Bob Voyles, Joe Ladner, Ed Towey, David Paulson, Larry Parkhurst, Oliver Arrett, John Gresens, Pete Onstad, Council Liaison Kim Crockett, City Administrator Dana Young

Steve Pavek

The Committee approved the April 14, 2004 minutes on a motion by Joe Ladner, seconded by David Paulson. Motion declared carried.

Bob Voyles stated that the City Council did not approve the Boat Committee’s recommendation to reinstate those seven individuals who had appealed the waiting list deadline. He stated that he appeared at the May 3^rd Council meeting to explain that the Boat Committee’s recommendation was primarily based on the issue of proportionality – the punishment simply did not fit the crime of not turning the waiting list application and fee in by the March 15^th deadline. He stated that the Council has given the Committee the opportunity to review its original recommendation by looking at each individual case separately.

Discussion was held regarding the language in the ordinance that established a one-time administrative fee for each name on the waiting lists. Dana Young stated that imposing a penalty or a fine, as was proposed at the Council meeting, is not permitted due to the fact that the waiting list ordinance did not grant the City Council the authority to do so.

John Gresens stated that he was not at the last Committee meeting but struggled with this issue while reviewing the minutes. He agreed that the penalty does not fit the crime. He suggested that the Committee could recommend adopting an ordinance that would allow a 30-day period between March 15^th and April 15^th where residents can sign back up on the new waiting list. He stated that this is a very busy time of the year with Easter and tax day and didn’t think it was appropriate to throw somebody off the list for missing a deadline.

Kim Crockett stated that she felt that the only individuals who should be reinstated were those who went through the appeals process and it should not be opened up to everyone who missed the application deadline.

David Paulson stated that he would like to conduct a straw poll of the members to see who was in agreement to reinstate the original seven individuals that the Committee had recommended for reinstatement.

Oliver Arrett stated that he would favor a general amnesty for everyone who missed the deadline.

Larry Parkhurst stated that he also would have been excluded from reinstatement since he was unable to attend last month’s meeting.

David Gross, 19700 Lakeview Avenue, asked how the Committee could grant reinstatement to people who did participate in the appeals process?

Brian Larson, 18920 Park Avenue, stated that the City’s intent was to reduce the size of the list, which was accomplished. He stated that the City was very clear in outlining the appeals process and the City should recognize those individuals who followed the process.

Chris Thompson, 3615 James Avenue, stated that there is no logic for not allowing people back on the list. He argued that the waiting list ordinance does not include a deadline provision. He stated that he is disappointed that the Council’s only rationale for the denial of their reinstatement is that they seemed to be sick of listening to excuses. John Gresens stated that the Council has been hammered on this issue since the last public meeting and is fighting the perception that they have been too soft on these types of issues. Chris Thompson stated that it makes no sense to not reinstate people who want to be on the list.

Jylan Johnson, 18145 Hummingbird Road, stated that she wants to be reinstated on the new waiting list. She added that the letter that was sent with the application form does not state either the consequences of not submitting the application by the March 15^th deadline or the appeal process. She thanked the Committee for their efforts on their behalf.

Jim Albertson, 4225 Northern Road, stated that he also appreciated the Committee’s efforts. He stated that it doesn’t make sense that 4 out of 5 Councilmembers voted against their reinstatement. Kim Crockett stated that some of the Council felt that there might be other options to consider such as a penalty or fine. She added that the Council feels squeezed between how to protect those residents who adhered to the deadline and those that are requesting reinstatement.

David Struyk, 3921 Tramore Lane, read from a prepared statement that is attached to these minutes.

John Gresens made a motion to recommend that the City Council revisit the process to determine if there was proper notice, timelines and penalties were included and to reinstate all 16 individuals who submitted their applications after the March 15^th deadline. The individuals should be reinstated due to the fact that this was a new procedure undertaken for the first time, perceptions are that there was a lack of adequate notice, perceptions are that there was a lack of adequate notice on penalties and that the penalty does not fit the omission. Seconded by Oliver Arrett.

Kim Crockett stated that she would like to put this issue to rest. She stated that 7 residents went through the proper appeals process, 9 residents did not, and the Committee will never know the reasons why the remainder of the residents who are not on the new waiting list did not submit an application form. She stated that other avenues, such as the Council imposing a penalty or a fine for those who missed the deadline are not available, so she stated that she would lend her support to only those seven who went through the appeals process.

Ed Towey stated that he also doesn’t feel that the Council needs to revisit the ordinance or the process since it was the Committee that recommended the adoption of the ordinance.

Bob Voyles stated he also had a problem with reinstating all 16 residents who missed the deadline. He stated that 9 out of the 16 residents didn’t make any effort to participate in the appeals process.

Bob Voyles asked the Committee to vote on the motion made by John Gresens and seconded by Oliver Arrett. John Gresens, Oliver Arrett and Larry Parkhurst voted in favor of the motion. Bob Voyles, Joe Ladner, Ed Towey, Pete Onstad and David Paulson voted against the motion. The motion failed.

David Paulson made a motion to recommend that the seven individuals who went through the appeals process should be reinstated on the new waiting list due to the fact that all seven participated in a valid appeals process; there was a lack of sufficient notification; the notification did not clearly specify the consequences and penalties of not adhering to the March 15^th deadline; that while a second notice was sent following the April 1^st deadline to those residents who had not submitted the proper documentation along with their Mooring Lease Application proper documentation, no additional notice was sent to waiting list applicants following their March 15^th deadline; and the penalty was too severe for the omission of missing the March 15^th deadline. Seconded by Pete Onstad. Motion declared carried.

Dana Young stated that the only size requirement for watercraft on slides is that they cannot exceed 16 feet in length. Kim Crockett stated that specifications need to be developed for watercraft on slides in order to prevent people from purchasing the biggest boat they can get away with.

David Paulson stated that in order to accommodate larger boats, stronger slides need to be built.

Further discussion was held on whether there was an opportunity to spread out the current slides to allow more room between slides. Dana Young stated that there was little opportunity to do this in St. Louis Bay because the slides would encroach onto the launch and the beach area. He stated that Carson’s Bay is also limited due to having to meet the required setbacks from Randy Boyd’s property and the Yacht Club.

The Committee recommended establishing a maximum width of 5 feet, 4 inches for watercraft on slides and street-end slides on a motion by Ed Towey, seconded by Joe Ladner. Motion declared carried.

There were no new Subcommittee reports.

Motion to adjourn by David Paulson, seconded by John Gresens. Motion declared carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. The next meeting of the Boat Committee will be held on Wednesday, June 9^th.