light project was ;
discussed and I provided input at both. At no time did I witness the council voting to move forward with this project. At both public meetings,, .
council members seemed diseouraged by the access impacts to the residents of
Reqa1 Apts and Rivers End Estates, and at both meetings they rec~uested:more ti.m.e ` •
and/or information to decide upon the matter. I recall the two biggest.concerns
being (1) the inconvenience caused to residents that would require us to drive
half a mile out of our way to legally drive up Lea Hill should.the left turn`out
option be eliminated [the..attached image shows the reroute down.to Scootie Brown .
Park and back through to R St NE]. and (2) the difficulty posed•'by a new 3nedian to the larger vehicles that need to back directly into the Rivers End Estates_ _
driveway (this applies to large delivery vehicles, moving trucks; and'most.
importantly, fire engines).#4: While attending one of tho3e public works related
council meetings, in response to the hesitation of the council in approving this
project I witnessed staff informing the council tHat the-grant money "had,_to be
spent" within a certain time, being that it was tied to a federal safety grant.. I am a local government employee myself (King County), I am very well versed in
of 3 3/10/2011 12:32 PM .
E:.8 -h amd R St Project . .
the various temporal restrictions tied to grant monies. I can understand why an
unneccesary administrative delay could be risky on a number of levels. But since
the project was in fact delayed for approxi.mately-two years, I am curious as how
the accounting was handled/delayed for this "grant-funded° project.# 5: Yesterday
(October 11, 2010) I received a NOTICE OF ROAD WORK that was dated October.5,
2010. If your agency was trying to give local residents any notice whatsoever
for work that would commence on 10/11/10 (yesterda.y), it failed mightily.So Mr.
Lewis, with all due respect I'll continue to document my complaints regarding
' this project and will be in_touch for the forseable future. On the whole, I
regret what seems to be an intentional opacity regarding this project by Public
Works Department staff, as well as my suspicion that the Director's motives are
more alligned with sustaining his FTEs than with doing the right work at the
' right time on behalf of the residents of Auburn. In these times of financial
hardship, as a local government employee I can certainly understand the pressure_
facing managers to do what they can to stave off cuts to valued staff inembers,
but I disagree completely when these activities transpire at the serious expense
of residents.
Very sincerely,
J.ulie Fredrickson '
Pete Lewis
253-931-3041
of 3 . . 3/10/2011 12:32 PM
riJned4cal
. ,
Subject: Fw: Unethical
, :
Fram: "V"uginia.Haugen" <vhaugen@auliurnwa.gov> ,
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:34:44 -0700 . To: "Dan Heid" .<dheid@auburnwa.gov>
Virginia'Haugen -
Oriqinal,Message_----- ` From: Virqinia_Haugen Sent: Tuesday,. October:26, 2010 07c34 PM
To: Sue Singer'
Subject: Re: Unethical -
Glad you replied. Way we are using traffic safety money is subject I've had some _
of the most negative.comments about. I know of four businesses in three:block;
area being hurt by 'curbs' that prevent left hand turns. One elosed and new,
owners are hanging on by a thread. My daughter went to north end to'buy product,
because it is to•hard to enter particular park lot where stie would have bought.
Close friend did the same. I make U turns on Auburn Way often so I can use two
retaiTers I care about: I've been vocal for nearly four years about negatine . .
impact some of these projects have. I have not received any information that _
indicates anyone is intending to sue the city over the 8th St project. If we are -
sued over this project it will be because have continued to allow
over-denelopment of Auburn and that development has created s.erious problems for
those of us who use city streets. In my fine years (total) service on the council
I only voted to approve two developments that I feel have a negative impaet on
the community. And I have not been involved in decisions or actions that resulted
in lawsuits. My work on the council is not about conering for what I consider to"
be mistakes made by our current and prev:ious administrations. I truly am sorry
you are so upset by my action. '
Virginia Haugen
Original Message ' From: Sue Singer
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:47 AM
To: Virginia Haugen -
Cc: Rich Wagner; DanHeid Subject: Unethical Virginia, I don't qet it.... I am shocked, as concerned as you say you are over every
dollar the city spends, that you would willfully email potentially damaging (and
mostly untrue):inforniation to;people who are, you were told, making plans to sue
the city over our attempts to make 8th and R a safer intersection. This behavior
could cost a lot of money in legal fees and potentially millions more if; headen
fcrbid, a jury should see things your way. Not only is your behavior shocking, it
is unethical, against our council rules and I don't even think it is legal. What .
are you thinking??? - As you know I was hoping we could get together.before the retreat but my only
free time now is tonight-after 8:30. Give me a.call then if you want to talk
about this.
of l 3/10/2011 12:33 PM
8fh -aad R St N E
Subject: Fw: 8th and R St N E From: "V'uginia Haugen" <yhaugen@auburnwa.gov>
Date: Wed, 27. Oct 201012:13:14 -0700 _
To: "V'ffginia Haugen" <vhaugen@auburnwa.gov>
Virginia Haugen :
Original Message ' - - From:- Vsrginia Haugen - •
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 20.10 12:12 PM
To: Sue'Singer Subject: 8th and R St N E Just, read complete on Notice of Application for above,.project. Concerned since :
first looking at map of area that.thi's was about more than traffic safety for
present. Never during committee discussions was real reason for this project
mentioned except:by me. I asked if we had plans to develop near project and Pete
said "not at this time". Looks like..Ered got one past me. We will only get sued
if, large.property owners out there have lots of money and a decent lawyer. We
both know why land issues are kept 'hush hush' when Haugen is around.
Virginia Haugen. •
of 1. , 3/10/2011 12:33PM
' • . ~ . ~ ' .
~
- : . . . . ~ . . .
' Fso.me Pete Lewis • .
Sent: Fr•iday, November 26, 2010' 12:08 PM. • . .
•To: Dan Heid; Virginia liaugen; Rich Wagner; 3ue Singer;.Na.ncy 8ackus
.
Subjezt: 1?w': Solid waste , . . , • . This one even talks to possible Couacil votes. Still, up to Ope Commi,ttee and Council
Pete~Lewis . ' . . ,
253-•931-3041 • . .
. - Origi.nal Mea.sage • . .
Fibm: Virg'iaia.Haugen
Sent: F=iday; November 26, 2010 12:05 PM' '
To: Pete: L• ewis. • . . • Subject: Fw: Solid Waste '
Viiginia°Haugen . . ' Ozigiual Message . .
F.zome V.irginia Haugen . . • .
Seat: Friday, Noveinbe= 26, 2030 12:•05 .PM . To: .Itob Aoscoe • . . • .
Subject:.'Fw: Solid Waste .
• Viicgiaia :8augea . . . . . .
- Ori,giaal Message '
From: V1rg3nia Saugen .
• Sesit i Frida.yr, Noveniber 26, 2010 12 : 03 PM . • , •
To: Da:n Heid • . Subject: solid waste • ' ' i~ej.t., it ttupqrCailt I a.nfoxm both you aad the mayor. . that I•belieye session on ,solid waste
ehould have•~een done ia pu]~lic tn`eet3ags. =t was covezed thoroughly in muriicipal- sexvices , cottanittee~ at least 2 years ago and the public needs~ to' be av~+are of. what we are doiag about:
save money by goiag in directien that .
these agseenieats.: Iafo`x~med aources te11 me v►e wil'~
• M ~couucil qeab6rs ( iacluding inyself )suggeated. I have not iiot will = pass oii exec:utive '
iafo buti I will not. be -silent oa cost over-ruae caiisecl by persoas- aot consideriag
agreeirtents t.hat are,in tlie best interes" of my constitgents. If my vvords see.m harsh' I
meaa no -di:erespect to you. or ~anyone el.se in our adniiaistOatioa. Please remember fdy only • .
. job is to.serve the public Daa. , . . .
. • -
Virginia Haugea . • . . .
. ' . • . . 1 • . . •
Dani Daskam From: Sue Singer
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 11:08 AM ~
. To: Rich Wagner, Dani Daskam
Subject: Fw: ICS Training - Haugen
Rich and Dani, ;I would like this copied for fihe Council Ops committee to discuss.at our
next meeting.
Original Message
From: Sarati K Miller - •
-._-Sent.: Eriday, March 18, 2011 10:49 AM
To: Sue Singer
S.ubject: ICS Training - Haugen
Deputy.Mayor Singer,
Per your request, below is information on Councilmember Haugen's ICS/NIMS training'status:
12/18/07 -.Took the combined ICS 100/IS 700 course of•fered by the City but failed the
exams
02/05/08 - Training announcement sent to Mayor with reminder that Haugen needed to
complete the-courses
02/15/08 - Haugen sent an e-mail to the: Emergency Management office assistant complaining
about the previous class she had taken, as well as about the instructor, who is the office
assistant's direct supervisor. Haugen requested a copy of the City's emergency plan as it
related to her Council.duties.,and proof that the law.required her to participate in the
tsainsng. Thi:s information was forwarded to the Mayor for action.
2%22/08 - Haugen requested to be enrolled in another locally offered class, stating that
her. computer.was too slow for her to complete the courses online.
2/25/08 - We offered'to send her course materials and a copy of the tests, to be completed
at her leisure and returned to us, or to sign her up for the class. Those materials were
sent via int;eroffice mail.
08/04/08 - A notice was sent to the Council secretary advising of another opportunity for
Haugen to take the course.
08/07/08 - Haugen requested to be signed-up for a course on 8/26/08..There is no record
that she attended or passed the course.
09/14/09 - Notice sent to Mayor regarding Haugen's continued non-compliance.
12/07/09 - Council formally approved the newest version of the City's Comprehensive
Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) which specifically list's duties.of Council and
specifically states that every elected official is expecfied to complete ICS 100 and IS 700
within six months of hire.
03/31/10 - We were made aware that Haugen had lost her issued•copy of the City's CEMP and
issued her a new one.
PTease let me know if you have any questions or need any more specific information.
Sarah K. Miller, MPA, CEM
Emergency Preparedness Manager
City of Auburn
253-876=1909
skmiller@auburniia.gov
1
Solid waste ' • Subject: Re; Solid waste
Froms "Yirginia Haugen" <vhaugen@auburnwa.gov>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 201018:56:11 -0800. t ~ )
To: "Sue Singer" <ssinger@aubumwa..gov> -
No problem.for me.
Virginia Haugen _
Original Message :
• _ From: __Sue Singer
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 02:37 PM.
To: Virginia Haugen
Cc: Pete Lewis
Subject:.Re: Solid waste '
Virginia, you are breaking so many laws and council rules in this email that T
don't know where to.start. Stop emailing or talking about executive session
issues. Original Message '
From: Virginia_ Haugen
' Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 01:.07 PM
To: Sue Singer '
Subject: Solid waste
Have information leading me to beliene there are solid waste handlers who can and
will under bid Waste Mana,gement if given a chance.•Alsoconcerned we may have
violated 'open meetinga act' by discussing solid waste negotiatiqns that are and
should be on Municipa.l Services agendas. Many in Auburn are aware of the cosy
relationship Waste Management has with Pete's administration and that it's been .
that way sinCe M.A. was involved in.garbage. Our solid waste contracts should be
put out for bid Sue and to do otherwise is what many in Auburn consider inside
deal_ making. "
Virginia Haugen A 1 . . 3/10/2011 12:35 PM
M ~t - Council Member's Activities
_
SubJ'ect: Re: M St - Council Member's Activities
From: "V'uginia Haugen" <vhaugen@aubumwa.gov>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:03 :23 -0700
To: "Pete Lewis" <plewis@aubumwa.gov> Was in frovt yard at 8;30 pm 6/23 to remove gravel and mud from sidewalk Dust was bad tonighk but elderly neigbbour is
out of town so not so much an issue. Water it down myself when it gets to be problem. Would be good if we could get a
sweep on west side of R.
