Mayor William Armacost began the meeting with a well thought out proposal (click here to read) to move agenda item 7 (public comment) to 11.3. After some discussion, the council voted 4-3 in favor of doing so. This may have been the best decision of the meeting. This one item allowed the city council to actually attend to city council business, rather than starting the meeting on a negative note with the same, consistent individuals speaking out against specific council members in a belittling, targeted manner. 

As we have heard not only in so many of the meetings this year, but also in letters to the editor throughout last year, in the year of “Be Kind”,  verbal attacks made under the guise of “statements” during the public comment portion have been on the rise. It seems that certain individuals are attempting to negatively affect the ability of the city council to do their job by aiming, largely unfounded, focused personal attacks against them. 

By voting to move the public comment section toward the end of the meeting, the city council was able to address agenda items in a timely fashion. This doesn’t mean that private residents of the county didn’t have their three (3) minute allotted time (click here to read comments made). In fact, Karen Hogan, a member of the Sequim Good Governance League (SGGL) who is not a city resident,  was there as she usually is, to speak (click here to read) Hogan’s statement) during the comment section at the end of the meeting.  It was no surprise, as she again clearly spoke down to the city council, about her disenchantment with individual members.

Even though Hogan has been openly supportive of the city’s “year of kindness” proclamation which was originally presented and promoted by SGGL which she often represents, she continually berates and attacks specific members of the city council both verbally and through letters to the editor. One might presume that because these particular council members are conservative-leaning, and that members of SGGL have been outspoken about promoting a change in Sequim government to more “progressive” candidates, this seemingly all-out attack is taking place by a few regulars.

Before the SGGL removed their Facebook page from public view (it is now in “private, members-only” mode), it was clear that the strong majority of those individuals, including Hogan, have made it their mission to remove the council members who do not fall in line with their agenda of progressivism.

One would wonder about Hogan’s staunch support of Charlie Bush. Perhaps she knows why Mr. Bush chose not to have an open meeting, as was his right, to discuss his options – rather than behind the closed doors of an executive session. After all, it was Mr. Bush’s choice. Yet, even now, months later, we are still hearing from the support of a group of loyalists who refuse to back down not knowing the full circumstances. Perhaps Mr. Bush would like to openly give a statement regarding why he is no longer working for the City of Sequim?

I wonder if Barry Berezowsky faced the same public outcry when he left the city of Poulsbo – did he resign or was it a forced parting of ways? According to the Kitsap Sun, August 26, 2016, “Barry Berezowsky, the longtime planning director for the city of Poulsbo, is no longer employed there. Poulsbo Mayor Becky Erickson cited ‘differences in management styles,’ then declined further comment.”

Further, the Kitsap Daily News quoted Mayor Erickson, “”Because this is a personnel issue, I can’t discuss it further,” she said.” 

 

Highlights of the City Council agenda

While there were a more topics mentioned during the council meeting, we will be focusing on only a few of them here. We will cover more in later articles.

Sequim Planning Commission Appointment

There were two available positions for the Sequim Planning Commission. These appointments last four years. According to the City of Sequim’s website, the positions are described as: Commissioners volunteer their time, advising the City Council on plans, policies, regulations and capital spending related to growth and development.

Dan Butler and Vicki Lowe were appointed to fill the empty seats.  It may come as no surprise that deputy mayor, Tom Ferrell, has appointed these two to the Sequim Planning Commission.  Lowe has previously thrown her hat in to fill empty council seats twice, positions which Rachel Anderson and Keith Larkin now hold.

Hiring a Hearing Examiner for A1 and A2 closed appeals.

(You can view the powerpoint presentation here)

A-1 Permit: Minor planned Residential (PRD) Permits*, Home Occupation Permit, Endangered Species Act (ESA), Shoreline and Wetland Exemptions*, Street Use Permit* A-2 Permit*: SEPA Determination, Design Review, ESA and Wetland Permits, Short Plat

SMC 20.01.030 footnote b= appeal authority for “other construction permits” is a Hearing Examiner.  *= Status called into doubt by Hearing Examiner’s Decision re: SEPA SMC 20.01.090 – A2 appeals go to a Hearing Examiner.

Hiring a hearing examiner brings up several questions: Why aren’t we using the Clallam County Hearing Examiner as was done with the MAT clinic? Currently the salary range for a hearing examiner is between $80,000 – $190,000/year. Where will the funds for the salary come from? Will the hearing examiner require a staff or will the city staff be on call for those duties? Will the city reduce its budget in order to incorporate the cost of hiring a hearing examiner? Or will taxes need to be raised in order to cover the cost? Currently, according to City Vouchers, the payroll for the city is $252,545.09. (Not including payroll liabilities of $79,442.64) If we just based it off of the 84 people who receive direct deposit, it would average out to $3,000 per person on staff biweekly. (That is every other week.) Of course, we realize that not all staff members are paid the same salary and there are additional employees. It is just an easy way to show how much the city requires to maintain payroll. While it is important to denote that the city council will be able to create the job description for the hearing examiner, the real question is, does the city need one? Currently, the city attorney has stated that she would not be able to defend the city council members if they made a wrong decision for which they could be held liable.

Jamestown Request for Letter of Support for Roundabout in Blyn

US 101 and Sophus Road Roundabout Project While the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (JSKT) has done many good things, the roundabout project they are negotiating with the Washington State Dept. of Transportation (WSDOT) may not be one of them. Tribal Chairman/CEO Ron Allen came to the city council meeting seeking a letter of support for the project. The city council requested to see the supporting study documentation prior to making a decision. The city council did agree to give a letter of support for highway safety in the Blyn area mentioned. Chairman Allen mentioned several options have been put on the table: an underpass, an overpass, and the roundabout. Wouldn’t something like the underpass that was done by Deer Park Theater east of Port Angeles work better? One wonders how much time construction of a roundabout would take. Delays and backup of traffic, especially semi-trucks transporting products, such as gas, groceries, and other inventory, as well as the logging trucks would be adversely affected during and probably after construction. JSKT has already created a tunnel from the east side of the property to connect to the other side of the highway. While the question of traffic was brought up, and the concerns of the 25 mph slow down via the roundabout as well as the fact that the highway is the only road on and off the peninsula in that direction doesn’t seem to have hit a chord. Representatives present from the JSKT stated they would be willing to give the City the supporting study documentation to consider in this matter. (As of this writing, we have been unable to confirm whether they have followed through in this regard.) The project, which is estimated to cost taxpayers approximately $3.1 million dollars, will be supported mostly by federal government (taxpayers’) funds. No out-of-pocket money would be required from the city of Sequim; however, the flow of tourist traffic, which may end up being diverted from the city, is a factor to consider. Tourists visiting Sequim for such events as the Irrigation Festival, the Clallam County Fair as well as the Lavender Festival bring much in revenue to the city and surrounding areas.  With the economy at an all time low, tourism is needed now more than ever. We’ll cover a second roundabout that they already have begun planning in another story.

Next City Council Meeting

The City Council meetings are open to the public. The next meeting will be held on April 26, 2021. You can go to the City of Sequim site to get the information for connecting to the meeting via zoom. You also have the option to send in public comments to the council members via email: