02/05/1985 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT
TO FEBRUARY 11 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 5, 1985
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by
Mayor Larry Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present
joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor Doug Reuble, Dan Prinz, Police Chief
Jo -Anne Jaech Student Rep. Bobby Mills, Actg. Pub. Wks. Supt
Steve Dwyer Art Housler, Admin. Svcs. Director
Laura Hall Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Bill Kasper Steve Simpson, Parks & Rec. Dir.
John Nordquist Mary Lou Block, Planning Director
Lloyd Ostrom Pat LeMay, Personnel Director
Jack Wilson Peter Hahn, Community Svcs. Dir.
Jack Parrett, City Clerk
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Shirlie Witzel, Recorder
CONSENT AGENDA
Items (B), (E), (F), (J), (M), and (N) were removed from the Consent Agenda for
discussion. COUNCILMEMBER NOROQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE
THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent
Agenda included the following:
(A) Roll call.
(C) Adoption of Ordinance 2478 relating to parade permits.
(D) Adoption of Ordinance 2479 adopting barrier free design standards ($75.00).
(G) Authorization to advertise for bids for 1985 cold water meters ($32,677).
(H) Passage of Resolution 612 finalizing Sidewalk Improvement District 81-1.
(I) Authorization to accept easements from Sam and Adell Swanson and estate of
Olga Espeland for extension of water main.
(K) Authorization to advertise for proposals for design and installation of an
irrigation system in Edmonds Cemetery.
(L) Authorization to contract for Meadowdale drainage extension ($2,678.83).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 1985 AND JANUARY 28,.1985 [Item (B.) on Consent Agenda]
Councilmember Hall asked that the January 22 minutes, page 6, paragraph 9 reflect the
correct spelling of Governor Gardner's name and page 4, first full paragraph, line 11,
concerning Community Services Director Peter Hahn's remarks be corrected to read: "'He
indicated that the non -field management responsibilities are performed mostly by
himself, with the help of the Office Administrator, Rhonda march." Councilmember Kasper
pointed to several instances in the minutes where the question asked was not specified
and only the answer was given. He noted that this made the minutes difficult to follow
and also gave no indication whether the answer corresponded to the question.
Councilmember Jaech corrected page 3, first full paragraph, to include Parks &
Recreation Director Simpson's reply that: "the contribution of the land by the School
District was equivalent to the contribution of the other agencies involved in the
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 1 February 5, 1985
agreement." COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 1985 AS CORRECTED. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Jaech noted there had been no motion concerning her absence on January 28.
Councilmember Nordquist asked that the minutes of that meeting be corrected to include
his motion to excuse Councilmember Jaech's absence. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED
BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 1985 AS CORRECTED. MOTION
CARRIED.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2480 AMENDING SALARY RANGES AND SALARIES FOR EXEMPT AND NONREPRESENTED
NONEXEMPT PERSONNEL [Item (E) on Consent Agenda]
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained that there is a large difference between the
average merit increase of 2 percent and a merit pool of 2 percent of the salaries. He
said the Council has budgeted 1 percent, which is equivalent to an average merit
increase of 2 percent. Therefore, the first paragraph of the proposed ordinance, last
sentence, now reads, ...pool equal to an average merit increase of 2 percent..." to
conform to the body of the ordinance. Councilmember Jaech asked if the title of Exhibit
B should not be changed to indicate nonexempt-nonrepresented personnel. Personnel
Director Pat LeMay said there were 5 positions that are nonexempt-nonrepresented in the
City and these positions are covered by this ordinance. Councilmember Kasper said, "I
am pulling this because I was away on business on the night of the vote on the 4 percent
wage increase. I've been on the Council 5 years and every year we say we are going to
do something about these high wage and benefit.increases. We never do! On our retreat
this year, we again agreed - let's do something!!! Yet here we are at 4 percent. These
CPI wage increases are 20 percent over the Seattle Metro CPI of 3.3 percent and on top
of that, we are granting merit increases and steps in most cases. How long can this
keep up. We are compounding the compound. Our staff is well paid. Benefits are high.
Yet our pay scale is up to 107 percent of 1984 overall pay in general fund. In
executive session last month, the cry was just one more year. The only good thing was
to set the record straight by agreeing unanimously that the Mayor would not get a raise
after the 1st 12 months and not until we review our 1986 salary posture and then the
salaries of all elected officials before the filing date. Maybe we'll have to set the
example and start with the Mayor and ourselves!"
Mr. Snyder noted that the Council had instructed him to delete the reference to step
increases and therefore there is no provision in the ordinance for a step increase.
Councilmember Hall asked for clarification of Section 5 of the ordinance. Mr. Snyder
said this section repeals the prior salary ordinance, which contains the Mayor's salary,
and this section will continue that salary at the same rate. He said section 2 of
Ordinance 2309 established the position of Personnel Director, setting a range that is
being amended here. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO
APPROVE THE SALARY ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER VOTING NO.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2481 RELATING TO DWI'S [Item (F) on Consent Agenda]
Councilmember Kasper asked why this item is scheduled on the Consent Agenda since there
has been no discussion regarding the proposed ordinance and no request from the Council
for a brief on the subject. Mr. Snyder said they felt the subject should be addressed
as quickly as possible because of the importance of the matter. He explained that a
South District Court judge is overturning DWI cases because the existing penalty
provision was not identical to that established by State statute. He said they were not
imposing penalties above what had been set but, as a general rule, the City cannot
permit what the State prohibits. Councilmember Kasper asked why this was being
presented when the Council has not decided whether they want to consider an appeal and
have not discussed the subject. He said they knew the penalties when the ordinance was
passed and they chose to have their own procedure. He is not indicating approval or
disapproval, but believes it should be considered in executive session. Councilmember
Hall asked if Chief Prinz had been included in consideration of the problem. Chief
Prinz replied that there are over 20 cases being held in abeyance until a decision is
made on the situation. He said the City penalties are so much lower than the State's,
the District Court says the City cannot do that and DWI cases will be lost if the
ordinance is not passed. He said it is an emergency situation. Councilmember Dwyer
asked why the police cannot cite under the State statute. Chief Prinz said some of the
Counties in the eastern part of the State are doing that because they believe the cost
of DWI prosecution exceeds the fines received. However, he does not believe that is the
solution to the problem and mentioned some solutions being worked on at the State level.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED TO PLACE THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION ON FEBRUARY
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 February 5, 1985
11. He said he does not remember all of the details involved when the ordinance was
passed, but he said the Council knew they were contrary to state law when it was passed.
Chief Prinz said there is a problem with waiting, since officers are citing DWI's and
they are being thrown out of court. Councilmember Dwyer said these drivers could be
cited under the RCW. Chief Prinz said there are about 27 cases that are being held in
abeyance. Councilmember Dwyer did not see how any action taken by the Council at this
point will affect the cases that are being held. Mr. Snyder said the Court has not
cited above what the City penalties set forth, they are saying the penalty provisions
should be the same as the State provisions. He does not see that a correction of the
ordinance would have any effect on the penalties imposed. He said if there is a Council
policy reason for setting these penalties, there could be an appeal of the ruling;
however, he felt an ordinance revision would the quickest and easiest way to handle the
situation. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Jaech asked if the State penalties had changed during the past two -three
years. Mr. Snyder said there was a change two years ago. She then added that
discussion of the City ordinance was prior to that change and the proposed ordinance is
referring to those changes. Chief Prinz said when the present ordinance was passed, it
was in compliance with State law; when the State law changed, the ordinance was not
updated. Because of the strong feelings regarding DWI, the advice of the City Attorney
that City regulations should correspond to State regulations and the fact that State
regulations have changed since passage of .the present ordinance concerning DWI's,
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, THAT ORDINANCE 2481 BE
APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT FOR COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN ($33,000)
Item J on Consent genda
Councilmember Jaech said it is her understanding that Reid -Middleton had been the
qualified bidder on this contract and the greater liability coverage requested by the
Council in prior discussion had been included in the contract. She asked if the City
Attorney had reviewed the contract and the attached exhibits and if he were satisfied
with the language and the liability. Mr. Snyder said he had reviewed the contract and
had made several changes in the language which are incorporated in the contract before
the Council. Councilmember Nordquist said he and Councilmember Hall were on the review
committee that considered the contract, eliminating the second and third part of the
bid, taking part one at this time with review of the other sections when the first part
is completed. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE
THE CONTRACT. MOTION CARRIED.
CONFIRMATION OF JOHN GALT AS HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO
SIGN CONTRACT [Item (M) on Consent Agenda]
Councilmember Jaech asked if an alternate Hearing Examiner were being chosen for one
particular hearing or if the appellant had a problem with Mr. Driscoll and was
requesting someone else. Mr. Snyder replied that the matter had been heard by Mr.
Driscoll and the Council in the past. He said there was a request for appointment of
another Hearing Examiner and he felt two things could be accomplished with Mr. Galt's
appointment; there would be a skilled and experienced back-up for the Hearing Examiner,
and a basis for appeal could be eliminated. Councilmember Jaech agreed that a back-up
would be a good idea but does not believe a precedent should be set in that someone,
feeling Mr. Driscoll would not look at their case favorably, could request another
Hearing Examiner for particular issues. Mr. Snyder said some of the allegations to be
considered in this appeal are that some misinformation was considered and new
information is now available. He said it is difficult to eliminate prejudgmental bias
and the easiest thing is to offer a new hearing officer. Councilmember Kasper asked if
the current alternate Hearing Examiner had resigned. Mr. Snyder said the present
alternate does not possess the experience and skill of Mr. Galt. Planning Director
Mary Lou Block added that Mr. Driscoll had recommended Mr. Galt. Councilmember Kasper
observed that, in his experience, Mr. Galt will not hear an appeal if the Code is out
of line. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO CONFIRM THE
APPOINTMENT OF MR. GALT AS,HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN
THE CONTRACT. MOTION CARRIED.
REPORT ON AUTOMOBILE POLICY, INVENTORY, AND RESERVES [Item (N) on Consent Agenda]
Since there had been no opportunity to discuss this, COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO PLACE THIS ITEM ON THE MARCH 12, 1985 AGENDA FOR
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 February 5, 1985
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION FROM USMC AIR GROUP 42 REGARDING TOYS FOR
TOTS PARTICIPATION
Sergeant Lawrence Cretin presented a certificate of appreciation to the City for support
of the Toys for Tots campaign last Christmas. Over 5000 toys were collected for
distribution to children in the local area; in addition, 40 Christmas trees donated by
Dr. Sandall were distributed to needy families. The certificate was signed by Lt.
Col. J. D. Weber, USMC. Mayor Naughten said the Marine Corps Reserve does a good job
each year and is to be congratulated.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING 2-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 18023
ANDOVER ST (APPELLANT: COOMER/5-12-84)
Planning Director Mary Lou Block reported that this subdivision was originally approved
by the staff and appealed to the Hearing Examiner. On October 18, 1984, the Hearing
Examiner held a public hearing on the appeal of the staff decision. The Hearing
Examiner issued his decision on November 19, 1984, upholding the staff decision, with
conditions. Subsequently, the Applicant submitted an appeal to the Hearing Examiner's
decision on December 28, 1984. The Applicant is appealing the conditions of approval,
as set forth in the Hearing Examiner's report. The point of contention is the legality
of the access easement to the Applicant's property and the requirement that the
Applicant go to court to determine the status of the easement. She said the staff
recommends that the City Council uphold the appeal of Mr. Coomer and approve his short
subdivision, subject to complying with all the conditions established by the staff on
September 9, 1984.
