Loading...
04/05/1988 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO APRIL 12, 1988 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 5, 1988 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro tem Dwyer at the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main St., Edmonds. All present.joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Steve Dwyer, Mayor Pro tem Laura Hall Roger Hertrich Jo -Anne Jaech John Nordquist Jack Wilson Martha Dubick, Student Rep ABSENT STAFF Larry Naughten, Mayor Art Housler, Admin.Svs.,Dir.' Bill Kasper John Wallace, City Attorney Peter Hahn, Com.Svs. Dir. Mary Lou Block, Plan. Mgr. Jim Barnes, Parks/Rec. Mgr Bob Alberts, City Engineer Bob Bower, Treatmt.Pl.Supvr. Linda McCrystal, Arts Coord, Wally Tribuzio, Asst.Pol.Ch. Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Karin Noyes, Recorder CONSENT AGENDA The March 15, 1988 minutes were removed from Item (B) of the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER WIL- SON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda includethe following: (A) ROLL CALL cce (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 29, 1988 (C) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM RAYMOND W. TABOR ($40), MICHAEL & GRACE AHRENS ($50,000), AND PHASE I, LTD., DBA MEADOWDALE MARINE ($56,328) .d (D) APPROVAL OF 1988-90 JAIL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY 41ile-1 (E) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS UNIFORMS ($11,275) (F) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MARCH 31, 1988 FOR TRACTOR AT CEMETERY, AND AWARD OF BID TO SOUND TRACTOR COMPANY (9,633.81) (G) AUTHORIZATION TO GRANT EASEMENT TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR, AND MAINTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MEADOWDALE BEACH COUNTY PARK ENTRANCE AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE CAR FOR PLANNING DIVISION ($10,646) (I) AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN PRESTON, THORGRIMSON, ELLIS & HOLMAN LAW FIRM FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT. FACILITY (.$13,000) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 1988 [ITEM (B) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA] Councilmember Hertrich requested that an addition to the minutes be made to include more of his comments regarding the 208th Street UAB project, as follows: "Councilmember Hertrich said he had no qualms about putting in a traffic signal for the students' safety, but he was concerned about whether Edmonds could afford the road widening portion of the project. He said no one appealed to the Lynnwood council at one of its meetings, but all of the comments had been addressed to the Edmonds council so it bears the pressure to contribute what Lynnwood wants Edmonds to do." Councilmember Hall inquired whether this addition came directly off of the tapes from the March 15, 1988 meeting. City Clerk Jackie Parrett replied that it was copied from a newspaper arti- cle. Councilmember Hertrich said it could also be obtained from the tape. Councilmember Hall suggested that the Council postpone approval of the March 15, 1988 minutes until a verbatim statement has been retrieved from the tapes. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 15, 1988 MINUTES BE HELD OVER UNTIL THE APRIL 12 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE There being no one in the audience wishing to address the Council, the audience portion of the meeting was closed. HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING FENCE AT 721 6TH AVE. N. (AP-2-88 APPEL- LANT: SCOTT CAMPBELL) Ms. Block reviewed the staff information that was included in the Council packet regarding the history of the appeal. Ms. Block also reviewed the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact and Con- clusions which included a chronological listing of what has transpired with this issue. Ms. Block read the Hearing Examiner's decision for denial of the appellant's appeal of the City's denial of a building permit for a fence in the public right-of-way. Ms. Block stated that it is the staff's recommendation that the Hearing Examiner's decision be upheld by the Council. Ms. Block referred to a letter written by Scott Snyder, the City Attorney, regarding this issue. Mr. Snyder expressed, "that the City has absolute discretion regarding the erection of such a fence and may either prohibit its erection or permit the erection with the ability to remove the fence at any time." Scott Campbell, 721 Sixth Avenue North, pointed out that in the January 7, 1988 Findings of Fact, the Hearing Examiner stated that Mr. Campbell needed a public right-of-way permit. The City staff actually told him that he needed a street -use permit. Mr. Campbell said that Mr. Snyder wrote a letter to the staff which stated that a fence under six feet tall does not require a street -use permit. Mr. Campbell felt that the Hearing Examiner did not listen to what had been said at the hearing and did not take Mr. Snyder's comments into consideration. Mr. Campbell said that the Code does not require a street -use permit for fences under six feet high. Fences under six feet high are one of the exclusions listed in the Code. Mr. Campbell commented that Mr. Steendahl (a neighbor at 720 6th Ave. North) did not say anything about the fence. His complaints were in reference to the number of vehicles Mr. Campbell has parked in front of his property. Mr. Campbell explained that he submitted an application for a street -use permit and was turned down by the Planning staff. When he originally built the fence, Mr. Campbell said that he did not know he was building the fence in the public right-of-way. Mr. Campbell said that in the Edmonds Community Development Code, (ECDC) it states that fences under six feet high do not need a building permit. Because of this, Mr. Campbell didn't feel he needed a permit. Mr. Campbell went on to explain that after being turned down for a street -use permit, he received a building permit for a fence built on his own property and paid a ten dollar fee. After begin- ning construction, he was issued a citation for building his fence. It was only after about a month of back and forth negotiation that the City Attorney, Mr. Snyder, sent him a letter stating that the violation had been amended and that he could apply for a permit to build his fence. Mr. Campbell then proceeded to build the fence without knowing that he needed a right-of-way permit. Mr. Campbell pointed out that because he was turned down for a street -use permit, he has applied for a right-of-way permit. Mr. Campbell is not very optimistic about obtaining this permit. Mr. Campbell didn't feel that the Hearing Examiner knew all of this information before tie made the decision to turn down the appeal. Mr. Campbell submitted pictures for the Council to review that included a picture of Mayor Naughten's home which has a fence in the right-of-way. Mr. Campbell explained that the street in front of the'Mayor's home has a 60-foot right-of-way with only a 20-foot street. Ile said Mayor Naughten's fence is in the public right-of-way by approximately 20 feet. Mr. Campbell is only proposing to place his fence 14 feet into the right-of-way. The remainder of the photographs were of properties