12/09/2003 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
December 9, 2003
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5 h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Dave Earling, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember (arrived 7:16 p.m.)
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Richard Marin, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Alex Brent -Fielding, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer
Scott James, Accountant
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Change to Council President Earling requested Item C be removed from the Consent Agenda and added to the
Agenda
Agenda as Item 3. He also requested the Agenda Item regarding the Quitclaim Deed be rescheduled
following Item 4 to allow Councilmember Dawson, who will be arriving later, to participate.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councilmember Dawson was not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Dawson was not present for the vote.) The agenda items
approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
ppruve (B) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #67138 THROUGH #67286 FOR THE WEEK OF
+aim DECEMBER 1, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,075,352.66. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
CCICS
DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #37226 THROUGH #37307 FOR THE PERIOD
NOVEMBER 16 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $875,480.75
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2003
Page 1
220St'
sw (D) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN PUD RIGHT-OF-WAY RELOCATION
Improvement
AGREEMENT LETTER FOR THE 220TH STREET SW IMPROVEMENTS (NINTH
AVENUE SOUTH TO 84TH AVENUE WEST) PROJECT
:.losing 3. PROPOSED ORDINANCE CLOSING CERTAIN CITY FUNDS
ertain City
°nds Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained this was a housekeeping change that
eliminated and consolidated 12 of the City's 58 funds. He explained the reasons for this action was to:
(1) eliminate funds that were no longer used, (2) bring the City's fund structure more in line with
accepted accounting principles, and (3) reduce expenses associated with preparing annual finance reports
for each fund.
Councilmember Petso inquired whether the ordinance determined where the balance of each fund was
deposited. Mr. Clements answered it would depend on the fund; some had no balance, for others the
funds would be applied to another logical fund.
Councilmember Petso inquired about the Capital Improvement Fund, which she understood was an LID
fund for an old project. Mr. Clements answered the Capital Improvement Fund was for LID 215 and
216; any balances would be applied to the reserve to pay off the LID bonds.
Councilmember Petso observed the Council Contingency Fund was one of the funds proposed to be
eliminated. She asked whether the Council would still have the ability to create a line item in the
General Fund where those funds would be expended as the Council directs. Mr. Clements agreed,
explaining the funds currently in the Council Contingency Fund would be set aside as a reserved fund
balance dedicated to funding City Council contingency items; a designated account in the General Fund.
Councilmember Petso asked how with the elimination of Fund 007 the City demonstrated the City had
not misspent moneys that were restricted to certain public safety items. Mr. Clements explained that as
part of the audit, the City must annually prepare schedules that identify the funds collected and public
safety expenditures. Councilmember Petso concluded as long as the City's total criminal justice
expenditures exceeded the revenue amount, there would be no conflict. Mr. Clements agreed.
Councilmember Plunkett requested clarification regarding the change to the Council Contingency Fund.
Mr. Clements explained statements must be prepared for each Fund at year end. Council Contingency
funds would typically be a designated fund balance in the General Fund rather than a separate Fund. He
noted in the past if there was a desire to track an expenditure, a separate fund was established, but there
were other more appropriate ways to track expenditures that were in line with current accounting rules.
Councilmember Orvis observed the change would result in less paperwork for staff. Mr. Clements
agreed.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3477. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember
Dawson was not present for the vote.) The ordinance adopted is as follows:
Ord# 3477 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
Closing Certain City PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 3.04 RELATING TO ADVANCED TRAVEL EXPENSE
Funds REVOLVING FUND, REPEALING CHAPTER 3.10 MEDICAL SELF-INSURANCE FUND,
REPEALING CHAPTER 3.14 ENTERPRISE FUND, AUTHORIZING CLOSURE OF VARIOUS
FUNDS PURSUANT TO THE MAYOR'S DELEGATED POWERS, PROVIDING FOR THE
ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO THE MAYOR PRIOR TO
SUCH ACTIONS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2003
Page 2
4. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RELATED TO AMENDING THE INTERLOCAL
1oramul' AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS DATED
Inder-
ding- NOVEMBER4 2002
wads
per for the nry Community Services Director Stephen Clifton explained this item was a proposed Memorandum of
Understanding related to amending the existing Interlocal Agreement between Snohomish County Public
Facilities District (PFD) Board, Edmonds PFD Board, and the City of Edmonds. He explained over the
past few months, Edmonds Community College and the Edmonds PFD Board have been working to
secure additional funds for the capital expenditures associated with renovating the planned Edmonds
Center for the Arts.