Ms. Block then summarized the contents of the memorandum from the City Attorney dated
January 30, 1985, in which he discusses the complexity of the issue and the reliance
upon title reports by the Planning Department in considering subdivision requests.
Several transparencies of the property location were shown. Councilmember Ostrom asked
if this were originally one property and at what point the Browns had acquired their
property. Ms. Block said the property was all one piece and Mr. Snyder replied that
that the Browns acquired their property prior to the 1971 subdivision.
Mr. Snyder explained that the legal issue stressed in the memo is that only one body in
the State has jurisdiction to determine who owns a piece of property, Snohomish County
Superior Court. Since the Council cannot decide whether the easement exists, the
question before the Council is, given the information, on whom should the burden of
establishing that easement fall in the subdivision process. The appeal before the
Council, he said, is an appeal of a grant of the subdivision but conditionally requiring
them to establish the existence of the easement by quiet title action; an alternative
would be to grant the subdivision without the condition, placing the burden on the
Browns, across whose property the easement lies.
Mayor Naughten advised that 60 minutes had been allowed for the hearing; if at the end
of that time a decision has not been reached, the matter will be continued to another
date. He opened the hearing.
R. M. Coomer, 2111 Thorndyke Rd., Port Ludlow, displayed a transparency which showed
the relationship between his property, the Brown property and previous subdivisions. He
noted that S-18-71 was a 3-lot subdivision and the later 5-19-71 was a 2-lot
subdivision. In addition, he said 5-19-71 was developed in reliance upon a 30 ft.
easement across the Brown's property, which was approved by the City as the sole access
to the property. He asked the Council to approve S-12-84 as previously approved by the
Planning Dept. staff and City Attorney and deletion of the requirements by the Hearing
Examiner. The condition requires Mr. Coomer to obtain Superior Court validation of the
easement across the Brown property; he feels this is an unfair condition as it
retroactively revokes City approval of short -subdivision 5-19-71. He said the keystone
of their argument is the fact that the 2-lot short -subdivision 5-19-71 was approved by
the City, lot B of that subdivision is the same one described in 5-12-84 and and they
are using the same easement described in 1971. He said acknowledgment of the easement
by the City in 1971 was for a perpetual easement with no conditions or restrictions
imposed by the City for use of the easement, no time limits or usage frequencies were
set. As a direct result of the City approval of 5-19-71, Lot A of 5-19-71 and Lot B of
5-18-71 were sold, irreversibly cutting access to lot B of 5-19-71 except for the
easement over the Brown property. He feels the condition imposed by of the Hearing
Examiner retroactively revokes City approval of 5-19-71. Since the lots sold in 1972
cannot be retrieved, there is no alternative access to Lot 8 of 5-19-71, leaving it
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 February 5, 1985
landlocked without the easement across the Brown property. He said a recent title
report states there is a vested easement over the southern 30 ft. of the Brown
property.
Councilmember Hall asked how a measurement of 30 ft. was determined. Mr. Coomer said
this was established in the original deed when purchased in 1949 by Wood. The easement
was also contained in the deed to Mr. Coomer from Wood. The tract of land owned by the
Browns was sold by Mr. Coomer to Mr. Carlson and the easement was maintained in that
deed. He said the easement was never questioned when he subdivided the property in
1971. He noted that the Browns had acknowledged, during the first hearing, that they
had purchased their property with the easement as a condition of purchase.
Councilmember Kasper asked how Mr. Coomer was able to short -plat twice in the same
year. Mr. Coomer said there was never any problem, he was limited to a 4-lot division.
He said the property was sold to the Browns before it was part of the City. Mr. Block
interjected that this occurred prior to the short -subdivision ordinance and both were
heard by the Planning Commission as standard subdivisions.'
Mayor Naughten asked the following speakers to limit their comments to 5 minutes each.
George Brown, 18019 Andover Rd., owner of the property over which the alleged easement
runs, referred to a letter dated January 31, 1985 from him and his wife addressed to the
City. He said S-19-71 was conditionally approved on August 18, 1971. A condition of
that approval was receipt from Mr.. Coomer, within 90 days, of information relating to
an easement for utilities, which was supplied on May 25, 1972, he said. He raised the
question relative to whether there is a public easement across the property, noting that
the City Attorney had found no dedication of the property by the owners or acceptance by
the City. Mr. Brown said a request for vacation of the easement across Mr. Coomer's
property had elicited a response from the City Attorney that there is nothing to vacate
since there is no public easement. Mr. Brown described the properties under
discussion, using the former transparencies. He said Mr. Coomer owned all of the
property with access to Andover Rd. with access from that road along a 30 ft. access
on the north side of the property. Mr. Brown quoted a law which states that merging of
property erases an easement. He maintained that Lot 8, the property that is currently
under consideration, has been landlocked by Mr. Coomer since he had previous access to
Andover Rd. Mr. Brown mentioned a doctrine of implied reservation of easements which
holds that a landlocked piece of property reserves access across the property from which
it was cut. He said this would provide access to Andover Rd. without the use of the
alleged easement on his property. In summary, Mr. Brown noted that a document was
provided to the Hearing Examiner, within the time allowed for submission of documents ,
which contained arguments supporting his view; these were never indicated in the Hearing
Examiner's report. Also, Mr. Driscoll and Mr. Snyder seem to be in agreement that
according to a recent ruling in the Court of Appeals determination of the title of the
land is vested in the Superior Court. Since the questions raised for both subdivisions
seem to be critical legal points, he urged the City Council to deny any appeal of the
Hearing Examiner's report of November 19, 1984.
Susan Brown, 18019 Andover Rd., agreed with her husband's statements. She referred to a
letter from City Attorney Snyder to Bruce Finke of the Planning Dept., dated October 18,
1984, which concludes on page 3 that the easement is private, not public, and that Mr.
Coomer probably has that easement because of the doctrine of merger that states where a
fee ownership and an easement are in common ownership that the easement merges with the
fee and ceases to exist. She asked the Council to look at the displayed property and
imagine another property to the right of that shown; she said the 30 ft. easement ran
over both the Brown property and the property next to it which were both owned by Mr.
Coomer wiping out the easement in 1956. She suggested that Mr. Snyder should look at
their documents as well as Mr. Coomer's.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the Browns felt about the easement when it appeared on
the title report. She replied that they did not know what it was. When they questioned
it, they were told it was an old easement to the .public that might be used by the City
for utilities. She said they accepted that explanation since they knew nothing about
easements at that time.
Councilmember Kasper asked if the Browns were there when the 1971 short -plat took place.
She replied that they owned the land but had no knowledge of it until September of 1984.
They were not living on the property and received no notification. Councilmember Kasper
asked if the short -plat for 5-19-71, Lot B, was recorded. Ms. Block replied that the
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 February 5, 1985
easements were recorded, but very few subdivisions were recorded at that time. Ms.
Brown reiterated that the one easement was not filed until May of 1972, after the
condition set for the subdivision had lapsed.
Ben Brodie, 8209 181st P1., lives just below the 30 ft. easement. He said it appears
that the Planning Commission want the City Council to determine what they should rely
upon, a title report or what. He said the Council should rely on the decision of the
Hearing Examiner which was against Mr. Coomer. He said the legal questions were the
reason for the Hearing Examiner's decision. In addition, he said the easement goes all
the way across, it does not stop there, and a question is raised as to whether that is a
public or private easement. A decision as to the easement affects the number of lots
that can be developed on the property in question. He suggested that the Council should
not attempt to decide legal matters and should leave them to the Court. He said there
will be many upset citizens if people's private property is being grabbed and given to
someone else.
Robert Hall, 18106 Andover Rd., said his driveway is across Andover from the
hypothetical easement. He said there is a house in front of his house that is on a
substandard lot because it slipped through the cracks. He objects to approval of the
question on the basis of creating 2 substandard lots. In response to a question from
Mayor Naughten in regard to the substandard lot, Mr. Hall said he owns a 16 ft. strip
of land from his lot to Andover Rd. and the lot fronting that 16 ft. strip used the 16
ft. as part of the square footage of his lot to obtain a building permit. He said
there is now a problem of a hostile adversary proceedings for access over his property
and a house on a substandard lot directly in front of his house. He said he is faced
with decisions regarding whether he should create problems for his neighbors but does
not want to grant anyone an easement across his property. At this time he is allowing
them to use it on a $1.00 a year basis, but wonders what will happen when they attempt
to sell the property.
Nancy Brodie, 8209 181st Pl., just south of the 30 ft. easement, is disturbed about who
must pay for the legal costs. As a private citizen, she feels the City is against her
and on the side of the big developer. She believes the City .has retained the City
Attorney to fight on the side of Mr. Coomer. She said the City goes ahead with
subdivision, placing the legal burden on the poor taxpayer who happens to be involved.
She said the issues are very complex and should be decided in the courts; whether the
easement exists and if so, if it is private or public. She said the City has no right
to pay Mr. Coomer's court costs in order to fight Mr. Brown.
Mayor Naughten gave Mr. Coomer an opportunity for rebuttal. Mr. Coomer referred to
the alleged lack of approval for S-19-71 and stated he could never have sold the lots if
there were no approval. He said the subdivision had legal merit and lots could not be
sold without City approval. In reference to the easement, he said Mr. Snyder indicated
it was a private easement; therefore the easement would not extend across his own
property since it dissolves into the property. Mr. Coomer said there is adequate
square footage on the tract to allow 2 lots and a hammerhead turnaround and satisfy the
12,000 square footage requirements. He said he stands on the record; the City admitted
the existence of the easement in 1971. If there had been a problem in 1971, he could
have had access across lot A of S-19-71 and lot B of S-18-71. However, he relied on the
City and expected to use the easement on the Brown property to access Lot B of S-19-71.
He said he believes the City is responsible for landlocking the property if that
question is raised at this time.
Councilmember Kasper asked why the easement was not filed within the 90 day period on
the S-19-71 subdivision. Mr. Coomer said the 30 ft. easement was filed immediately,
the easement filed in May 1972 was a crooked 10 ft. easement for utilities, and he
believes the requirement for filing that easement was requested after the subdivision
hearings. The access easement was filed as requested. Ms. Block clarified that the
utility easement was filed after the 90 day condition.
Councilmember Jaech asked if the easements described on the deeds refer to the 30 ft.
easement under question since they all refer to public use of the easement. Mr. Snyder
said he would be glad to give his opinion, but he cautioned the Council not to attempt
to determine the ownership of the property. He said the question regarding the wording
on the deeds has to do with the use of the word "reservation." A public easement cannot
be reserved, it must be both dedicated and accepted; a private easement can be reserved.
