Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board forwards revised bylaws to Mill Creek City Council
Summary
The City of Mill Creek Design Review Board voted on June 5 to forward updated bylaws to the City Council. The bylaws are mostly format and housekeeping revisions intended to align DRB rules with other city boards and commissions.
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At its June 5 meeting the City of Mill Creek Design Review Board voted to forward a revised set of bylaws to the City Council for final action.
Sybil, the city clerk (presenting the draft), told the board the revision is a citywide effort to ensure every board and commission has bylaws in a consistent form. “The idea is all board and commission within the city of Mill Creek should have a bylaw,” she said.
Board members discussed whether to pause for a line‑by‑line comparison with bylaws already approved for other city committees. Some members asked for the clerk to distribute the version that had been approved for the planning commission so the DRB could compare language such as use of “shall” versus “may” and consistent assignment of secretary duties.
Sybil said clerks had already adjusted language across boards to move responsibilities tied to a secretary role to city staff rather than to an unpaid volunteer member; she said she would send comparison documents on request. The clerk also gave a short deadline for changes: members were asked to submit suggested edits within two weeks so staff could place the item on the appropriate City Council agenda.
Motion and vote: Board member Ken moved to forward the bylaws to the City Council; Tina Hastings seconded the motion. The chair called for the voice vote and the motion carried. The board’s action forwards the draft bylaws to City Council; the council will consider adoption at a subsequent meeting.
Why it matters: The changes are described by staff as primarily formatting and housekeeping to align DRB procedures with other city advisory bodies. Notable substantive clarifications discussed at the meeting include vacancy and absentee rules, enforcement procedures for prolonged absences, and clarifying that the secretary role is a staff responsibility.
What was not decided: The board did not adopt final, line‑by‑line amendments beyond forwarding the draft to council. Several members requested time to compare this draft with other boards’ bylaws and to propose edits prior to council consideration.
Next steps: The clerk will add the bylaws to a forthcoming City Council agenda. Board members were invited to send additional edits to the clerk within two weeks.