Kjris Lund, Project Manager for the Edmonds PFD, provided a background of the Edmonds Center
for the Arts, explaining the project was now at 100% design, construction drawings were complete, and
building permits would be submitted shortly. She advised the PFD also completed the sale of the Anchor
House property and have a sale pending on the library property which is scheduled to close on December
31, 2003. She explained the prices negotiated on both properties were within the prices stated in the
PFD's Business Plan.
Ms. Lund recalled a total of $6.5 million was identified to be raised via a private fund raising effort. Of
that amount, $2.5 million was designated to come from government grants, and $4 million from private
individuals, corporations, and private foundations. Of the $2.5 million, the PFD has raised $2.1 million
to date, 85% of their goal. With regard to the $4 million target, a capital campaign committee was
established and is making requests throughout the community. She referred to a collateral brochure
provided to the Council that described the project, how to make a contribution, naming opportunities, etc.
Ms. Lund explained the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was related to the PFD's efforts to
secure $1 million via Edmonds Community College who would receive the funds from the State Board
for Community and Technical Colleges grant. She explained the grant required that Edmonds
Community College have an ownership interest in the property in order to receive the funding. She noted
this was only an option and not the final negotiation on the Interlocal Agreement. The MOU would
indicate to the State Board who awards the funding that the Edmonds PFD, Snohomish County PFD, City
Council, and Snohomish County Council were willing to reopen the Interlocal Agreement to bring in
another partner to be a part owner of the property. If Edmonds Community College was awarded the $1
million grant, the details of the Interlocal Agreement would be negotiated.
Bill Block, Edmonds PFD Real Estate Attorney, emphasized this was only a MOU. He explained the
potential for the $1 million grant was identified recently and one of the conditions was that the college
receiving the grant have an ownership interest in the facility. He noted that although the Interlocal
Agreement contemplated the addition of partners and an educational partner was desirable, the Interlocal
Agreement could not be renegotiated in time to meet the grant submittal deadline of December 31, 2003.
The State granting Board was agreeable to considering the grant with a MOU that would not mature into
a final agreement unless and until the parties agreed on the details. He noted the decision regarding the
grant would be made by January 14, 2003. He stated the MOU had been approved by the Edmonds PFD,
the Snohomish County PFD, and Edmonds Community College and would be considered soon by the
Snohomish County Council.
Mr. Block noted the grant required matching funds which the PFD had available. If Edmonds
Community College received the grant, an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement would be negotiated
subject to approval of all parties. In the amended Interlocal Agreement, Edmonds Community College
would hold an undivided interest in the facility commensurate with its capital contribution. It would
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2003
Page 3
have usage commensurate with its capital contribution and contribution to the operating of the facility if
the College elects to do so. He noted bodies other than Edmonds Community College would be
contributing to the operation of the facility and Edmonds Community College would not necessarily
continue the same percentage use of the facility unless it contributed to the operation.
Mr. Block noted an issue raised that would be negotiated via the Interlocal Agreement was that since
there would be ongoing maintenance costs, possibly the percentage of Edmonds Community College's
ownership interest would diminish over time unless they contributed to the facility. The MOU also
contemplated Edmonds Community College and the Edmonds PFD continuing to apply for similar
grants.
Councilmember Orvis clarified that by approving the MOU, the Council was agreeing to renegotiate the
Interlocal Agreement to get more money for the project. Mr. Block agreed, noting the Interlocal
Agreement would only be tentatively reopened as approval of the revised Interlocal Agreement by all
parties would be required.
Councilmember Petso asked why Edmonds Community College would be provided a $2 million
ownership interest when they were only contributing $1 million in grant funds. Mr. Block commented in
many ways, the ownership interest was a fictional concept because it only referred to usage and usage
related to contribution to development, maintenance and operation. The important detail was the
negotiation of usage; it was possible to provide usage in ways that did not impinge on the PFD's business
plan. He noted the match was provided via funds the PFD had raised elsewhere and not funds from
governmental entities.
