Dennis Box, The Courier-Herald

Mayor Bob Young vetoed a Bonney Lake City Council ordinance authorizing the purchase or condemnation of 12.55 acres of land next to Allan Yorke Park owned by Schuur Brothers Construction.

Ordinance 1033 was passed May 25 at the City Council meeting by vote of 6-1. Councilman Jim Rackley was the dissenting vote. Council members Neil Johnson, Dave King, Mark Hamilton, Phil De Leo, Cheryle Noble and Deputy Mayor Dan Swatman voted yes.

"The No. 1 reason I vetoed it was the cost," Young said. "As mayor I cannot allow the City Council to put themselves at such a liability for that small of a parcel. With the amount of money that land is going to cost us we could get 10 times that much land."

A large contingent of residents spoke at meeting urging the council to condemn the property. The pressing need for parks land in Bonney Lake prompted the council to pass the ordinance.

"Nobody wanted to be in the position to force anyone to sell their land," Hamilton said. "You really have to think hard about that. But in the position of a city official, I had to look at the city in 20 years."

At the May 11 meeting, the council passed a resolution for a $5 million park bond that will be placed on the ballot in November. The bond is for purchasing park lands and part of this bond may be used to buy the Schuur Brothers property.

"As I stated publicly, I was concerned about the expense the city would have to go through for this property," King said. "What compelled me to vote yes was we have the need to show our intent to better the parks situation in Bonney Lake. This is one way, though not the best way, to achieve it."

The park bond must reach a 60 percent super majority to pass and concern about the bond's chances in November was another reason the mayor sited for vetoing the ordinance.

"What if the park bond doesn't pass," Young said. "We're stuck with the $3 million or more for that land. I don't want to consider this. It is prudent of me to veto this ordinance. I want to raise awareness and see if other citizens will let their voices be heard."

The veto is likely to overridden by the Council according to the members. It will require a majority vote plus one or five votes to override the veto.

"It's a demonstration the mayor is not willing to follow City Council direction," Swatman said. "He has the right to do that. But why veto a park? It may look too expensive today, but 10 years down the road it won't."

The override is scheduled as a discussion item on Tuesday's City Council workshop agenda. According to City Attorney Jim Dionne, the issue can be turned into an action item by a simple majority vote. After becoming an action item, the Council can vote to override.

"I intend to vote to move this to an action item," Councilwoman Cheryle Noble said. "I hope we override this on Tuesday. I'm sorry to say Mayor Young has a lot of history with developers."

Not all members are squarely behind voting to override at the workshop.

"I wish the city had time to mull this over,” "Rackley said. "I don't think the rest of the city knows what's going on. I think the Council has overreacted to an immediate concern of the public around the neighborhood."

The mayor has used his veto power two other times and was overridden each time.

The first use was April 9, 2001, when he vetoed Ordinance 854A, which removed the city administrative assistant.

The second was August 22, 2001, when he vetoed Ordinance 886 which restricted any elected official from using or being assigned a city vehicle.

Dennis Box can be reached at dbox@courierherald.com