Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents criticize special midday meeting and push for answers on taxes and eminent domain
Summary
Residents at a Nov. 2 Woodinville special council meeting accused the city of limiting public scrutiny by scheduling a daytime session and raised questions about potential tax impacts, eminent domain and parking for a proposed recreation center land purchase.
Several residents used the public‑comment period at the Nov. 2 Woodinville special meeting to press the council on timing, transparency and potential tax consequences of a proposed land acquisition for a recreation center.
Jeff Lyon, who identified himself as a city resident, said holding the meeting at 1 p.m. limited participation and suggested the council was “charging ahead” without voter approval. He told the council the sellers “became willing only after the city threatened to take their land through eminent domain,” and called on the council not to acquire or give away city land for a project that voters had not approved.
Another resident criticized the decision to convene a special meeting in the middle of the day as “abuse of public trust,” saying it excluded working residents. Gary Harris raised multiple procedural and substantive questions, asking whether unimproved land would be taxed under any future levy, what the levy rate per $1,000 of assessed value would be, how many parking spaces the project would include, and whether large commercial landowners would also face taxation.
Mayor Millman and other councilmembers responded during the business item debate. Millman denied any eminent‑domain action, saying the city has willing partners and that expediting an acquisition could save millions compared with condemnation. Councilmember Bess Campbell said she planned to abstain from the acquisition vote because the special meeting timing and limited public information created an appearance of impropriety.
The council approved the acquisition motion with five yes votes and two abstentions. Several resident questions about levy rates, the treatment of unimproved land for tax purposes and exact parking counts were not answered during the meeting and remain outstanding, according to public speakers.
Next steps: Residents who raised questions asked the council for specific tax and parking figures and for more detailed documentation; staff indicated budget and ordinance language will return to council for final adoption in December.