Councilmember Petso referred to Paragraph 1 on page 2, noting Edmonds Community College would
provide $1 million in grant funds, the PFD would provide $1 million in matching funds and Edmonds
Community College would receive a $2 million ownership interest in the facility. She referred to
Paragraph 2b which stated Edmonds Community College would receive a $2 million use ownership of
the facility. Mr. Block answered it would be $2 million and additional issues dependent on how much
Edmonds Community College contributes to the operation. He reiterated Edmonds Community
College's use was dependent on the parties' approval. For example, uses may include internships at the
Center for college students, half-price tickets on the day of the show for college students, providing
Edmonds Community College the first right of refusal on surplus equipment, etc. He explained the usage
agreement would be elements the PFD could provide without sacrificing other portions of its program.
Councilmember Petso reiterated her concern that Edmonds Community College provided $1 million in
grant funds and received a $2 million ownership interest. Ms. Lund explained the goal was to raise $6.5
million and the Capital Campaign Committee included Edmonds Community College President Jack
Oharah. This requirement for Edmonds Community College to have an ownership interest and for the
match was not the College's request but a requirement of the granting source.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the grant could be obtained if Edmonds Community College were
provided a $1 million ownership interest to match their contribution. Mr. Block answered no.
Councilmember Petso asked how this was not an illegal gift of $1 million from someone, either the City
or the PFD, to Edmonds Community College. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the match would be
via donated moneys and not public funds. He noted a list of issues to be addressed during negotiations
was being developed that related to the normal rights and obligations of a tenant in common. He noted it
would be a good thing if the parties reached the point of negotiating the Interlocal Agreement because
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2003
Page 4
that would mean the $1 million grant had been received and the details could then be worked out. He
suggested approving the Memorandum of Understanding and then he or another negotiator be instructed
regarding what the City Council wanted. He noted typically a tenant in common had the right to use
property and an obligation to contribute to it; negotiations would determine a percentage ownership
interest commensurate with the College's ownership interest. He agreed Edmonds Community College
would not have full use and did not plan to contribute on an ongoing basis. He noted one of the issues
for negotiation would be how the College's interest would fluctuate and be determined over time.
Councilmember Petso noted the source of the funds was not what made it a gift of public funds but now
the City owned 100% of the facility and rather than giving up $1 million in ownership interest, it would
be giving up $2 million. Mr. Snyder answered a tenant in common would typically have the right to
petition for sale of property; he anticipated Edmonds Community College would be required to surrender
that right. He noted there were a variety of issues to address at the time the Interlocal Agreement was
renegotiated including limited access rights.
Councilmember Petso noted one of the fund raisers was also affiliated with the organization that
appeared to be profiting from $1 million and asked whether that was a conflict of interest. Mr. Snyder
acknowledged that was an interesting point to consider, but it was not an issue at this point. Ms. Lund
explained there were other elected officials serving on the Capital Campaign who were assisting in
raising funds. She clarified the facility was not owned by the City as the Edmonds PFD and Snohomish
County Council also had partial interest.
Councilmember Wilson clarified the PFD would not be giving up any rights with regard to usage that
would interfere with other performance dates. Mr. Block agreed, noting this was a very cooperative
effort. He explained Edmonds Community College's ability to use the facility during times that did not
conflict with the PFD would be very beneficial to the College and the College as a partner would be
beneficial to all parties due to the enhanced ability to apply for grants. Councilmember Wilson
acknowledged the usage would be subject to negotiation on the Interlocal Agreement.
For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Block referred to the issue raised by Mr. Snyder regarding whether
Edmonds Community College's interest would diminish if they did not contribute to maintenance and
operation which would be addressed during negotiations on the Interlocal Agreement. He agreed
Edmonds Community College's usage would be identified in the Interlocal Agreement. He urged the
Council to consider whether anything would actually be given up to acquire the $1 million.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about Edmonds Community College's responsibility to contribute to
future maintenance. Mr. Block answered that was subject to negotiation, anticipating if the College
expected their usage to continue, they would need to contribute to maintenance.
Councilmember Wilson concluded if Edmonds Community College obtained the grant but a mutually
agreeable Interlocal Agreement could not be developed, the grant would have to be returned. Mr. Block
agreed.
Councilmember Dawson noted the only way to acquire the $1 million grant was to give Edmonds
Community College a $2 million interest in the property. Mr. Block agreed. She assumed providing
grants with a requirement for a match was routine for the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges and if it were an illegal gift of funds, the issue would have been raised in the past. Therefore,
she was less concerned about that issue. Mr. Block acknowledged the matching fund requirement was in
the grant criteria.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2003
Page 5
Council President Earling inquired whether Edmonds Community College had approved the MOU. Mr.
Block believed Edmonds Community College had approved the MOU, if not, it must by the December
31, 2003 deadline. As approval of the MOU was required by several entities, he encouraged the Council
to adopt it in substantially the same format it was presented.
Council President Earling compared this to a Purchase and Sale agreement, a contract that stated the
entities wanted to enter into a contract. He was comfortable with approving the MOU and was confident
the City Council would have full input and control of the outcome via negotiation of the Interlocal
Agreement.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
APPROVE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO SIGN THE MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS. NEGOTIATIONS
RELATED TO AMENDING THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WILL FOLLOW APPROVAL
OF THE MEMORANDUM BY ALL PARTIES.
Councilmember Petso indicated she would not support the motion due to her concern with providing
Edmonds Community College a $2 million ownership interest in exchange for a $1 million contribution.
She also expressed concern that the beneficiary of this generosity was involved in the fundraising
committee. She hoped either the grant would not be awarded to Edmonds Community College or that via
negotiations this issue could be adequately addressed.
Councilmember Orvis viewed this as a great financial possibility as well as a great possibility to partner
with Edmonds Community College.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED.
4A. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A UITCLAIM DEED RECONVEYI.NG
Quitclaim (Deed —
CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PINE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN SR104 AND 3 o
Portions of AVENUE SOUTH TO THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(Pine Street WSDOT
Might -of -
'Way
City Engineer Dave Gebert displayed a map illustrating the portion of Pine Street proposed to be
reconveyed to WSDOT. He provided a background of the ownership and acquisition of the property,
explaining in the 1969 timeframe, WSDOT began acquiring right-of-way for construction of SR104. He
next displayed a map of the right-of-way that was purchased by WSDOT in the 1969 timeframe. He
identified the right-of-way on Pine Street and the limited access/access control area on the right-of-way,
explaining limited access/access control meant vehicle access across that line onto SR104 was not
permitted.
In the agreement the City and WSDOT entered into and later amended in 1971, portions of the right-of-
way on Pine Street were transferred from WSDOT to the City. In that agreement, the City assumed the
obligation to maintain and enforce the limited access. Also in the 1970 timeframe, the State granted the
property owners one driveway entrance at a specific location across the limited access area on Pine
Street. The right-of-way in question was not transferred to the City at that time but was transferred in
1978 via a quit claim deed. He noted in the event the property ceased to be used for right-of-way or the
terms of the agreement are violated, the right-of-way would revert back to WSDOT.
Mr. Gebert explained during the period between 1970 and 2000, a number of property sales, short plats,
and development actions resulted in the current situation. He displayed a map of the existing conditions,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2003
Page 6
highlighting the limited access area, the one driveway granted by WSDOT across the limited access area,
and the location of a second driveway across the limited access area that was not authorized by WSDOT.
He also identified WSDOT's equipment service cabinet that was installed in the right-of-way during
construction of SR104 in the early 1970's. He explained the cabinet housed equipment for illumination
and signals along SR104. Mr. Gebert advised the cabinet was installed in the early 1970's prior to
construction of the home which was built in the 1989/1990 timeframe. In the process of transferring the
right-of-way to the City, WSDOT neglected to reserve an easement for the service cabinet.
Mr. Gebert explained the property owner of the residence has alleged that the City permitted the second
driveway. WSDOT has demanded that the City either enforce the closure of the second driveway or hold
the State harmless for any damages that may occur in that location. However, staff has been
unsuccessful in negotiating the closure of the second driveway. In April 2002, the City Council approved
a resolution directing staff to initiate a process with WSDOT to transfer portions of the right-of-way back
to the State and provide a temporary license for the State to continue to maintain and operate the service
cabinet. That license has now expired.