Councilmember Jaech asked if the Council has the option of upholding the Hearing
Examiner's decision, or going against the Hearing Examiner's decision, and wished to
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6 February 5, 1985
know what would happen in each option. Councilmember Hall asked if the Council could
not refuse to hear the appeal until there has been a clarification of some of the
issues. Mr. Snyder said there is no way within the City to determine the necessary
issues. The Council must make a decision to confirm or deny the subdivision application
or approve it conditionally. He said the title report has been accepted at the staff
level of the City. One issue is what the staff should accept initially and another
issue is who has the burden of proof before the Council on the issues raised. He said
there is a something that has created a cloud on Mr. Brown's title. The City
subdivision code requires basically that the issue of access is one that must be
determined. He disagreed that it is the City's fault since the information provided is
from the person making the application. He recommended that the Council base their
decision on the burdens of proof and whether the facts have been established rather than
on whether an easement does or does not exist.
Councilmember Kasper asked if Mr. Coomer had provided a deed from himself to the
Browns. Mr. Coomer replied that he had not sold directly to the Browns but to Mr.
Carlson, who then sold to the Browns. Mr. Coomer included the easement in the deed to
Mr. Carlson but the deed from Mr. Carlson to the Browns did not include the easement.
However, he said the title insurance shows the easement as an encumbrance. He said he
did not know the circumstances of the transfer but was approached by Mr. Carlson to see
if Mr. Coomer would relinquish his interest in the easement, which he was not willing
to do.
Mayor Naughten said Councilmember Kasper had asked if Mr. Brown has any comments. Mr.
Brown commented that presumably the easement was not included in his deed because the
easement was never accepted by the City and hence probably does not exist.
Mayor Naughten closed the hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL OF
MR. COOMER AND APPROVE THE SHORT SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO COMPLYING WITH ALL THE
CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE STAFF ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1984. Councilmember Hall noted that
similar action had been taken on another matter and there are still repercussions 4
years later. She is not sure the Council is ready to make a wise decision at this
point. Councilmember Kasper said he supports the appeal because this is an impasse; the
City and Mr. Coomer as well as Mr. Brown have acted in.good faith. He said the deeds
should be defended by the title company since title was supplied to Mr. Brown and the
court must make the decision.
Councilmember Jaech asked if the motion intends to uphold the staff position versus the
Hearing Examiner decision. She asked for reiteration of the difference between the two
positions. Ms. Block said the staff conditions were to comply with Engineering
requirements, make a flag lot determination of Lot B, and the south edge of the roadway
is to be located at least 3 ft. from the south property line. Councilmember Jaech
asked if that meant the road would be in the same place as the easement shows and is a
condition of the subdivision. On the other hand, she asked if the Hearing Examiner is
saying the subdivision will be approved if the road is there. Ms. Block said the
Hearing Examiner said the matter should be resolved in court. Mr. Snyder elaborated
that accepting the staff position would mean that the Browns would have the burden of
instituting a quiet title action; the Hearing Examiner position would require the
Coomers to assume that burden.
Councilmember Dwyer asked if Mr. Coomer had made application for approval of the egress
and ingress and produced a deed showing an easement. Ms. Block said during the course
of this issue the Planning Dept. has had title reports from two companies, which showed
the easement, and eventually deeds were produced but are not normally required.
Councilmember Dwyer continued that the burden of proof was on Mr. Coomer, and he
produced necessary documents. At a later date, the Browns came in and produced a deed,
which did not include the easement. Ms. Block said she was not sure who furnished the
deed, but it does not show an easement; however, there is a deed from Carlson that does
show the easement. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH COUNCILMEMBERS KASPER AND WILSON
VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS NORDQUIST, DWYER, HALL, JAECH, AND OSTROM VOTING NO. MOTION
FAILED.
Councilmember Dwyer explained that it appears that Mr. Coomer has the burden of proving
ingress and egress, which he has done by providing a facially valid document.
Countervailing this, he said, the Browns have produced a facially valid document showing
he cannot have ingress and egress across their property. Not believing the Council can
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7 February 5, 1985
go further than that to resolve the dispute, he sees it as a tie. Being a tie the
burden is again upon Mr. Coomer to prevail, and he believes the Hearing Examiner made
the correct decision. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO
APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY THE HEARING
EXAMINER. Councilmember Kasper noted that he would vote against the motion for the same
reasons stated for making his motion. He said it appears the title company admitted an
easement and in light of that it is incumbent on the title company to support Mr.
Brown's position and Mr. Coomer does not have that luxury, since he depended on the
City. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBERS KASPER AND WILSON VOTING NO. Mr. Snyder
asked for instruction to reduce the Council decision to writing and have the Mayor sign
it:. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO INSTRUCT THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO REDUCE THE DECISION TO WRITING AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN IT. MOTION
CARRIED.
PRESENTATION BY EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL
Harry Hutchins, member of the Board of the Edmonds Arts Museum, expressed appreciation
for the opportunity to speak to the Council on their behalf. He said the visible
aspects of the Edmonds Arts Museum are the Museum in the Anderson Center and the annual
Edmonds Arts Festival. He noted that the Festival had found a home in the Anderson
Center and has been able to grow and attract artists as well as patrons. The Museum is
now in a position to do long range planning and expend some of the moneys taken in. He
expressed the concern that the growing competition for the Anderson Center may impact
their ability to conduct the Arts Festival as they wish. He indicated that there has
been excellent support from the Staff. He said the festival would like to call the
Anderson Center its home and asked for a commitment or statement from the Council as to
their position. Will the City assure that the Arts Festival can call the Anderson
Center its home and have priority for use of that facility during the period of time in
May and June needed for the Festival? Mayor Naughten asked how long they wished to
assure that use. Mr. Hutchins replied that 8-10, or 99 years would be appreciated. In
response to a question from Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Hutchins said they are not having
problems with space, but there can be changes in staff and councils as well as
organizational changes. He said the demands on the staff are to fill the Anderson
Center and the Festival would like to have a priority during the time needed.
Councilmember Jaech suggested that a long-term lease may be appropriate to provide the
assurance they seem to be seeking. Mr. Snyder said short of an actual lease, there
would be no way the Council could commit itself or any future council. Councilmember
Jaech asked the staff to work with the Festival to formulate a lease that could be
presented to the Council. Councilmember Hall said there have been some problems in the
past regarding ball games or lack of room space, which she attributes to lack of
communication. She said certain rooms would have to be set aside for certain days prior
to the Festival and the field will have to be non-scheduled. She suggested that the
lease be very explicit. She supports the Festival as a community wide effort that
brings people into Edmonds.
Councilmember Nordquist asked how large .the Festival plans to grow, since size
parameters should also be a part of any lease. Mr. Hutchins said they have determined
they are about the size they wish to be; the consensus being they wish to grow in
quality. He said they believe the size of the Anderson Center is just about right.
Councilmember Wilson noted that the Festival had used from 11,000 to 16,000 square feet
in the past and suggested they determine the amount they will need to be included in the
lease. Mr. Hutchins said they have determined when they need certain rooms and
believes they will be able to do that. Councilmember Wilson added that the Edmonds Arts
Festival is a most favored customer and their efforts are appreciated. Mr. Snyder
asked that guidelines be given on maximum length of the commitment, whether a monetary
commitment is wanted from the Festival, any maximum limitation on the size, etc.
Councilmember Ostrom asked that the staff formulate a recommendation and return to the
Council. Mayor Naughten said Parks and Recreation Director Steve Simpson and he would
work with the Edmonds Arts Museum Board and draft a lease to be presented to the Council
on February 26. Mr. Hutchins said there may have been some problems verbalized in the
heat of production, but there has always been a very good relationship with the staff
and the City. He said there are no negative feelings on the part of the Board.
REQUEST BY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR ADVERTISEMENT IN "TRAVEL WASHINGTON" PROMOTION ($1,1§
JoAnn Stevens, Chairperson of the Tourism Committee of the Edmonds Chaiaber of Commerce,
was present to request funding of advertising in the Travel Washington directory. She
believes choice of the publication was a wise and considered judgement. She noted that
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page '8 February 5, 1985
tourism will make a great impact upon Edmonds during the coming era; a major source of
income in the State of Washington. Development of tourism must be a partnership between
the public and private sector, she added. Emphasizing the need for proper planning, she
mentioned the cooperative efforts of the Chamber and the Arts Festival. The placement
of this advertisement in the Travel Washington directory will move toward continuation
of that effort. There would be 500,000 copies printed and distributed, they are free
since the advertising pays for publication. She expects that advertising from Edmonds
will fill 2 pages in the publication.
Councilmember Wilson asked if Edmonds had helped with this in the past. Ms. Stevens
said this is the first and that this is a target year since the publication will go out
to all the planners of Expo 86. She corrected the amount needed to fund the
advertisement, $1,187.50 which represents a 5% discount. Councilmember Kasper asked
what part the City has played in such projects in the past, such as the Christmas
decorations matching funds. Mayor Naughten said the City has paid part of the costs.
Ms. Stevens responded that mostly City funds were used in producing the Edmonds
brochure. She added that in her study of the responsibility of tourism, she has found
it is a Chamber responsibility to promote tourism and it is usually funded by the City.
Councilmember Wilson said the Governor had increased his budget for tourism from $11
million to $19 million today. Councilmember Hall asked if this were a one year project
or if the Council should be considering this on an annual basis for budget
consideration. Ms. Stevens said she was requesting a one time funding but could be
returning next year with another request. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO MATCH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OR ANY OTHER SOURCE FOR 50% OF THE
FUNDING FOR THE ADVERTISEMENT, AND TO DRAFT AN APPROPRIATE CONTRACT. MOTION CARRIED
WITH COUNCILMEMBER WILSON AND OSTROM VOTING NO.
Councilmember Hall explained that she had voted yes because she felt half was better
than none. Councilmember Wilson said he had voted no because he felt the City should
pay the entire amount. Ms. Stevens said the Chamber does not have the money for the
matching portion, but she believes in it so strongly she will accept half and will fund
raise to find the other half. Councilmember Nordquist said when the Council receives
the contract, they will fund the other half. Councilmember Ostrom said he may still be
stinging from the budget discussions of 1984. He voted against the motion because he
does not believe there is any money to be given to the Chamber or any other group. He
believes the tax money given to these groups should be directed toward City projects.
He does not believe money should be going to the Chamber or similar groups and will
continue to vote against such motions in the future.
Councilmember Wilson disagreed since the Council represent the people of the City and
have an obligation to enhance the City through means including supporting the Chamber
and their efforts. He said the City represents a larger source of funds from the
taxpayers and many of the taxpayers are interested in what the Chamber is doing. He
said the Council should take a leadership position.
Councilmember Kasper said he had made the motion because he believes the City should
step out and be a catalyst in these matters.
Councilmember Hall suggested that Councilmember Ostrom will get over the sting and
consider how the money is returned to the City, seven -fold. She said it does take seed
money to reap money and expressed her hope that he would not shut everything out
automatically but would weigh each request on its merit. Councilmember Ostrom said the
funds in question are public funds and the City is subsidizing .private enterprise and
that is not the function of City government.