that had fences in the rights -of -way similar to the one Mr. Campbell is propos- ing. He said these fences are all in violation of the Code. Mr. Campbell said that his fence will be made of proper materials. If the City wants him to place conditions on the fence that states that if he moves, he will take down the fence, he would agree to that. Ile would also agree to a condition that the fence be place back six feet if a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 April 5, 1988 r sidewalk is going to be put in. Mr. Campbell said that he will have a gate on the side for the City and Utility employees to access his back yard at all times. Mr. Campbell stated that he feels the Planning Department has been unfair in this matter and he would appreciate the City Council overturning the decision and granting him his appeal. Councilmember Hertrich asked if Mr. Anderson has seen the letter from Mr. John Steendahl dated April 4, 1988. Mr. Campbell answered that he had not. Ms. Parrett provided him with a copy and the Council suggested that he review the letter at this time and then make any rebuttal comments he may have. Eugene Adams, 625 Aloha Way, said that he has watched the fence being built and the fence doesn't seem to follow any pattern with the other fences in the neighborhood. It is out of character. Mr. Adams feels that a fence like the one proposed should not be allowed in the front yard. If every neighbor in the neighborhood built a fence similar to the one proposed, Sixth Avenue North would look like a tunnel. Ms. Block rebutted Mr. Campbell's comment that he built the fence without knowing it was in the right-of-way. Ms. Block said that when staff spoke with Mr. Campbell on January 5, when the fence was nearly completed, he was well aware that the fence was in the right-of-way and he only had a permit to build on his property. Ms. Block explained that when staff informed Mr. Campbell that he did not need a right-of-way permit, they were told by Mr. Campbell that the fence would be built on his property. Councilmember Hertrich asked what the height limit is for a fence. Ms. Block said that the height limit is six feet. Councilmember Hertrich inquired what the height limit is for fences in the front yard. Ms. Block said that they can only be three feet high unless it is determined that it is not obstructing any view. Councilmember Hertrich inquired whether there is any access to the sewer and water lines provid- ed. Mr. Campbell replied that the lines run along the neighbor's side of the fence, and there is a man hole on Mr. Campbell's side.. Councilmember Jaech asked Mr. Campbell who owns the home that he lives in. Mr. Campbell said that Arnold Moore owns the home, and that he had submitted a letter stating that he is in support of the fence. Ms. Block clarified that Mr. 'Moore signed the application with the idea that the fence would be built on the property. Councilmember Hertrich asked if Mr. Campbell had a back yard. Mr. Campbell answered that because of the nonconformity of his home, the back yard is only 24 inches. Mr. Campbell continued to point out that his front yard is only five feet wide. The side yards are five feet on one side and nine feet on the other. Councilmember Hertrich asked if Mr. Campbell has thought about any other options for confining his dog. Mr. Campbell said that he takes the dog with him to work each day and, the only time the dog is out is to go to the bathroom, and that is only when Mr. Campbell is at home. Councilmember Hertrich asked Mr. Campbell if his dog attacked Mr. Steendahl on his own front porch as alleged in his letter to the Council. Mr. Campbell said that was not true, the dog has never attacked any one. Councilmember Hall was concerned about the fence being built along the utility easement and felt this was reason enough for denial of the request. Councilmember Hall asked if Mr. Campbell approached the City prior to building the fence, Mr. Campbell answered that he did not because he didn't know he needed a permit for a fence under six feet tall. Councilmember Hall pointed out that because the fence in the front yard is over three feet high, it is in direct violation of the Code. Ms. Block added that the fact that the fence was built in the right-of-way with no permit is reason for stopping the project. Unless there is a special approval from the building inspector and the engineer, the fence should not be above three feet high in the front yard. Mr. Campbell pointed out that the fence is not complete. There is a ten -foot section missing and the gates have not been constructed. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 April 5, 1988 Mr. Campbell said that his neighbor's fence is the fence that runs along the sewer easement. Mr. Campbell doesn't have a fence along the sewer easement. Mr. Campbell stated that he doesn't see why the dogs and the vehicles have anything to do with the fence. Mr. Campbell said that he has removed the recreational vehicle to alleviate part of the problem. The public portion of the meeting was closed. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT THE COUNCIL DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION. Councilmember Hertrich explained that his motion is based on the fact that there are utilities within the boundaries and the appellant has already indicated he has a dangerous animal within those boundaries. By allowing this fence to be built in the right-of-way, the City would be held liable for any accidents on City property. Councilmember Hertrich concluded that there really isn't any room for a fence. Councilmember Hall stated that she is having a hard time with the permit process in the Code being unclear to the residents of Edmonds. She felt this was a situation where a citizen was not aware of the Code requirements. Councilmember. Hall asked if there is a pamphlet available to citizens of Edmonds that would help them understand the Code better. Ms. Block stated that a pamphlet of this type is available. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS g-c & G _�REG RDING HOME O Y C RE Ms. Block presented the Council with history of this Code Amendment and pointed out that the Council received copies of the Planning Board's recommendation and minutes from the two Planning Board Meetings where this matter was discussed. Ms. Block said that the staff has contacted the Snohomish County Children's Commission at the suggestion of the Planning,Board and the Council. This commission felt that some additional changes were needed. After reviewing their suggestions, the Planning Board decided against fur- ther changes at this time. Ms. Block reviewed the Planning Board's recommended changes to the Code. She pointed out that family day care refers to day cares with six or less children. A mini day. care is a day care with seven to twelve children. Councilmember Dwyer inquired what the fee is for a conditional use permit for a mini day care. Ms. Block answered that it is currently $250. With the new Code changes, the fee would be $80. Councilmember Nordquist asked if any of the Planning Board's decision was run by the Snohomish County Health Department. Ms. Block answered that the City staff works with the State Department of Social and Health Services on these regulations, but