-Virginia Haugen -
Original Message From Pete Lewis
To: V'irginia Haugen
Cc: Dan Herd
Seut Tue Jim 23 13:44:13 2009
Subject FW: M St - Council Member's Activities
As residerrts stated these coaunents were from you and staff was hearing them from residerrts the staff has attached responses
that are also being sent to the residerrts and to Committee on commiuees. Project Questions/Issues from Citizens and/or a City Councilmember:
• An owner of property requiring partial purchase by the City was wamed to "watch ouP' for the City and that the City will
not negotiate in good faith
' Response: City staff negotiated for property purchases in good failh by conducting an appraisal and a review appraisal for
all properties. Staffthen reviewed any coiurter offers from owners to identify if there were any items of value to be included
beyond the original appraisals. If there were, the City negotiated what is a fair market value for both the improvements and
tle property being lxken with the urtet tihat property owners are compeasated for ffie loss of land and, when applicable, for
new improvemenls needed to compensate for improvements being talaen or impacted by the City.
• TIe Mayoi is bragging that the City was taldng property for the 8th and Harvey project without comperisating the owners for the properly: .
Response: City staffresearched the limits ofthe existing Right of-way and found that there existed Right of-way beyond the
existing sidewalk within the corridor. The project including the roadway widening is within the existing right-of-way.
Where the City needed to recoimect sewer and water services and wlere there were some minor grade adjustments needed
on privabe property to rcatch the new sidewallss and driveways, the City acqtrired a combination of Temporary ConsUwtion
g,asemeM and permanent Public Utility Easemem from the property owners. Those property owners affected by these
easements were notified by letter explaining the potential impacts to their properlies and ttw City's intent to restore any
distiabance of their properaes vviththe proj ect Staff i's performing ongoing coordination witii these affected property
owners as needed.
• The City is going to ruin the residential neighborhood on M Street NE by directing trucks onto the residernial M Street NE.
Response: M Street NE is classified as a Principal Arterial of the City's roadway network and is identified as a poteutial
futare trwck route. The roadway already carries a sigqificant amoimt of arterial haffic, bus traffic and smaller truck traffic
" (nwre 1han 15,000 velricles per day). The road desiga was complebed basecl on a 20 year desiga life using the existing traffic
conditions and projecting the traffic loading over the 20 yeaz design life period based on the roadways classificatioa
of3 3/10/2011 12:33 PM
a: M S~it - Coimcil Member's Activifies
• The right-of-way on M Street NE was not staked on the west side of the roadway and the City will be taldng property
without paying for it Response: Neither the west.or east Riglrt of-way limits were staked on M Street NE. The project is widening the roadway
to the west oniy and will be within the eidsting right way. Property owners on the east side of the street received a let#er
explaining that the City would be staldng the back of the new sidewalk so tlw property owners wishing to salvage plantinp
~ or other impmveabents within the existing rigbt-of-way would mderstand the limits. As the west side is not being widened,
there is no need to stake the back of sidewalk as it is not changing. 'Ilia City did not wank to stalae the existing right of-way
limits as fhey are beyond the existing and pmposed sidewalks and wotild only confiase residents and imply that the City
intended to complete improvemenfs beyond what is actually proposed.
• Citizens were warned not to trust the City or its staffto complete construction as discussed at a public meefing,
Response: The scope and manner of the project inoplementation is consistecrt with what was discussed at the public meeting.
The exception is the decision to urilize a full closuse of the roadway diaing construcdon for safety, efficiency, and cost saving reasons. . • A Coimcilmember has direcfly questioned staff regarding the sincerity of the City to restore the property to its original
condition pei the easemerns being completed with impacted property owners.
Response: Staff responded that tlie inteut of d►e easements is to protect the owner's property and provide them asstrances
that the City would restore die property that is distuubed by the project in order to complete the sidewalk and driveway
replacemeat and the services for water and sewer utilities to each properiy.
• A Councilmember has directly questioned staffreg,arding dust control and whether it was being done or will be done on
the City's pmjects.
Response: Dgst control is included in all projects that have the poteWal to create a dust control need. While it is the
coutractor's responsibility, staffmomtors the need along with feedback from property owners. There are specific parameters included regarding what the contractor can do depending on the situation. In general, the City does not allow
flustring of die roadway into the storm system as almost all systems discharge to a mhaal drainage course and sediment in
these systems is regulated. ,
Citizens oa both the R Street and M Street projects have had questions regarding the ownerslup of the water meter boxes
and sewer cleanouts.
Response: The meter box and meter are owned by the City but are to serve an individual customer and are part of the system
needed W service the customer. The sewer clean out is, part of the sewer service line and is typically placed at the end of the
City's responsibility for the sewer service and provides access for the City to clean the portion of die service line the City is
responsible for.
• Citazens and Councilmember on both projects have asked why there was no survey performed priar to construction of the
projects or why siavey is being done now. ' Response: Survey work is usually the fust item of work in the design of most proj ects. The mapping used to design tle
project is generated after a complete topographic simrey is performed. ln addition, where rigbt-of-way is a concern research
inmo tlx location of the rigbt of-way from records of sarvey, plat ffiaps, and oftr couriy records is completed and a
"calculaber right of-way is generated in relation to the stm+eyed information for a project wluch is all on the same
coord'mate system Additional simrey or staldng may be completed through oirt`the design and properiy acquisition process
as needed to refae the design and comunmicate with propertyr owners. Once imder canstruction, additional survey work is
completied to "Stake" the location ofproposed improvements for the conrtractor to build from.
• A CitiDen and a Councilmenber raised a quesfion about the loss of on-street pazldng on R Street SE permanently based on
the bmporary relocation of traff c diuing constiuction . .
of 3 . 3/ 10/ZO 11 12:33 PM .
= M St - Council Member's Activities Response;. During constcuctioq a-iffic is shi&ed vi+ithin the roadway corridor to allow two lanes of traffic to reaain open
and fimctioning on R Street SE while constructton of utility impmvemerrts is completed on the otiw half Once all
_ •
construction is completed and the roadway'is paved, the centerline channelizationwill be replaced to the pre-project
:
configuratton. (Please note thought that as a separate project, die City is considering adding additional'striping along the "R"
Street corridor for bike lanes.) . .
'The inforniation corairtned in this electronic commwication is personal, privileged and/or confiderrtial infor~tion intended
onlyfor the use of ttie individual(s) or entity(ies) to wtuch it-has been addressed IEyou read this comnnmicatton and are not
hfied that _ any dissemmatioq distribuaon or copymg of ttus oo~catton,
~
ffie ~intenV~ rec'' i~ ~I~idu ~d are rec~phereb rentis nos~ietlY pro~ its~, I~ You-have received ~is_cnmm~micatiun i~t~rror, pleas other
- e....
immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you. '
of3 . 3/10/2011 12:33 PM
Rich Wagner .
Fror.r " Dani Daskam Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 2:02 PM
To: Rich Wagner, Sue Singer; Naney Backus; Dan Heid
Subject: Excerpt of August 17, 2009 Council Minutes Relating to Acquisition of 2 West Main Street
Below is an excerpt of the August 2009 ` uncil minutes relating to acquisfion of 2 West Main Street:
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 8:56 p.m., Mayor Lewis recessed the meeting for a five minute intermission and then to executive session
for fifteen minute$ for the purpose of discussing acquisition of property pursuant to RCW.42.30.110(1)(c). Sfaff
- _
- - - -
members required for the execufive session included Cify AttomeyHeid; -Finance 6ifector -Coleman, and-
Human Resources/Property and Risk Management Director Heineman:
Councilmember Norman left the meeting at the beginning of the Executive Session due to illness.
Mayor Lewis.reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
City Attomey Heid read the title of Resolution No. 4514:
Resolution No. 4514
A Resolution of the City Council of fhe City of Auburn,. Washington, authorizing the `
Mayor and City Clerk to execute contract for purchase and sale between the City of
Auburn and Andrey and Nadya Ivantsov for real property
Councilmember Backus moved and Councilmember Peloza seconded to adopt Resolution No. 4514.
.MOT.ION CARRIED. 5-1. Councilmember Haugen voted no.
ADJOURNMENT '
There 6eing no further business to come befoce the Council, the meeting adjoumed at 9:21.p.m.
~DanieQe Daskarr; CMC
City Clerk
City of Aubum
25 West Main St
Aubum WA 98001
(253) 931-3037
1