Clyde Hill News: Road work and new sidewalk plan approved
Also: what’s going on with Ballot Measure / form of government question?
If you’re headed out of town, you can send Clyde Hill Police a “residential vacation alert” (link) letting them know you’ll be out of town. While this is not a formal housewatch, it should help them in evaluating any reported activity while you’re traveling.
In related news, I’m out of town, so this update will be relatively brief. Thanks for understanding.
One more item before our disclaimer: if you find this newsletter useful or interesting, please forward it to your Clyde Hill neighbors and friends. Thank you!
Disclaimer: while I am a councilmember on the Clyde Hill City Council, I write this newsletter in my capacity as an individual resident. Any opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily the position of the City. The information and references here are from public sources. I welcome email responses — and if the topic is about City business I will respond from my City email account.
What’s the News?
From a resident point of view, here’s a brief recap of the City business from the meeting this week.
Road work and a sidewalk on 20th
The City Council approved the Administration’s Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), describing how the City will spend almost $5m over the next six years to improve streets and sidewalks.
I’m calling this a win because the plan was clearer than plans in the past. The Administration acknowledged the communications and outreach work to residents that remains as it works through executing on these plans.
Stormwater standards update
The City Council approved the Administration’s proposed changes to stormwater standards. There were no public comments and really not much to say here. Building codes and expectations change over time.
Public comments
Public comments were exciting in the same way that 7th grade mean girl behavior is exciting (to borrow the description a friend offered after the meeting). I didn’t have “misinformation and disinformation reaches Clyde Hill” on my bingo card for 2022. I’ll write more about this when I’m back in town.
Enforcement Discussion
Briefly: the Administration offered an initial response to Council feedback about problems with enforcement. You can see their slides here (link).
As a resident, is this good? Well, it’s progress, especially when compared to the lack of response that preceded this discussion.
During the discussion, all five members of Council agreed again that there is an enforcement problem.
The Mayor disagreed. When asked explicitly if there was an enforcement problem, the Mayor gave a long answer that was, basically, a “no.”
Candidly, this was just bizarre. The next steps here involve more meetings to try to make progress on specifics before this topic comes in front of a public meeting again.
There were other discussions that reflected other disconnects between the Administration and the Council. I’ll hold off writing about those until I can refer to the meeting recording. Relying on someone else’s notes, I’ll offer this partial transcription of remarks from Cm Steve Friedman:
“I’ve been disappointed in the ability of the Administration to listen to Council. I believe this is a major cause of the ineffectiveness of this Council and the Administration to effectively work together.… the process doesn’t work when Council’s views on policy are not considered or acknowledged….From my standpoint, I see our views at Council as receiving from the Administration an ignoring head nod or being kicked down the road or being pushed along and hoping it will go away.”
For context, City Council and residents have been clear and consistent in their feedback and concerns regarding unclear and inconsistent enforcement of City code. As an example, Administration enforcement of what plantings are allowed in the rights of way by public roads has been confusing and unpredictable.
Ballot Measure and “Form of Government”
This topic has been one of the most confusing things I’ve tried to cover over the last year.
Briefly: over 150 residents have stated their support for a ballot measure that would allow residents to choose between (1) keeping the current “mayor-council” form of government and (2) switching to the “council-manager” form of government (that Medina, Mercer Island, Kirkland, and Bellevue use).
The details of the process are super, super confusing. The rules from Washington State (like who takes delivery of the petition and what are the next steps) are just not clear. King County and the City Attorney and Administration gave conflicting guidance to the petition organizers. New laws that kicked in recently surprised (apparently) both the petition organizers and the Administration.
Coming out of Tuesday night’s meeting, here’s what happened:
The City Attorney will draft a resolution to place a measure on the ballot for Clyde Hill voters. The Council will consider the resolution when it next meets.
The gist of the thinking here involved setting up a more informed discussion instead of just waiting for clarity to emerge from a confusing petition process. The action reflects a point of view that (a) the petition process is sufficiently ambiguous and (b) enough residents signed the petition that it’s better to simply acknowledge that a sufficient number of registered voters want this on the ballot and place it on the ballot. Another point of view expressed in the discussion and voting is that the petition process should be allowed more time to run its course.
There’s a lot of “Fear, uncertainty, and doubt” (link) that public discussion might be able to clear up. For example, both forms of government have clear and firm separation of powers… that separation just operates differently across the two systems. There have also been wild claims about what the change might cost, how significant the change would be operationally, and more. Residents against even considering a change to the form of government have organized a parallel and opposed effort.
The motion for the City Attorney to draft this resolution and ballot measure and bring it back at the next meeting passed 3-1 with one abstention, reflecting that there is simply more information and discussion needed.
What’s the background?
When it incorporated as a town in 1953, Clyde Hill chose the “mayor-council” form of government. At the time, that’s what most towns and cities did. It was a close vote: “In 1953 area residents voted to become an incorporated Town by a vote of 145 to 117.” (link)
What most towns and cities do has changed over time: “Since 1970, almost all new cities have incorporated under the council-manager system,” according to MRSC.org (link), the organization that Clyde Hill and other Washington State cities relies on for guidance.
It’s worth noting that Clyde Hill has already changed once: “On November 10, 1998, the Council voted to organize Clyde Hill as a non-charter Code City,” setting a precedent for making a change when it makes sense.
The Big Picture
The gist of the change would involve how accountability works.
Currently, Clyde Hill’s City Administrator is accountable to the part-time Mayor. The part-time Mayor is elected directly by residents of Clyde Hill.
With the change, the City Administrator would become the City’s chief executive. The City’s chief executive would remain accountable to residents through the City Council. The same separation of powers and rules around non-interference by the Council apply. The Council, as in Medina and Mercer Island and other council-manager cities, would choose a ceremonial Mayor from the Councilmembers.
Why?
Briefly, the comments from Cm Friedman above and the recurring enforcement discussion are just two of many, many examples of the struggle to align and get things done for residents. There are many ways to address the issues. As a resident, it’s good to see civil engagement. I’m hopeful it can stay constructive and honest.
Thanks for reading! Please forward and share with your friends and neighbors, and if you are not already getting this newsletter, subscribing is both easy and free.
Dean Hachamovitch