APPROVAL OF MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELD AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF LYNNWOOD AND EDMONDS SCHOOL
DISTRICT ($120,000)
Parks and Recreation Director Steve Simpson noted that RCW 39.34 provides the ability to
sign interlocal agreements with other public entities to provide public services and
share resources. The agreement discussed last week was such an agreement. The changes
suggested by the Council last week have been incorporated into the agreement before the
Council, he said. Councilmember Jaech asked if the City Attorney were satisfied with
the contract. Mr. Snyder said the contract says what it will do; its weakest point is
the indemnification agreement and he can see no way to clean it up. Councilmember Jaech
asked if the value of the land had been determined. Mr. Simpson said the value was
established at $800,000, on a lease contract over the period of 40 years it would come
to over $2.5 million.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 9 February 5, 1985
Councilmember Kasper favors the agreement but pointed out this is not a real estate
transaction. He said it is conceivable that the School District could, at any time,
cancel the agreement with appropriate compensation. He added that the only time the
fields can be controlled will be after 6 p.m. and on weekends. He said he is bothered
that lights will be installed toward the end of the project and new housing will be
built, conceivably presenting a problem similar to that experienced at the Civic Center
playfield. He also noted that an EIS clause has been added. In measuring the values
being invested by all parties, he said the $620,000 being invested over 5 years compares
favorably with the $750,000 to $850,000 value of the property. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO ACCEPT THE AGREEMENT AS PROPOSED AND AUTHORIZE
THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT. Councilmember Jaech noted that the Council should be
aware they are agreeing to funding $120,000 over the next 5 years. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Naughten announced that the City has received notification of approval of $148,000
for the Meadowdale Athletic Complex Handicapped improvements for the rest rooms.
APPROVAL OF CITY PARTICIPATION IN METRO SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITIES STUDY ($25,510)
Community Services Director Peter Hahn said there had been 2 occurrences since the last
discussion of this subject. The Council had approved participation of the City in the
Coalition for Clean Water, he said; one platform of the Coalition was support for a $450
million bond issue that would help with funding of secondary treatment. Mr. Hahn said
the Governor has developed a policy in support of a nearly identical bill. With bills
favored by both the legislative and executive branches of government, it provides a
better opportunity for help in the future. A second occurrence was contact from the
Department of Ecology that the order to go to secondary treatment on a specific schedule
will be issued on May 15. He said Metro is on a compliance schedule and he has had
conversations with them regarding converting Edmonds' sewage to Metro in order to be
able to make a decision. Former studies have concluded both that it was favorable to go
to Metro and that it was not a good idea. Two important assumptions have changed since
the 1979 unfavorable report. The economic feasibility arguments in the 1979 study were
based on the availability of 90% outside funding for secondary treatment. The option
compared had very high construction costs of which 90% was paid, leaving very small
payments for Edmonds rate players. The option of going to Metro did not have 90%
funding and did not look good in comparison. Today, he said, funding is different and
there may be 50% available and these numbers should be reconsidered. A second change is
the fact that going to secondary treatment was a somewhat discretionary action and today
the City is specifically directed and required to go to secondary treatment. A study of
the Metro option would be required in doing a facilities plan, he noted, and the best
way to study the option is through their consultant. They will be looking at two
factors: 1. That the rates Metro customers will be paying will not be higher by
including Edmonds; 2. That Edmonds rates will not be higher than if Edmonds stayed in
their own plant. He said his discussion with Metro was to determine the minimal study
that could be done to enable Edmonds to make a decision in 1985 of go, no go. At some
point both Metro and Edmonds will see the break out and be able to make a choice. He
said for $25,000 Edmonds will get to that point. A description of the tasks involved
are complete and detailed in the agreement, as well as the costs. If this agreement is
approved, Edmonds will still have their side of the analysis to complete for comparison
to the Metro option, he added. In the event the Council felt there was no possible
likelihood they would go with the Metro option, he said, this would be a high risk
option and they would not want to spend this much. He said there is no guarantee that
this option would work. He said he was attempting to demonstrate the risks as well as
the benefits. He recommended that the Mayor be directed to execute the contract with
Metro.
Councilmember Jaech said the City Attorney had had a chance to look at the agreement.
Because of the expenditure facing the City in the near future, she believes it is
necessary to have all the information that can be gathered brought before the Council in
order to make a good decision. Therefore, because Metro is one of the options that must
be considered, whether that option is chosen or not, COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED
FOR DISCUSSION 8Y COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE THE EXPENDITURE OF $25,510 FOR THE
STUDY AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN METRO AND THE CITY.
Councilmember Kasper supports the request because Edmonds has become the largest
sewerage processor in South County. Because of the growth to the north and east, he
believes Edmonds is quickly reaching its capability to take care of the problem or be
the lead agency. He does not think a Metro should be formed in Snohomish County. This
study will reveal whether Metro will provide an opportunity for Edmonds to divert some
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 10 February 5, 1985
sewerage to them. Mayor Naughten added that Edmonds might be able to sell some surplus
property if Metro accepted some of the sewage. Councilmember Wilson asked if this study
will be superficial and a more in=depth study will be done later if the option looks
good. Mr. Hahn said it is not superficial, the numbers will provide a sensitivity
analysis which can be used to correct changing factors. The study will provide the
figures necessary to determine whether the Metro option is viable. He said if the
proposal makes sense it will be developed more fully with a total cost of $56,000 for
both studies. If Metro Edmonds should join Metro, the rates would include the cost of
the total engineering package, with the proviso that Metro will study the option to the
County line; a modification has been made that may include a "dowry" of Edmonds going a
little over the County line. This "dowry" may make the rates attractive to Metro.
