In June of 2019, City Council approved a Sidewalk Improvement Program recommendation. The goal of the program was to bring the entire dilapidated sidewalk system in the City up to Code over a four-year period. This program was completed in the summer of 2023.
Ms. Miller continually protested her own sidewalk assessment and demanded special treatment. She falsely argued that the sidewalk ordinance did not apply to her and that her asphalt sidewalk should be grandfathered in. She argued with the City Attorney, City Administrator, and City staff, sending multiple disturbing emails. She violated the City Charter by ordering workers to cease work on her sidewalk and by directly chastising the City Engineer. Lastly, she refused to pay for the work until it was about to become delinquent. At that time, she was notified that she would no longer be able to serve on City Council with a delinquent bill, so she finally paid it. Throughout this process, Ms. Miller repeatedly demanded special treatment. Below are the details:
In March of 2022, sidewalk blocks in need of repair and/or replacement were marked with paint. The project was delayed and did not get started until the summer. Because of the delay, the program engineers walked the sidewalks again in June to verify the earlier assessments and to re-paint the earlier, now faded paint marks. On the second pass, the engineers noticed about a dozen homes had been overlooked in the initial assessment. These homes had asphalt sidewalks that cut through asphalt driveways (many of them broken and unsafe), which is violation of the City ordinance. One of these homes was Ms. Miller’s.
At the June 27, 2022 Study Session, Ms. Miller expressed her concerns about her sidewalk being marked for replacement and stated she did not feel she should have to replace her broken asphalt sidewalk blocks. Susie Stec, the project coordinator, was asked to investigate and report back to Ms. Miller. Details can be found here (Item 4). Two days later, Ms. Miller received an email explanation from Ms. Stec and was told that she would be responsible for replacing her defective blocks just like any other resident with a sidewalk that violated the ordinance. A long email thread ensued, in which Ms. Stec continued to professionally and politely address Ms. Miller’s concerns. Ms. Miller responded by viciously attacking Ms. Stec and calling into question her recent 5% pay raise, simply because she was angry that Ms. Stec was fairly and equally applying the City’s sidewalk ordinance. Further, Ms. Miller launched into wild conspiracies. For example, in her email, she accused the City of paying for the new LOGOS church’s concrete approach from the sidewalk to the building doors—this was work that LOGOS arranged and paid for on its own with the City’s sidewalk vendor. However, as is often the case, Ms. Miller made unsubstantiated statements without first doing any research. Similarly, she made other unsubstantiated claims about food trucks and the use of the City credit card. Lastly, when the Mayor joined the email thread and called out Ms. Miller for bullying Ms. Stec, Ms. Miller then disrespected the Mayor. See this email thread here (read from the bottom to the top).
Ms. Miller discussed her sidewalk issue at City Council meetings and insisted she should be exempted from the sidewalk program. She again claimed she should be “grandfathered in.” She claimed there was no ordinance that applied to her and also falsely claimed there was no process for appeal. The City Attorney debunked these claims, and the City Administrator refused to exempt her from the program. As a result, Ms. Miller emailed the City Administrator, falsely claiming she was never given a rationale for the sidewalk program. She then went on to make a veiled threat to the City Administrator and appeared to blame the City Administrator for the fact that Ms. Miller was facing a potential felony charge for hiding behind the bushes and secretly recording a private meeting. See this email thread here (read from the bottom to the top).
When Ms. Miller’s sidewalk was finally replaced, a small corner of sidewalk was broken. From her experience on Council, Ms. Miller knew that these minor issues occur and that the contractor maintains a punch list for repairs. Despite this, Ms. Miller sent a dramatic email to the City “absolving herself of any liability” regarding her sidewalk and reported that she placed a traffic cone on the damaged area. See this email thread here (read from the bottom to the top).
The City Charter requires Council members to work directly with the City Administrator; Council members are not permitted to give orders to City staff or contractors. When work began at Ms. Miller’s home, she ordered the contractor to cease work on her sidewalk. After the work was eventually completed, she directly contacted the City Engineer over a petty issue and used it to chastise him and his work on the sidewalk program. If City Council, as a body, is not satisfied with the work of the City Engineer, it can vote to direct the City Administrator to reprimand him\her. However, a single Council person is forbidden from doing so. The Council as a whole was satisfied with the City Engineer’s oversight of the sidewalk program. See this email thread here.
After Ms. Miller’s sidewalk was replaced, she claimed that a new sidewalk water pooling problem arose due to the sidewalk repair. However, she was provided a Google Maps image from 2021--prior to the repair--that showed the same water pooling, which refuted her claim.
Finally, Ms. Miller did not pay the invoice for her sidewalk replacement. The debt became delinquent and was about to be placed on her tax bill. As a courtesy, the Mayor contacted Ms. Miller to remind her the City Charter does not permit a Council member to serve if they have delinquent payments owed to the City. As a result, Ms. Miller finally paid off her debt.
Because of her anger over being treated just like every other resident, Ms. Miller took out her frustration by voting “no” on all measures related to the sidewalks. This included the special assessment to collect $185,000 in fees owed by residents for sidewalk repairs (Click here for more details - Item 6b), by voting against the contract extension for the sidewalk vendor (Click here for more details - Item 6c), and against a fiscal year 23/24 budget amendment that corrected an error in the budget related to the sidewalk program, which erroneously reduced the City’s General Fund amount by $220,000 (Click here for more details - Item 8c).