Councilmember Plunkett requested staff label the right-of-way construction permit the City granted in
1989 on the map. Mr. Gebert explained the property owner alleges the second driveway was permitted
via a right-of-way construction permit; however, the right-of-way permit does not clearly address that
right-of-way. He acknowledged there was enough in the record that showed the driveway and the City
did not require it be removed when the house was occupied. Councilmember Plunkett noted that
although the permit did not state western driveway, there was additional documentation in the records
that strongly suggested the City recognized it as the western driveway.
City Attorney Scott Snyder commented the difficulty with this issue was the City was between two
determined adversaries, the State of Washington was adamant they paid public moneys to acquire these
rights and want the City to enforce the limited access nature of the right-of-way and indemnify the State.
In addition, the property owner, Mr. Locke, is an intelligent and determined adversary. He explained the
City was in the middle on an issue in which the City had no particular interest. Staff has attempted to
negotiate with Mr. Locke regarding closure of the driveway as well as negotiate with the State regarding
potential use of the driveway.
With regard to the right-of-way permit, Mr. Snyder pointed out the City could not approve something
they had no ability to approve. He noted the City was not normally liable for the negligence of the
building official; right-of-way permits were not rights in the land, they were a revocable right that could
be revoked at any time for any reason.
Mr. Snyder explained the City had little ability to resolve the issue although staff had attempted to be a
mediator in the dispute. Due to the right of reversion, the City could not grant this right; if the City
attempted to deed or convey the property to Mr. Locke, the right-of-way would revert to the State as it
could only be used for limited access right-of-way in accordance with the Interlocal Agreement. If the
Interlocal Agreement was violated, the property would revert to the State.
As this was an issue in which the City had no particular interest, Mr. Snyder suggested the property be
reconveyed to the State and allow the two parties, Mr. Locke and the State, to reach resolution. He noted
the deed would indemnify the State from any losses attributable to the time the City owned the property.
He noted the current situation was that the City had the legal obligation to enforce limited access right-
of-way but was not doing so; if anyone were injured at that location, the City would be liable. He
concluded in a time of limited resources, this was not the City's fight and suggested the property be
reconveyed to the State, and Mr. Locke and the State resolve the issue.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2003
Page 7
Councilmember Wilson noted there were two driveway access points from Mr. Locke's property, one the
State granted, the eastern driveway, and the western driveway which was the subject of this item. Mr.
Snyder agreed, explaining it was a U-shaped driveway. Councilmember Wilson envisioned if someone
accessed the eastern driveway and backed onto SR104, because the State granted that driveway, the
liability would be with the State or property owner. Mr. Snyder agreed. Councilmember Wilson noted
that because the City did not have the right to grant the western driveway although it appeared a permit
was issued, the City retained sole liability. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting right-of-way use permits could be
revoked at any time; they were not an interest in the land.
Councilmember Wilson noted limited access was a State designation not a City designation and the City
did not have the right to grant a driveway across any of the limited access areas on SR104. Mr. Gebert
agreed.
Mr. Snyder explained decisions were made by City staff at the counter based on representations made by
property owners. Staff did not require a title report each time someone requested a driveway permit.
The cost of building permits would increase significantly if title reports were required for each
application.
Councilmember Wilson noted the maps at the counter show property lines not restrictions on properties.
Mr. Gebert agreed, commenting staff would need to consult the WSDOT maps to determine the limited
access area, the standard property maps did not show that level of detail.
Councilmember Wilson noted if this property was reconveyed to the State, the adjoining property owner,
Mr. Locke, would still have legal access to Pine Street. Mr. Gebert agreed, identifying the access
approved by WSDOT.
Councilmember Dawson asked why this property was conveyed to the City from the State. Neither Mr.
Gebert nor Mr. Snyder could recall. Councilmember Dawson expressed concern with reconveying the
property without the knowledge of why it was conveyed to the City in the first place. Mr. Snyder
explained it was a fairly common practice and it was not necessarily to the City's benefit but simply so
that the street would be maintained by the City. Councilmember Dawson questioned why the City would
have accepted the property and why the State would agree to take the property back. Mr. Gebert offered
to research why the property was conveyed from the State to the City.
Councilmember Dawson questioned why this action would be detrimental to Mr. Locke. Mr. Gebert
answered it would not change the situation for Mr. Locke because the second driveway was prohibited by
the State's limited access.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about the outcome if the City did nothing, did not close the access.
Mr. Snyder answered the State had been writing letters to this point; the City would become virtual
insurers of the safety of that turning situation, perhaps all the way up SR104.
Mr. Snyder referred to a note he was passed by Mr. Locke stating he was not contacted by the City
Engineer regarding the driveway. Mr. Snyder noted it was his understanding that the City had sent Mr.
Locke a letter requesting closure of the driveway.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether the State would seek to have the City indemnify the State
because the City granted a driveway in that area. Mr. Snyder explained the State has asked the City to
block the access and it was unknown whether the State would seek legal action against the City.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2003
Page 8
Councilmember Dawson anticipated the State would block the driveway. Mr. Snyder agreed the State
has stated they would install jersey barriers. He explained the State's position has been that the
taxpayers paid for the limited access right and they had the obligation to enforce it. Councilmember
Dawson concluded there was the possibility of blocking the driveway with jersey barriers either by the
City or the State.
Councilmember Dawson noted the reason this was a disadvantage to the property owner was that
currently the City had leverage. WSDOT would like to have access to their cabinet which they did not
have without the City's permission. Councilmember Dawson asked whether the City could block the
driveway as well as block WSDOT's access to the cabinet until they agreed to permit the second
driveway. Mr. Snyder answered if the City wanted to run the risk of indemnifying the State from any
problems that may arise as a result of the failure of a signal on SR104 due to inadequate maintenance.
Councilmember Petso pointed out the City was not obligated to allow WSDOT to access their cabinet.
Mr. Snyder noted the City was not blocking Mr. Locke or WSDOT at this time. Mr. Snyder commented
the City could take action that would create a situation that the State would take to court.
Councilmember Petso asked how much the City would receive from the State by reconveying the
property to the State. Mr. Snyder answered the same amount provided when the property was conveyed
to the City, nothing. Councilmember Petso suggested proposing to the State that the property would be
reconveyed for no charge if the second driveway access were granted, otherwise, fair market value would
be charged for the property. Mr. Snyder answered negotiations have been ongoing for the past 18
months; he assured that would not be acceptable to the State. Mr. Snyder summarized the goal was to
identify a solution that avoided a lawsuit with the State or Mr. Locke.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the City avoided potential litigation if a jersey barrier were installed
blocking the west driveway. Mr. Snyder answered there was then the potential for litigation with Mr.
Locke whose attorneys sent the City a letter indicating blocking that access would be a diminution of his
property value. Councilmember Petso inquired whether Mr. Locke would have an action against the City
if the property were reconveyed to the State. Mr. Snyder answered the State would then defend any
lawsuit rather than the City.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the State had the ability to install a sign there if the property were
reconveyed to them. Mr. Snyder agreed in theory they could, the process was the same regardless of
ownership. Mr. Gebert noted the property to be reconveyed was not out in the SR104 area where a sign
was likely to be installed.
Councilmember Orvis asked how the City could avoid legal action; if the property were reconveyed to
the State and the State blocked the driveway, noting the property owner could sue the City and the State.
Mr. Snyder answered the State would defend its limited access determination; if the City made the
situation worse, it would be required to indemnify the State.
Councilmember Orvis suggested financially reimbursing the property owner to close the driveway. Mr.
Snyder recalled he had advised the City in past Executive Sessions that that was the limit of the City's
liability, the correction of the physical problem, the money invested in the U-shaped driveway.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the City could sell an easement to the State for access to the
cabinet. Mr. Snyder answered the State's position has been that a right-of-way box was an appropriate
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2003
Page 9
right-of-way use and if the City would not allow them access, it was not a right-of-way use, and the
property would revert to the State.
Councilmember Orvis clarified the State believes the City made the error in granting the driveway in the
limited access area. The evidence indicates the City issued the permit for the western driveway and the
driveway was installed because it was permitted. He concluded there appeared to be ways to keep this
issue out of court. Mr. Snyder noted there had been a letter threatening litigation but no claim had been
filed. He agreed rectifying the problem via the cost of the driveway improvements may be an appropriate
solution. He noted the State has indicated some willingness, if the access was blocked, to allow the U-
shaped area to be used for parking or turnaround.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether it would be appropriate to delay any action and allow staff to
conduct further negotiations such as reach a settlement for the cost of the driveway. Mr. Snyder agreed
that may be appropriate.
Mr. Gebert noted it has been some time since he had communicated with Mr. Locke. At the time of their
last meeting in 2001, Mr. Locke insisted upon maintaining the second driveway. Mr. Gebert recalled the
proposal to use the U-shaped area as a turnaround was not acceptable to WSDOT. His understanding
was that Mr. Locke was insistent about maintaining the second driveway. Councilmember Dawson
reiterated her suggestion to delay action to allow staff to discuss options with the property owner.
Councilmember Wilson clarified even if the City worked with Mr. Locke to identify a method of
blocking the access, the City would still need the consent of the State to accept that as protecting their
rights. Mr. Gebert agreed if it was anything other than closure. Mr. Snyder advised his concern was
turning motions from a prohibited access. If the access was blocked and signed, the liability was
eliminated. He noted the State had consistently indicated they would not approve any other use of that
property such as a turnaround; however, if the liability was eliminated via blocking the driveway, it was
unlikely the State would take further action.
Mr. Gebert noted the State has also indicated there was a State-owned fence along the right-of-way that
was removed that the State wants reinstalled. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the City was
obligated to install the fence. Mr. Snyder answered in theory the fence could be the City's responsibility.
Councilmember Wilson summarized if the driveway were blocked and the fence installed, it was not
necessary to return to the State as the City would have fulfilled its obligation. Mr. Snyder answered the
goal was to eliminate any potential liability. Mr. Gebert clarified the fence was not only at the property
in question but along the limited access right-of-way. Mayor Haakenson suggested Mr. Mr. Gebert and
Mr. Locke discuss blocking the driveway as well as the fence.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO TABLE THIS AGENDA ITEM TO THE DECEMBER 16 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
6. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Plunkett commented to Mr. Locke that although he may have attorneys that suggest
otherwise, in the long run he would lose the driveway. He suggested Mr. Locke work with Mr. Gebert
and Mr. Snyder to identify a solution.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2003
Page 10
Councilmember Dawson apologized for her late arrival, noting she was attending a reception for the
Honorable Joseph Thibodeau who is retiring after 18 years on the bench. She wished Judge Thibodeau
well in his retirement.
The Council meeting was adjourned to committee meetings at 8:25 p.m.
G Y H KENSON, MAYOR
'4� Z/ ez::ecu
ANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2003
Page 11
w AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
DECEMBER 9, 2003
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of claim checks #67138 through #67286 for the week of December 1,
2003, in the amount of $1,075,352.66. Approval of payroll direct deposits and
checks #37226 through #37307 for the period November 16 through November
30, 2003, in the amount of $875,480.75.
(C) Proposed Ordinance closing certain city funds.
(D) Authorization for the Mayor to sign PUD Right -of -Way Relocation Agreement
Letter for the 220t' Street SW Improvements (Ninth Avenue South to 84t''
Avenue West) Project.
3. (30 Min.) Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Quitclaim Deed reconveying certain
portions of Pine Street right-of-way between SR104 and 3'd Avenue South to
the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
4. (30 Min.) Memorandum of Understanding related to amending the Interlocal Agreement
for Development of the Edmonds Center for the Arts, dated November 4, 2002.
5. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
6. (15 Min.) Council Comments
Journ to Cit Council Committee Meetin s
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
December 9, 2003
Page 2 of 2
The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only.
The meetings are open to the public but are not public hearings. The City Council will meet
separately as committees in different meeting rooms as indicated below.
7. Finance Committee
(Meeting Location: Jury Meeting Room)
(A) Municipal Employee Benefit Trust (MEBT) Plan Amendment.
(B) Proposed Ordinance amending the 2003 Budget as a result of unanticipated
transfers and expenditures of various funds.
(C) Public Disclosure Filings
(D) Proposed Olympic View Water Franchise Agreement.
8. Public Safety Committee
(Meeting Location: Police Training Room)
(A) Contract for Kenneling Services with Adix Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats.
(B) Contract for Police Uniforms with Blumenthal's and Kroesen's.
(C) Security Services Agreement with Stevens Hospital.
(D) Prisoner Detention Agreement with City of Lynnwood (Municipal Jail).
9. Community Services/Development Services Committee
The Community Services/Development Services Committee will not meet this evening.
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245
with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of
the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.