Councilmember Ostrom asked if the figures for secondary treatment in Edmonds would be
developed at the same time and who would be doing that work. Mr. Hahn replied that
that was correct, both studies will be done simultaneously. He said solicitations for
letters of interest have gone out and the consultant selection will be done. He noted
that an update of the 1979 facilities plan will be used as a basis. Councilmember
Ostrom asked the location of the Metro plant. Mr. Hahn said the study will determine
the best way to tie in; there are two options, the McAleer trunk or a larger Richmond
Beach plant, which both go to West Point. He added that if a Kenmore plant should be
built, that might be a third option. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Council President Nordquist asked the Council's pleasure in deciding the committee
assignments. He explained that a list of assignments could be included in the Council
packets for next meeting affording each member an opportunity to indicate their choices.
The Council indicated that would be agreeable with them.
MAYOR
Mayor Naughten announced that the Planning Board Hearing on Highway 99 will be February
13.
The Mayor asked for Council confirmation of two appointments. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE THE CONFIRMATION OF LLOYD L. BLACK TO
POSITION 3 OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1988; AND DOROTHY
WILLIAMSON TO POSITION 3 OF THE CEMETERY BOARD, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1985.
-MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Naughten proclaimed the month of February, 1985 as "Adopt a Resident Month at
Edmonds Villa Care Center", inviting citizens to "Share Your Heart" by "adopting" a
resident.
The Mayor informed the Council that the Table Top Disaster exercise held January 31 at
10:00 a.m. had been very successful and the City had been saved.
Mayor Naughten announced that projects being recommended by the Block Grant Coordinator
include: Handicap improvements to Bracketts' Landing, Yost Pool and City Park -
$115,000; Structural improvements to Edmonds' Boys/Girls Club - $65,000; and Handicap
improvements to Meadowdale Athletic Complex - $148,000.
The Mayor said notification had been received from Snohomish County Dept. of
Corrections that the Washington State Corrections Standards Board found Snohomish County
in non-compliance with State law with regard to jail population; the County was given
until February 28 to comply. He said Councilmember Hall, Chief Prinz, and he had
attended the meeting where they were told there was no good answer to the problem, even
though there are several options available. Councilmember Hall interjected that
comments were made that the new jail will quickly reach capacity, also; there may have
to be a review of philosophy in this regard. Mayor Naughten said a Criminal Justice
Advisory Board was established with 35 members, 2 from Edmonds, to look at systems,
fees, etc., in an attempt to hold down the population.
Mayor Naughten said there are 2 applications for a liquor license, one for the Midori
Restaurant at 9910 Edmonds Way. He said the second is from Don's at Milltown, 201 Fifth
Ave. S. Both applications have been investigated by the Police Dept. and Chief Prinz
recommends approval. The Council had no objections.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 11 February 5, 1985
COUNCIL
Councilmember Jaech discussed an article in the Herald regarding satellite dishes and
asked the City Attorney to provide information to tie Council on this issue.
Councilmember Jaech reported that the Esperance group has been reactivated because of
the City's attempt to use the Chase Lake property for City storage. She said they are
very irate with the City and reiterated that she does not favor utilization of that
property in the middle of a residential area for Public Works storage. Councilmember
Jaech suggested that Edmonds explore the possibility.of using the joint
Lynnwood -Mountlake Terrace Public Works, facility for storage.
Councilmember Dwyer reported that more than 90 days has elapsed since the instruction to
report on the Olympic School project bond issue date. Councilmember Wilson said the
committee is awaiting an appraisal and cannot do anything until then. Councilmember
Dwyer said he was just interested in keeping people aware of what is happening.
Councilmember Kasper objected to moving Council meetings to Monday evenings because of
the problems created with the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO RESCHEDULE DISCUSSION OF RECLASSIFICATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
MANAGERS TO FEBRUARY 19 AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
Since it was now 10:00 p.m., COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NORDQUIST, TO REOPEN THE MEETING FOR COMPLETION OF THE AGENDA, MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kasper said he has not received the minutes on the Woodway gate issue. He
would like to have them.
Councilmember Nordquist said the cable television station had carried last week's agenda
through this evening, again. He complimented the Edmonds View paper, saying their
exposure is great, and he believes the paper should be considered for publication of _
notices by the City when it has grown a little more.
Councilmember Nordquist read the proposed agenda for the Spring Council Retreat on April
12 and 13. Councilmember Jaech asked that determination of policies for the City had
been suggested in the past for discussion at the Retreat. Councilmember Wilson remarked
that the list is impressive; he would like to see time for a session on dreaming about
where the City should be in 1993. In regard to the dates and time, Councilmember Kasper
suggested that the Council meet most of Saturday rather than dismissing at.noon.
Councilmember Hall attended the ground breaking ceremony for the .Learning Resource
High -Tech Center recently. She expressed pride that Edmonds Community College was a
catalyst for this; they are living up to the name "Community" College. The Center will
be training people for the high-tech industry.
Councilmember Hall commented on the meeting with the corrections problem. She asked
Chief Prinz to keep the Council informed on developments.
Councilmember Ostrom read a proposal from Councilmember Dwyer and himself concerning the
granting of the powers of initiative and referendum to the citizens of Edmonds. He
commented on the unusual interest evidenced by the people of Edmonds in the affairs of
their City. They believe this move would encourage a higher degree of citizen
involvement and participation with an end result that can be nothing other than
positive. They recommend that the City Attorney research the ramifications of granting
this power to the public, that it be discussed on a Council agenda and the Council
pursue the process of turning this power into something established by City.code.
Councilmember Ostrom distributed copies of the memorandum to other members of the
Council. Mayor Naughten scheduled the question for discussion on the March 12, 1985
agenda.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 12 February 5, 1985
1
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO MOVE THE MEADOWDALE
ISSUE TO FEBRUARY 19 FOR FULL COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting was recessed to Executive session to consider a personnel matter at 10:15 p.m.,
adjourning at 10:30 p.m.
JAC ELINE G. PARRETT, City Clerk L G N, aror
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 13 February 5, 1985