they have not presented the recommenda- tions to the Snohomish County Health Department for their review. Councilmember Nordquist asked why they had not asked the County Health Department for their com- ments on these recommendations. Ms. Block answered that all of the staff's contact has been with the State. Councilmember Jaech inquired about whether somebody babysitting one or two children would consti- tute a day care. Ms. Block pointed out that the regulations state whether there is compensation or not, the same requirements apply. Councilmember Jaech inquired whether teenagers that do babysitting would be required to meet these same requirements, and if so, how is that going to be enforced? Ms. Block said that the Code states that any day care, whether for compensation or not, will have to meet the same requirements. Councilmember Hertrich inquired, how a home, with a very small lot, very little drive, and very little on -street parking could handle a day care of up to 12 children. Councilmember Hertrich asked if any of these questions had been given thought. Ms. Block replied that the staff will go out to the proposed site and review the parking space. Staff will determine if there will be adequate parking space and play area, etc. Ms. Block stat- ed that a lack of parking space would be a reason for denial of the request. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 April 5, 1988 Councilmember Hertrich asked if there would be a list of the criteria used so that a person apply- ing for a day care permit could see what requirements they will have to meet before they go through the entire process. Councilmember Hertrich felt that the staff needed some criteria to back up their decisions. Ms. Block said that to some extent, it will be a judgement call because each situation is differ- ent. The staff will have some criteria to use in making their decision, but there will still be some basis for judgement. Mary King, Chairperson for Child Care Committee of Snohomish County Children's Commission, con- gratulated the City for the improvements that are being made by the City in their child care regulations. Ms. King shared some information from a child care study recently completed by the commission (marked Exhibit 1). This study pointed out a great need within the county to provide licensed, affordable quality day care within the City. Ms. King urged the Council to take action to encour- age more child care in the neighborhoods of Edmonds so that working parents will have the child care available to them close to where they live. Ms. King recommended that the family day care homes be viewed as a normal and proper use in resi- dential areas and that no requirements be placed on applicants for family day care homes except that they must have a state license. Zoning restrictions which add more requirements discourage potential providers from getting licensed. In addition, Ms. King suggested that two or three parking spaces would be adequate for mini day care centers because parents do not all arrive at the same time to pick up their children. Ms. King referred to Section 20.10.040 in the existing Code which allows neighborhood residents to petition the Hearing Examiner six months after a permit is issued to request a revocation of a permit if a facility is found to have created or enhanced a deleterious impact or public nui- sance and that the impact or nuisance cannot be mitigated." Ms. King suggested that this sec- tion be removed because it places the day care provider in the untenable position of investing the time, energy and money required to open a new facility and meet the state and local licensing requirements only to have their entire operation put in jeopardy if several individuals in the community consider the noise of playing children to be a "nuisance." Ms. King concluded by stating that the Children's Commission believes that children belong in our neighborhoods, and that our public policies at the state, county, and city level should foster the development of quality child care environments. She commended the City on the steps they are taking to make the permit requirements less burdensome to child care providers and encouraged the Council to go one step further than the proposed Code revisions. She left a copy of the child care study, "Realities of Child Care" for the Council to review (marked Exhibit.2). Janie Woods, 6923 194th Place Southwest, felt that the changes suggested by the Planning Board are great. Ms. Woods explained that she is no longer in the business of providing child care in her home because of the prohibitive costs. She now goes to someone else's home in the neighbor- hood to care for their two children. Ms. Woods submitted and read a letter from Andrea Cornwall, President of the Washington State Family Child Care Association (marked Exhibit 3). Ms. Cornwall applauded the City for looking into its zoning requirements for child care. Ms. Cornwall pointed out that regulations vary drastically from one area to another. Ms. Cornwall pointed out some of the requirements of other cities. These requirements can impact the local availability of day care. Ms. Cornwall pointed out that another area of concern are the homes where the care giver opts not to participate in the licensing process because of the fear that this would bring the home to the attention of the city with resulting confusion, forms, fees, and uncertainty as to the ultimate outcome of the hearings and zoning requests. Ms. Cornwall made the following comments and and recommendations: 1. Adopt the policy that family day care homes as defined by the Department of Social and Health Services are a reasonable use of a residential area, and therefore, require no zoning adjustment. 2. Allow some flexibility and additional freedom to children appropriate to their ages and the type of residential area. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 April 5, 1988 3. If review hearings are necessary, it would be helpful to include as a guideline that the City adopt as its philosophy the attitude that all children have the right. to .be raised in a residential area. 4. Five spaces for parking are not necessary. 5. Make the City's definitions consistent with the Department of Social and Health Services' definitions. Ms. Cornwall stated in her letter that she would be happy to 'share any materials her association has gathered from around the state. Ms. Woods said that in working in a larger day care at a church, there were times when only two care givers were available to take care of up to 22 children. Ms. Woods commented that with mini day cares, some of children come from the same family and are dropped off in one vehicle. Warren Bohan said that in 1984 he was involved in one of the most controversial issues in the City. He has studied the day care issue and found both pros and cons. Mr. Bohan pointed out that research shows that it is better to place childreni in a large group because of the social aspect of child development. Mr. Bohan pointed out that in the case he was involved with in 19.84, most of the residents around the proposed day care were elderly. These people need to rest during the daytime hours and would not be able to do that if a day care were allowed to locate in the neighborhood. Mr. Bohan stated that even with the protections that were built into the Code at that time, it is still a very controversial issue. It could cost the City a large amount of money if these protec- tions are not left within the Code. Mr. Bohan pointed out that the Code mandates that the impact to the adjacent home owners should be the deciding factor, not the profit that will be made or the day care need that will be met. Mr. Bohan asked if any of the Council members have ever lived by a day care. Councilmember Hall answered that she has lived by a day care where approximately 60 children were cared for. Coun- cilmember Hall didn't feel that neighborhood was adversely impacted by the noise of the children. Mr. Bohan said that Bill Bogart, assistant to the administrator for District 15, has objected to two different day care centers in the area. He said Mr. Bogart loves children, yet he was against the noise that the center would generate. Mr. Bohan stated that he would like to show a member of the Council a location where there is a problem with the proposed parking requirements. Mr. Bohan asked if he could have this opportuni- ty before the Council votes on this issue. Mr. Bohan continued by presenting the Council with a situation regarding an elderly couple who were required to get a lot of sleep. This couple would have been forced to move if the day care had been located in the neighborhood because of the noise that would have been generated. He said the Code needs to protect the elderly people. Mr. Bohan commented about family day, cares being located in multiple family dwellings, saying if this were allowed, there will be triple the amount of people impacted. Councilmember Hall expressed concern that the City of Edmonds may be presented by the media as being anti children. She feels this may come true if the Code is not changed. Councilmember Hall said that the car trips per day are highly exaggerated. She has been in the day care busi- ness herself and feels this is something that the City should share in, and if day care is not provided in Edmonds, residents will be forced to go to. Lynnwood for child care. This will dis- courage young families from locating in the City. Councilmember Hall suggested that Edmonds should be supportive of the day care needs within the City. Councilmember Hall said that she is concerned with the number of off-street and on -street parking that is suggested by the Planning Board. Other than that, she felt the Planning Board has done a good job. Mayor Pro tem Dwyer commented that whether the need for more day care is a result of high mort- gage payments, single -parent families, etc., it is important that the Council address the reality and need for day care in the City. The reality is that there are a great number of kids being cared for outside of State -licensed facilities. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 April 5, 1988 Mayor Pro tem Dwyer did not see parking as a problem in home day care operations as these people leave the area after dropping their children off at the day care. They do not require a parking space for an extended amount of time. Mayor Pro tem Dwyer did not see the need for the City to regulate family day care operations with six or fewer children. There are many families in the City who have six or more children and no attempt has been or will be made to regulate these families. Mayor Pro tem Dwyer pointed out that the evil being discussed is the noise of children, and feels the City cannot afford to be without the sound of children. Mayor Pro tem Dwyer stated that with mini day care operations with up to 12 children, there is a need for some regulations. Mayor Pro tem Dwyer suggested that the Council eliminate the require- ments for family day care operations, provided the operation obtains a license from the state. Mayor Pro tem Dwyer felt that the Planning Board's recommendations for mini day care operations were appropriate with the exception of the five spaces required for parking and the six month review. He felt that five spaces was too strict and that the six month review should be eliminat- ed altogether. Councilmember Nordquist.said that he gladly welcomes children into his home and has raised chil- dren of his own. He is primarily concerned because this is a business and has an impact on the community. When someone comes in for a conditional use permit to operate a silent business in his home, there are regulations imposed upon that person. Councilmember Nordquist pointed out that maybe there should be more leniency for other home businesses because of the leniency for day care operations. Councilmember Hall commented on the reference to Dr. Bill Bogart made by Mr. Bohan. Councilmem- ber Hall said that Dr. Bogart was one of the finest administrators that Edmonds has every had. Councilmember Hertrich said that Councilmember Nordquist touched on something that he has been thinking about for some time, that the City is too restrictive on the home business require- ments. Day care businesses are unlike taking care of your own children. These businesses create a disturbance because of the noise generated from the children and traffic from parents coming and going. Because of this disturbance, some review should be required. Councilmember Hertrich endorses the family day care center in allowing it to function, but is against losing the review process. Councilmember Hertrich felt that review criteria would help eliminate confusion for places within the City where day care operations are not appropriate. Mayor Pro tem Dwyer said that in most places that have six children, at least one of those chil- dren belongs to the day care provider. He did not see a road in Edmonds that could not handle ten vehicle trips per day. Councilmember Hertrich felt that the example given at the public hearing illustrates where possi- ble problems could arise. He felt that by allowing staff to review the request, it will allow the staff to prohibit day care operations that are not suitable in the area. Councilmember Wilson felt that the parking requirement suggested by the Planning Board was a bit severe and restrictive. In regard to the review process, there will be areas where day care is not suitable. The neighborhoods should be protected. Mr. Hertrich suggested that they keep the review process by staff for a period of time to see how this new Code functions. If there are problems with the changes and the Council has eliminated the review process, they will be stuck. Mayor Pro tem Dwyer pointed out that by requiring a review, the Council would be placing an admin- istrative burden on people and make them afraid of the City regulations. The idea is to encour- age people to come forward and become licensed by the state to insure that children are well cared for. Councilmember Hall suggested that the Council should start out with the basic premise that they want to encourage children in the City and support day care operations. Councilmember Wilson stated that there is no issue more important to children than insuring that there is a place close by for parents to place their children in a qualified home without going through additional stress. He felt it was important that the City not throw any unnecessary road blocks at day care providers. However, Councilmember Wilson felt that the impact of the neighbor- hood is also important, and he urged that the Council require mini day cares to go through a review process. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 April 5, 1988 Mayor Pro tem Dwyer said he would like to make two motions on this issue. MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT THE COUNCIL ELIMINATE ALL REGULA- TIONS OF FAMILY DAY CARES WITH SIX OR FEWER CHILDREN, PROVIDED THAT THEY POSSESS A VALID STATE LICENSE. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. A TIE VOTE WAS MADE WITH MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HALL, AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, AND COUN- CILMEMBER NORDQUIST OPPOSED. MOTION FAILED FOR WANT OF A MAJORITY. MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, THAT A DECISION ON THIS ITEM BE DELAYED UNTIL MAY 3, 1988 WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE A FULL COUNCIL OR A MAYOR PRESENT TO BREAK A TIE. MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF 1% FOR ARTS ORDINANCE (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 7, 1988) Mr. Barnes presented a summary of the proposed amendment. The Key changes include: A. Establishment of a minimum funding level for cultural.programs and services. B. Clarification of 1% projects (eligibility and methods). C. Separation of cultural program and services funds from 1%.acquis.ition funds and activities. Mayor Pro tem Dwyer asked that the Council review the, proposed amendment for content and not to get hung up on the actual wording. Mr. Snyder will work on the language when he returns from vacation. Councilmember Hertrich suggested that the 1% figure be placed on its own line so that it can be easily identified. MR. HERTRICH MOVED, THAT THE COUNCIL TAKE THE 1% AND PLACE IT ON ITS OWN LINE SO THAT IT CAN BE IDENTIFIED. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mr. Barnes said that it is .difficult to determine exactly how much the 1% will be in dollar amount at all times, but this money will not be spent on.projects other than those projects of the Arts Commission. Mr. Barnes explained that staff has discussed the issue of handling this money with a separate fund because there are numerous activities charged to the 1% account. Mr. Housler indicated that this would not be a problem. Mayor Pro tem Dwyer inquired if the creation of a separate fund was included in the proposal. Mr. Barnes answered that it is referenced in the memo to the Council. Discussion ensued on how this separate fund will be created and how staff will handle this fund. Councilmember Wilson inquired how staff would keep track of the staff time. Mr. Barnes said that there is a question at the present as to how much staff time will be given to the Arts Commis- sion. Rather than grind that into a.figure, it is Mr. Snyder's recommendation that it be worked into the budget on a recognition basis. Councilmember Wilson expressed that he would like to see Section 3.13.020 Definitions clarified. He was concerned about the words "substantial portion."- Councilmember Wilson inquired what would happen to the money in the 1% fund if it were not used this year, but was intended for a lengthy project. Would the City take the money away from them? Mr. Barnes answered that the ordinance states that if none of the money was encumbered, the Council would not be obligated by ordinance to fund any additional projects until that figure was below $100,000. Councilmember Wilson stated that he would like staff to work on this because he would hate to see the Arts Commission penalized because they are working on a lengthy project that takes longer than a year to complete. Mr. Barnes clarified and pointed out how the recommended Code amend- ments would affect this issue. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 April 5, 1988 Councilmember Hertrich noted that the dollar figure for staff time will be between $10,000 and $15,000 per year. He felt this should be keep in mind when thinking about how much the City should be giving the Arts Fund. Councilmember Hertrich pointed out that last year the Arts Com- mission's expenditures were only $8,600. He questioned why the Council would need to increase the funding to $15,000 for funds and $10,000 to $15,000 for staff time. Councilmember Hertrich felt this amount was excessive and recommended that the Council lower the funding figure to $10,000. Councilmember Wilson suggested that the Arts Commission needed money to be able to create a visu- al impact for the City of Edmonds. He said Edmonds is not an ordinary city. They are very con- cerned about the visual impact of the City. Everyone in the City benefits from the visual impact and Councilmember Wilson didn't think that $15,000 was too much money. Councilmember Hertrich suggested that the Council evaluate to determine if this money is needed rather than just granting them $15,000. He felt this may discourage them from doing fund raising on their own as they have done in the past. Mayor Pro tem Dwyer said that he hoped the Council could vote on whether or not the concepts of the Code amendment were appropriate 'and then have Mr. Snyder work on the amendment. The amend- ment could then be brought back on the Council's consent agenda. The Council continued to discuss the amount of money that should be allocated to the Arts Commis- sion and what this money would be used for. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL FUND A MINIMUM BALANCE FOR THE ARTS COMMISSION AT $20,000. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Hall pointed out that the wording on the ordinance already states that a level of at least $15,000 would be funded. She suggested that if they go with $15,000 maybe they can get the support of more of the Council. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER, THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSAL AS IT EXISTS WITH FUNDING LEVEL OF AT LEAST $15,000 PER YEAR: Councilmember Jaech pointed out that by stating that it be funded at a level of at least $15,000, the ordinance will not have to be redone each budget year. Mayor Pro Tem Dwyer said that this would give the staff the opportunity to establish a track record and determine how much funding should be givento the Arts Commission. The staff will know a lot more about what is needed once they see .how much staff time is required. Councilmember Hertrich suggested that the Council consider putting a limit of 50 percent on the amount of time a staff person can spend with the Arts Commission. Councilmember Hertrich was not comfortable with .automatically doubling the amount of funding without seeing a real need for the additional money. He would like to see the amount of funding limited to $10,000. MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. HERTRICH VOTING N.O. Mayor Pro tem Dwyer informed the Council that Mr. Snyder would prepare the proposal for the City Council and it would be placed on their consent agenda. Councilmember Jaech expressed her desire for Mr. Snyder to look at Section 3.13.020. The Council also requested a list from the Arts Commission outlining what types of projects the money would be spent on. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH SEATTLE METRO FOR RECIPROCAL SEWAGE TREATMENT ("SEWAGE SWAP") Mr. Hahn reminded the Council of their motion last summer to enter into an agreement with Metro. Since that time, Metro has been doing engineering work for the facility and will be presenting their findings to the Metro Council in two weeks. Mr. Hahn pointed out that this transfer would probably be a bit cheaper than the other alterna- tives. Mr. Hahn reviewed the project for the Council and pointed out the potential benefits to the City. Mr. Hahn stated that all of the costs of operating the lift station will be shared by Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and the Ronald Sewer District. By electing to go with the transfer, the cit- ies' share of those costs will be greatly reduced because Metro would pay for all costs of the diversion. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 April 5, 1988 Councilmember Jaech asked if Metro will be responsible for building and maintenance costs for the lift station. Mr. Hahn answered that the City would be responsible for some of the maintenance costs because they will have some flow that must go east. Councilmember Jaech inquired how these costs would be determined. Mr. Hahn said that the addi- tional cost would be about 20 percent of the maintenance and operation costs and 20 percent of the debt service. Mr. Hahn explained that the maintenance and operation costs would vary from month to month, and the debt service costs would vary from year to year. Councilmember Jaech inquired about the forced main line. Even though this is not needed this year, what about when the population increases in the future. Will they have to put this second line in any way? Mr. Hahn answered that they are looking into the future 25 to 30 years and have taken that growth into consideration. Ms. Jaech asked if the City will need to put in the additional line in the future. Mr. Hahn answered that Ecology may require this second line, but space for the population increase in the future has been allowed. Mr. Hahn pointed out to the Council where the lines are located and where the treatment facili- ties will be built. Councilmember Nordquist said that he called Metro to see if they had any conditions for the plant and no one seemed to know anything. Mr. Hahn said that he could tell the Council what will be happening there. Lincoln Properties is required to provide their own lift station and because of this have entered into an agreement with Metro to tie into their lift station.. Ripk Andrews, Engineer from Metro, said that the indications from Metro are that they will be willing to tie in with Lincoln Properties, but a definite agreement has not been met yet. Councilmember Nordquist asked what would happen to the City's plan if Metro is unable to obtain space for their treatment plant. Mr. Hahn said that if this happens, there will not be a swap. Councilmember Hall commented that in previous discussions, Mr. Hahn has indicated that the swap will take place and the Council was told that all had signed except one. Later, she received telephone calls from other entities stating that they had not signed. Will this happen again? Mr: Hahn said that no matter what happens on the transfer and if Lincoln Properties decides to build their own treatment plant, it will not affect the project. Mr. Hahn said that Olympic View, Edmonds, and Mountlake Terrace have all signed approval of this swap. Mr. Hahn stated that the first time this issue came before the Council, it was to decide whether Edmonds was interested in a swap before Metro put all their money into a study. Edmonds indicat- ed, at that time, that they were interested in this type of swap. Councilmember Hall commented that last year, the Council moved to look into a swap with Metro. Later, Lois North approached them regarding this issue. Mr. Hahn recalled that Ms. North ap- proached the Board to say thank you for their support. Councilmember Wilson said that he approved of the sewer swap and he only regrets that Mr. Hahn was not more supportive of moving the site when he pointed it out that the City could save $4 million. Now the City could be looking at several millions of dollars more in savings than was projected at the time. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. NORDQUIST, THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE AGREEMENT FOR RECIPROCAL SEWAGE TREATMENT WITH SEATTLE METRO. MOTION CARRIED. SELECTION OF CITY BOND BROKER j v�`'drJ Mr. Housler reviewed his memo to the Council which summarized his conclusions on the advantages and disadvantages of each of the brokers interviewed. Mr. Housler stated that it is his recommen- dation that the Council select Shearson Lehman Brothers as the City's bond broker. Mayor Pro tem Dwyer stated that he would like to take a straw vote to narrow the candidates down to two for further discussion. Councilmember Hertrich suggested that they each vote for their top two companies. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 April 5, 1988 Councilmember Jaech had a question as to the type of bid they would be going out on. Would it be a negotiated sale or a public sale? She asked if the Council has voted on the size of the bond issue. Mr. Housler answered that the City has not made a motion on the size of the bond. Coun- cilmember Jaech asked if a motion had been made whether to go negotiated or public sale. Councilmember Jaech felt that by going through this action and making those decisions, the Coun- cil has made the decision that they are going through a negotiated bid rather than a public bid. A public bid requires no underwriter. MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. HERTRICH THAT THE COUNCIL MARKET THE BONDS WITH A NEGOTIATED SALE. Councilmember Jaech explained that in a negotiated bid, the City will select a company that will have the sole job of buying the bonds, the City will not be selling the bonds to different compa- nies. With a negotiated bid all of the bonds will be sold. The time involved in selling the bonds in a negotiated bid is much less than the time involved in an public bid. If the interest rates are not good, the City may choose to postpone the sale of the bonds until the interest rates improve. This would not be possible with a public bid. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the Council was planning on marketing a $10 million bond at this time. Mayor Pro tem Dwyer questioned whether this issue needed to be decided at this time or if this decision should be left up to the underwriter. Mr. Housler suggested that the motion state that the City is issuingbonds in the predetermined amount of approximately $10 million during 1988 and 1989 for the sewage treatment plant. Councilmember Jaech said that by making a motion on the amount of the bonds, the Council will be giving Mr. Housler some direction and, at the same time, will be informing the citizens of Edmonds on how the Council is handling the bond issue. Councilmember Nordquist noted that Mr. Housler is suggesting that the Council state that the City will be issuing bonds in the amount of approximately $10 million because this figure is the maxi- mum amount the City can sell and still get the credit from the bank. Mr. Housler requested that the bond broker be obtained at the earliest opportunity so a decision can be made on whether to divide the bond issue and sell it in two separate years. Mayor Pro tem Dwyer asked what would happen if the City determines that they have a need for only $12 million and decide to sell $6 million in each of two years. Councilmember Jaech answered that Mr. Housler's recommendation will not preclude the City from doing this. MR. NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT THE CITY ISSUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $10 MILLION. MOTION CARRIED. r Councilmember Wilson, in reference to the history and summary statement by Mr. Housler, said that he wasn't as enthusiastic about the presentation of Shearson Lehman Brothers as some of the other companies. He indicated that he took the time to call some of the other companies to get their reaction to the staff's conclusions. Upon doing so, Councilmember Wilson was told that the staff's statements and conclusions were not true. Mr. Housler pointed out that all of these companies are in competition with each other. Councilmember Wilson informed the Council that Harper, McLean & Company and Seattle Northwest Securities took strong exception to the conclusions drawn up by Mr. Housler. These two companies said that the statement that they are primarily "institutional houses" is untrue. Mr. Housler pointed out that these two companies sell 75 percent or more of their bonds to institutions, whereas, the other companies sell an average of 60 percent of their bonds to institutions. Councilmember Wilson also indicated that Harper, McLean & Company and Seattle Northwest Securi- ties said that the staff's statement that a higher interest could result if they were obtained as the City's bond broker was untrue, also. Councilmember Wilson stated that he would agree with these two brokerage companies. Councilmember Jaech agreed with Councilmember Wilson. She felt that it is common practice in the industry to market the bonds to other companies and institutions. That doesn't change the inter- est at all. What happens is when the City selects an underwriter, they will dicker with this underwriter as to what price the underwriter will pay for the City's bonds. It is up to the EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11 April 5, 1988 underwriter to sell the bonds at an interest rate suitable to him. It will be to the underwrit- er's advantage to buy the bonds at a lower interest rate because he gets more profit. Whether the bonds are sold by the underwriter or distributed to other companies, it will not make any difference in the interest rate to the City. Councilmember Wilson, in reference to Mr. Housler's statement that the smaller firms rely on the concept of marketing bonds.when the money is needed, noted that the smaller firms did make that statement. However, they stated this because of the tendency for municipalities to need the money immediately. Councilmember Wilson felt that the smaller firms would be prudent in looking into the future. Councilmember inquired what happened to the larger firms and their predictionp of the interest rate last October. Mr. Housler disagreed that the smaller firms would be just as prudent marketing the money. In the past, when a city has needed money, they call their broker and they do the job. Edmonds knows that there are other. alternatives to marketing the bonds at higher interest rates. The City is more sophisticated than to borrow money when it is needed regardless of the interest rate. A good broker would provide the City with alternatives to borrowing money and suggest that they wait to market their bonds until the interest rates are down. Mr. Housler didn't feel that . a firm that offers the advice that the City should sell the bonds when the money is needed is so- phisticated enough for the City. The Council took a vote to narrow the candidates down to two. Each Councilmember was allowed two votes. Following are the results of the vote: Shearson Lehman Brothers 4 Prudential Bache 0 Drexel Burnham Lambert 0 Dain Bosworth 4 Seattle Northwest Securities 1 Harper, McLean& Company 2 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, THAT THE COUNCIL LIMIT FURTHER DISCUSSION TO SHEARSON LEHMAN BROTHERS AND DAIN BOSWORTH WHO BOTH RECEIVED FOUR VOTES. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. C011NCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT THE COUNCIL EXTEND THE MEETING PAST 10:00 PM. MOTION CARRIED. MR. NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE DAIN BOSWORTH AS THE UNDERWRITER FOR THE CITY'S SEWAGE TREATMENT BONDS. Mayor Pro tem Dwyer asked if Mr. Housler could have a proper working relationship with Dain Bosworth. Mr. Housler indicated that the decision is up to the Council. He will work with whom- ever they choose. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER HALL OPPOSING THE MOTION. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE TWO CANON NP8570 PHOTOCOPIERS AND TRADE IN TWO MINOLTA 650Z PHOTOCOPIERS THROUGH WILLIAM DIERICKX CO. ($36,868) MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE AU= THORIZATION TO ACQUIRE TWO CANNON NP8570 PHOTOCOPIERS AND TRADE IN TWO MINOLTA 65OZ PHOTOCOPIERS THROUGH WILLIAM DIERICKX CO. Councilmember Nordquist had served on the Photocopier Replacement Selection Committee and he said the committee was not unanimous in their decision to purchase the copier. Other options are leasing and renting the copier. Councilmember Nordquist indicated that the staff members of the Committee recommended they buy the machine. Councilmember Nordquist, however, would recommend the City rent the copier. If the City purchases the machines, they will also have to get rid of them later. There will be changes in the technology aspect of a copy machine in five years and the City may want to obtain a newer model. Councilmember Nordquist recommended that the Council look at the options available before they make a decision. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 April 5, 1988 COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH WITHDREW HIS SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER HALL SECONDED THE MOTION FOR DISCUSSION. Councilmember Hall who also served on the selection committee said that she was in favor of the type of copier the Committee recommended. She felt that the City made a big mistake when they go, rid of their Kodak copier. Councilmember Hall said that staff is being done a disservice because there is no space for a Kodak copier, which she indicated was the Committee's first choice. Councilmember Hall commended the staff on their research of this subject and indicated that she was comfortable with their recommendation. Councilmember Nordquist noted that the City of Bellevue never buys their equipment, they rent it. Councilmember Hertrich inquired whether the quality of maintenance changes depending on whether the machine is purchased, rented, or leased. Councilmember Hall answered that the service con- tracts are the same. Councilmember Hertrich asked why Councilmember Nordquist was in favor of renting the machine. Councilmember Nordquist answered that the City will be able to get rid of the machine easier when they decide that they need a new one. Councilmember Nordquist noted that 75 percent of entitiet rent their machines rather than purchase. He feel maintenance on the equipment is kept up better if the company still owns the machine. Councilmember Hertrich asked about the projected life of a copier. Councilmember Hall said that over the life of the machine, the cost of purchasing will end up to be about the same as rent- ing. She pointed out that by purchasing the City will still own the machine. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER HERT91CH ABSTAINING BECAUSE HE WAS NOT SURE WHETHER THE CITY SHOULD LEASE, PURCHASE, OR RENT THE MACHINE. ,�- APPROVAL OF LIQUOR LICENSES The Council had no. objection to recommending approval of a liquor license application for G-R's o� Restaurant, Class H license. Regarding the application by The Main Place for an. A, C, and F license, Mayor Mayor Pro tem Dwyer indicated that the Planning staff has reached an agreement with the new owner for remedy of the Code violation problem. Therefore, the Council recommended approval of that license also. COUNCIL Councilmember Hertrich indicated that he has a very strong feeling about the fire boat. He feels the Council should make sure that it is up for sane and that funds from the sale should be allo- cated to a rescue boat for those people who need this protection. Councilmember Hertrich recom- mended that this proposal be forwarded to the Public Safety Committee. Regarding a request previously made of the Council, Councilmember Hertrich stated that pygmy goats should not be allowed in Edmonds. The Council had been provided a report from the Police Chief on this subject, and Mayor Pro tem Dwyer asked if any of the Councilmembers present felt that the pygmy goat issue should go to the Public Safety Committee. Based on the report from the Police Chief, the Council decided that no changes to the Code of this type should be made to accommodate the request. Councilmember Jaech brought up that while driving to work Friday, she noticed that the developers of the project near the lift station (Lincoln Properties) were doing a lot of digging at the side of the road. It look as though they were trying to build an "annex to Lake Ballinger" because of all of the water that was developing. She requested that Mr. Alberts brief the Council on what is taking place at that location. Mr. Alberts said that this digging is part of a dentention system for the project, The water will eventually find its way back to Lake Ballinger. Mr. Alberts indicated that Hydraulics Engi- neer Jerry Hauth is monitoring this project and will make sure that everything goes according to plans. Councilmember Jaech added that she was concerned about "nutrients" being dumped into Lake Ballin- ger and resulting contamination. She asked staff to keep on top of what is happening in that area. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 13 April 5, 1988 Councilmember Jaech commented on the information recently before the Council regarding the Pru- dent Buyer Insurance Plan from Blue Cross. Because of the recent experience of a number of banks %1Le+ awAA-' who used that plan and then had Blue Cross drop them, she cautioned the Council to make sure that the City will not be dropped from this plan and left to find another type of coverage for their employees. Councilmember Nordquist informed the Council that he will be out of town during the last week in April. Councilmember Hall said that while visiting in Los Angeles, she took some pictures of a tennis court and home that had been built on the hillside with cantilevered construction. She was inter- ested in the ingenuity that went into the construction. She will bring these pictures for the Council to review in the future. Councilmember Nall noted that she received a call from a citizen in regard to skateboarding in the plaza and jumping up on and damaging the benches that were donated by Friends of the Library. City Attorney John Wallace indicated that there was one item that he would like to take up with the Council which would require the Council to recess into an executive session and then return to take formal action. The Council recessed into an executive session for five minutes to discuss acquisition of real property. The meeting then resumed and MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT THE 6-'��ITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER TO EXECUTE THE OPTIONS TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY DESIG- ,��NATED AS PARCEL B AND PARCEL G BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND DARLENE McINTOSH AND TO AUTHORIZE ►�'' THE DRAW OF PAYMENTS OF $500 OPTION MONEY FOR EACH OF THE TWO RESPECTIVE PARCELS FOR A TOTAL OF $1,000. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER JAECH OPPOSING THE MOTION. The meeting .again recessed to executive session at 10:30 for approximately 25 minutes for legal advice regarding franchise negotiations, and then adjourned. These minutes are subject to April 12, 1988 approval. JACQUELINE G, PARRETT, City Clerk STEVE DWYER, "Mayor Pro Tem EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 14 April 5, 1988 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM -LIBRARY BUILDING 7 :00 - t 0:00 P.M. APRIL 5, 1988 CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. CONSENT AGENDA (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 1988 AND MARCH 29, 1988 (C) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM RAYMOND W. TABOR ($40), MICHAEL & GRACE AHRENS ($50,000), AND PHASE I, LTD., DBA MEADOWDALE MARINE ($56,328) (D) APPROVAL OF 1988-1990 JAIL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY (E) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS UNIFORMS ($11,275) (F) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MARCH 31, 1988 FOR TRACTOR AT CEMETERY, AND AWARD OF BID TO SOUND TRACTOR COMPANY ($9,633.81) (G) AUTHORIZATION TO GRANT EASEMENT TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR, AND MAINTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MEADOWDALE BEACH COUNTY PARK ENTRANCE (H) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE CAR FOR PLANNING DIVISION ($10,646) (I) AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN PRESTON, THORGRIMSON, ELLIS & HOLMAN LAW FIRM FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY ($13,000) 2. AUDIENCE 3. HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING FENCE AT (15 MINUTES) 721 6TH AVE. N. (AP-2-88/APPELLANT: .SCOTT CAMPBELL) 4. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY (30 MINUTES) DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS REGARDING HOME DAYCARE 5. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 1% FOR ARTS ORDINANCE (10 MINUTES) (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 7, 1988) 6. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH SEATTLE METRO FOR RECIPROCAL SEWAGE (30 MINUTES) TREATMENT ("SEWAGE SWAP") 7. SELECTION OF CITY BOND BROKER (60 MINUTES) 8. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE TWO CANON NP8570 PHOTOCOPIERS { 5 MINUTES) AND TRADE IN TWO MINOLTA 650Z PHOTOCOPIERS THROUGH WILLIAM DIERICKX CO. ($36,868) 9. MAYOR 10. COUNCIL 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION - LEGAL ADVICE RE FRANCHISE NEGOTIATIONS (20 MINUTES) THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE