Loading...
05/02/1995 City CouncilApproved City Counci8finutes Approved May 16, 1995 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES MAY 25 1995 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Laura Hall in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Laura Hall, Mayor Tom Petruzzi, Council President William J. Kasper, Councilmember Michael Hall, Councilmember Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Roger L. Myers, Councilmember Barbara Fahey, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Tom Miller, Police Chief Michael Springer, Fire Chief Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Art Housler, Administrative Services Director Paul Mar, Community Services Director Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor Rob Chave, Planning Manager Noel Miller, Public Works Supervisor Jim Walker, City Engineer Gordy Hyde, Engineering Consultant Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, Deputy City Clerk Rhonda March, City Clerk Christine Laws, Recorder Mayor Hall asked City Clerk Rhonda March to introduce our sign translators. Ms. March introduced Tondalea Downer and Debbie Hammon and reminded the audience of the City's willingness to accommodate disabilities if the staff is aware of the need. Port Commissioner Don Stay was recognized. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Bill Kasper asked to add as Agenda Item 9B a discussion of the train speed appeal. COUNCIL PRESIDENT .TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER ROGER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI, TO DEFER ITEM B WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 25 MINUTES BECAUSE OF A NEED FOR CLARIFICATION. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda item deferred is as follows: (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 25,1995 Councilmember Bill Kasper pulled Item D because he wanted to oppose it. Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 1 COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items passed are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL 114\ y (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #951118 THRU #952149 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL24, 1995 C� �'to IN THE AMOUNT OF $247,426.17 t 010 (E) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM ROBERT PAYNE, JR. AND RUTH PAYNE, AND atY'D f 6 p RYAN AND LYNDA PAYNE AT 23216 76TH AVENUE WEST FOR PAYNE SHORT PLAT #S-92-262 STREET DEDICATION (F) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FROM HEARING OF APRIL 18, 1995 ON ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION TO DENY AN APPLICATION (o F 96 33 FOR A FREE STANDING SIGN AS PART OF AN OVERALL APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERMITS AP. AT 7711 LAKE BALLINGER WAY (Applicant/Appellant: The Carpet Shop / File No. AP-95-33 / ADB-95-18) Gy (G) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FROM HEARING OF f i A p Rai 9 APRIL 18, 1995 ON HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE OF 9 �,3 TOTAL REQUIRED STREET SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 17 FEET AT 7309 164TH PL, S.W. A p- (Applicant/Appellant: John Gough / File No. AP-95-39 / V-95-9) yn/AtER (II) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE WATER MAIN LOCATOR FROM ACKLEY TOOL COMPANY P'00A66 LD ($3,766.00 INCLUDING SALES TAX) M y�A�,cE (1) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN 1995-96 ON -GOING TESTING SERVICE AGREEMENTS WITH HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, AND BOSS AND MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS, INC. A (J) AUTHORIZATION FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES COORDINATOR TO ATTEND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF LOCAL ARTS AGENCIES CONFERENCE (NALAA) Councilmember Kasper pulled Item D because he wished to vote no for the reasons stated at budget time. COUNCILMEMBER DAVID EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI, TO APPROVE ITEM D. COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER VOTED NO. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda item approved is as follows: fpatf (D) APPROVAL OF TEAMSTERS' UNION LOCAL #763 LABOR CONTRACT LAtvp% 3. AUDIENCE Jeff Oaklief, 169 Etruria, is the Vice -Chairman of the Architectural Design Board. He wished to discuss ADB 95-18 dealing with a reader board sign at the Carpet Shop as discussed by the Council on April 18. He respects the decision to overturn the ADB ruling, but he wished to make some clarifications. He discussed the R D�' height and bulk standards for the sign code; the fact that there has not been a review by the ADB for Edmonds velopment ce, or ineering and the Fire t for life safety RE"AR,u issues; Community foeCounc 1 the tual vote on the issue before a the Board; discussed Staffscommentat the �t&O Council meeting that it does not recommend projects before the Board; corrected Council information to indicate that this was a BC zone and not a heavy commercial site; and reminded Council that the zoning in the Bowl area is identical to the zoning of this site -- BC. Syd Locke, 110 Pine Street, indicated he had not yet received the answers to his questions on the City Park. `Y He spoke with Arvilla Ohlde last Wednesday, and has not heard anything. He was expecting something from ,t,K. Pat Harris. Mayor Hall said that when he hung up he was explicit in the fat he was going to call him. Mr. Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 2 Locke said he did call, that Mr. Harris was in the field, and that he had not yet received a call. He feels he is getting a runaround. Mayor Hall invited him to City Hall. Natalie Shippen, 1020 Euclid, desired to speak on ferry terminals and public hearings. The Point Edwards site N� has been declared the desired site for the terminal. She does not believe that a good site for a terminal that will �60' t�All take millions of dollars to be made usable. Ms. Shippen thinks the Mid -Waterfront site to be a destructive /plk g alternative with two additional problems. The Pine Street Unocal access that is proposed strikes her as being yt� unreal because it would take the Unocal people millions of dollars to clean up their polluted site for it to be valuable. Unless it is going to be used for the Point Edwards ferry terminal they are not going to look with favor on a five -lane street cutting their valuable property in half. She doesn't think that access to a Mid - Waterfront site is very realistic. The Mid -Waterfront site would cost millions more than the Point Edwards site. She declared the Mid -Waterfront site an unlikely fall -back position. She thinks the real fall -back terminal site will be the existing access. She thinks there are exact plans now in the works for permanent developments on that site and the Memorandum of Understanding never proposed any permanent developments on that site. In fact, it was quite careful to say that Edmonds should discourage that kind of development and encourage a permanent facility at that site. The plans have never been seen by any Edmonds residents and were not available at the open house last week where the Mid -Waterfront and Point Edwards site were discussed in great detail. No one knows what is actually going in at the existing terminal, if permitted. In response to last week's Council inquiry, Ms. Shippen advised that the Washington State Ferry System does not hold hearings. It may have open houses or public meetings, and its staff may be there to inform you as to what is going to be done, but only the City Council has public hearings. If it wants to hear about what is going on with the existing terminal, it has to set a public hearing. She urged a public hearing on the existing site and at the same time have WSF personnel there to explain what they are doing just as was done with Bell -Walker in the other transportation plans. Regardless of what the stand is on the existing terminal, at least people will know what is happening. She feels that a primary responsibility of the City Council. Mel Critchley, 705 Driftwood Place, brought for "show and tell" a gas mask. He then proceeded with a discussion for Council on various issues concerning the transporting of chlorine gas through Edmonds and the potential difficulties and dangers brought about by a spill or leak. He passed out to Council some supporting S pEE material. Mr. Critchley does not want a train speed increase and hopes another hearing will be held. He also acknowledged that the government is accepting nuclear waste from 24 different foreign countries which is described as the most dangerous substance on the face of the earth, and that would be going through Edmonds at the same time. 4. PRESENTATION TO CANINE OFFICER DON ANDERSON AND RETIREMENT OF POLICE DOG SHADOW Police Chief Tom Miller preceded his presentation by advising Council that the TV people had had to leave due pF to technical difficulties. Pp� Chief Miller then introduced Officer Don Anderson, his wife Julie (a Mountlake Terrace police officer), and 000 Canine Shadow. He recognized Don and Shadow for their performance as a team over the last few years. He 69004 explained the decision to retire Shadow after six years service as part of a downsize. Chief Miller noted that Shadow originally came from the Waddell family of Edmonds for the sum of $1 in 1989. He gave additional history on Shadow's time on the department. Shadow has been with Officer Anderson for two and a half years. They have done a terrific job. Many stories can be told of captures. Chief Miller presented an anonymously donated Medal for Meritorious Service on Behalf of the Community to Officer Anderson and Canine Shadow for six years of meritorious service and loyalty to the Edmonds Police Department. Shadow has been sold to Officer and Mrs. Anderson for the sum of $1. Shadow took his bows center stage. Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 3 1 5. MEETING WITH JOYCE OL_SON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR COMMUNITY ' TRANSIT P ,off �y At Mayor Hall's request, Councilmember Dave Earling who serves on the Community Transit board introduced �A Joyce Olson, Executive Director for Community Transit, and provided a short but glowing biography. He also introduced John Synzinski who is the new Director of Planning. Ms. Olson said the main reason for their being before Council was to introduce themselves as being new to the area and to provide faces to go with the names. She invited questions or concerns to be addressed to them. She went on to describe some of what has been going on since her arrival nine months ago. She advised that Mr. Synzinski is also Deputy Director of Marketing. She brought him along because he is the one who interfaces with City Staff more than anyone and because he is responsible for park and ride lots, bus stops, benches, and those types of issues. The new Deputy Director of Administration is Mike Perry, and the new Deputy Director of Operations is Michael Ford. Delivery has been taken on 30 new buses which are 40' fliers with easier ADA access through lower ground clearance as well as wheelchair ramp. These buses went into service on February 26 when revenue service was increased by about 119 hours a day. In December it was also increased by 19 hours a day. With those two service increases, service has been increased by 30%. They are also attempting aggressive marketing to promote the new services. Ms. Olson went on to say that Mr. Synzinski's department is tasked with developing a six -year transit development plan which is supposed to be finished in July. They are looking at all revenues and what can be done in the next six years as far as service improvements are concerned. Alternative types of services are also being considered. Mr. Synzinski expressed pleasure at being with Community Transit which he believes to be a strong organization and one of the most successful public transit systems in the nation. Part of his role is the community outreach in terms of bus stops, shelters, and service requirements. He has met with the Chamber of Commerce and concepts of a circulator shuttle have been discussed. It was a very positive meeting. He looks forward to working with Council. Council President Petruzzi initiated discussion of the use of the transit tunnel in downtown Seattle. It was explained that because of the special type of bus needed, and the expense related thereto, that they cannot utilize that facility at this time. Councilmember Hall followed up on the status of the bus -front bike racks. CT is going back to its board next month to ask for direction on that issue as they do want to put them back on the buses. Ms. Olson thinks there is a definite market, so much that more racks need to be purchased. Councilmember Kasper asked whether there were plans for a larger commuter system within the county. Ms. Olson responded they have quite a bit of service like that and about nine months ago completed a system market research study which told them the growing market is the suburb to suburb commute. The market to Seattle will continue to grow, but the biggest market is inside the county. Looking at those services will be a big part of Mr. Synzinski's effort in the transit development plan. They are also looking at alternatives to fixed routes such as custom bus, custom van, ride sharing, etc. 6. HEARING ON PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF AREAS SURROUNDING AND INCLUDING V1.OD SHERWOOD VILLAGE. WOODWAY MEADOWS & HOLIDAY HILL (File No. AX-95-24) 50 y�� Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson used an overhead to show the combined areas of annexation. He described the 41t, va history of the various segments of the annexation requests. He told Council it had been presented with four alternative resolutions: first, Sherwood Village (which is known as Sherwood Village, Holiday Hill, Woodway FIAO Meadows); second, Forest Glen, Autumn Place (encompasses other areas); third, a combined process taking both of those annexations together and incorporating them into one annexation proposal for Sherwood Village - Forest Glen -Autumn Place; and the fourth combines the first two which basically forwards to the Boundary Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 4 Review Board the resolution for Sherwood Village as well as the resolution for the Autumn Place -Forest Glen areas, but they would be separate actions with separate votes and each determined independently. Mr. Wilson told Council that all of the resolutions indicate that comparable zoning would be adopted. He called attention to Council packets which include a map of what those designations are. Virtually the entire area is single-family with one small exception at the corner of Firdale Avenue and 100th where there is a small triangular piece which used to be a gas station which is zoned in the county as neighborhood business which would convert to the City BN. Mr. Wilson further reported that he has precinct results from the last two elections that occurred in 1980 and 1989 when the entire area of Esperance was looked at as one complete annexation. Councilmember Hall asked to see the precinct results. Mr. Wilson prefaced his response by commenting that his two overheads were based on 1989 information, with 1989 precinct boundaries which are different from today's. In actuality, the overhead maps encompass 90% of the areas. He described the areas in detail and then explained the differences in today's boundaries. Councilmember Earling questioned breakdowns on what was contained within the revenues and expenses contained in Exhibit 10. Art Housler took over for this portion of questioning. Discussion concerned revisions in some of the numbers contained thereon, that after 1997 expenses and revenues will be pretty much consistent, and that expenses included policemen for the first two months of the year, and he gave the breakdown of an additional 20.5 people to be incorporated from various departments as well as all related expenses to the police, fire and balance of the staff, and the addition of 10 fire personnel. Mr. Housler went on to remind Council there is an Executive Session next week for 45 minutes to go over the status of negotiations and the expenses and revenues from those annexed areas as well as across to the fire station. In information gathered there can then be gathered into these numbers. Councilmember Myers confirmed that there was no CPI increases included in either revenues or expenditures. Councilmember Barbara Fahey questioned Exhibit correspondence to indicate that there is more support. the Council, but no additional petitions. 9 and where there were any further petitions or There are a few letters which the Clerk will provide to Mayor Hall opened the public portion of the hearing by summarizing the additional letters received, all in favor of the annexations. Letters were received from Ralph Larson, Natalie Webber, Larry Wiley, Curt and Patricia Moen, Clarice Duffy, Dennis Duffy, and Ed Huntley. Betty Thompson, 10222 - 244th S.W., lives in what has been designated as Section B and has for over 40 years. She cited four reasons in favor of annexation: 1) lower taxes, 2) dealing with local government officials without a long distance charge and with a short commute and free parking, 3) there would be police protection only a few minutes away which would be an improvement over one sheriffs deputy, and 4) they can be part of the local government. Ms. Thompson advised Councilmember Fahey that they have had a limited grassroots effort and that between the last time this was on the agenda and tonight there was not time to distribute flyers. If they are approved for potential annexation they will assure Council that they will indeed have a meeting with Edmonds officials and give everyone in the neighborhood an opportunity to be heard and ask questions. Kevin O'Morrison, 10120 - 240th Place S.W., lives in an area known as Ardenwood which is located in Section B. Though his major question had already been answered by Mr. Housler, Mr. O'Morrison noted that at the April 18 meeting City Attorney Scott Snyder had talked about bond indebtedness and asked if the purchase of the new city hall would create a bond indebtedness. Mr. housler responded that it would be financed by councilmanic bonds paid off by real estate excise taxes and not through additional taxes. Don Melton, 24232 - 100th West, is a 33-year resident. He indicated he would really appreciate the excellent local police department. His biggest reservation is not wanting to replace homes with multi -family residences. Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 5 He asked if rezoning for multi -family dwellings would create more taxes. Mr. Housler indicated that it would because the value of the property goes up by the size of the building. Mr. Melton is against annexation. City Attorney Snyder noted that the resolution before the Council would provide for comparable zoning to be established by the City as is presently enjoyed in the county. Ivar Eines, 10530 Nottingham Road, has lived in Sherwood Village for 33 years. This was his third time before the Council. He and the group he represents welcome Area B, and he expressed hope that Council would permit them in. He doesn't see how it makes any difference whether it is done in two parts or one. He is very much in favor of annexation. He feels that those who are concerned that the City hasn't put a park where the old Woodway Grade School is, if they look around at the number of parks the County has put in in the last 30 years, they will find none. Fred Thompson, spoke to Don Melton's questions about apartments and condos. He expressed confusion over why there is a problem with Edmonds when you can readily see what the County has done. He feels that where they had nothing to say about the County, they would have a lot to say about the City. City Clerk Rhonda March reported that the time allotted for the hearing had run out. Council President Petruzzi suggested that the public portion be closed, the matter remanded to Council for an approximate 10 minute Council deliberation. He asked for and received Council consensus. Mayor Hall closed the public portion. Councilmember Hall advised that there were ADA hearing devices available if anyone was having difficulty hearing the proceedings. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the City had a history of changing zonings. Neither he nor Mr. Wilson knew of any in the last three or four years and both felt the City protective of its zoning. It was noted that some of the houses that were replaced by apartments in downtown were previously zoned for multi -family. Council President Petruzzi noted that Council already knows it can meet its goal requirements as set forth by Growth Management without rezoning any of our single-family properties into multi -family properties. City Attorney Snyder supplied additional comment. As Council is aware, the City is in the process of negotiating an interlocal agreement with Snohomish County regarding the annexation areas. In the draft he has reviewed, the County has requested that the City provide assurances that if the City reduces the density it will provide information on how it will be picked up, but not even the County is concerned about the City increasing the density. Mayor Hall asked Mr. Wilson if he had figures on how many parcels were available for multi development. Mr. Wilson did not have a ready answer. However, he thinks Council has seen a lot of that information because it has been in the midst of completing the Comprehensive Plan. As part of that, we have looked at the land use section and have identified areas that are currently zoned multi -family and single-family. Mr. Wilson reiterated Messrs. Snyder and Petruzzi's comments that the City has the capacity to meet all of its target population without having to change density throughout the city or within any area. The philosophy has been to protect single-family areas as much as possible, and there have not been any changes in that area. Most of the changes to multi -family occur in the city has been in the downtown corridor which has been zoned multi- family for some time. It is in the process of transition. City Attorney Snyder plugged the Association of Washington Cities' efforts to get Initiative 164 on the ballot. Any citizen who is concerned about controlling density and making sure that they are not living next to an adult entertainment center, a rendering plant or a highrise building will be well advised to sign Petition 164 to get it on the ballot and consider the vote in that context. Mayor Hall emphasized that we have been going through the growth management principles for several years now. The legislature has voted in 164, and we are at risk of losing all this work. She urged all to get out and sign the petitions. She feels it a serious issue and spoke to several of the legislators before they took the vote. One told her after it was voted in it could be refined. Mayor Hall has concerns about hat process because of the time element involved in refining anything like that. Councilmember Fahey advised it was actually Initiative 48; it is an initiative process and not the 164 that was considered. It will have a new number. She will bring information regarding that. It was determined that the Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 6 density and anticipated growth of the entire Esperance area will be equal to that of Edmonds. Mr. Wilson reiterated that Staff is confident that there will not be a need to increase the density in the Esperance area. Councilmember Fahey indicated she tends to favor Exhibit 9 which gives both areas an opportunity to vote on it. She feels both areas should undergo an annexation procedure under Exhibit 9 which holds each area as a separate vote and requires that Area A come in for Area B to be brought in. Councilmember Earling expressed appreciation for the effort in getting these numbers before the Council. He supports having the issue voted on. His concern is bottom line numbers working out. He explained to the audience that a major issue with which the City is dealing right now is negotiations with Fire District No. 1 and how there can be a better working arrangement between the two entities. He advised that Council is scheduled next week for a 45 minute Executive Session so it can better understand the financial impact of the negotiations on that area. He asked based on the merit of what they have brought, and looking at the numbers that Staff has brought, how can Council give them assurance it is interested in them and, at the same time, he wants to have all the numbers and their impacts on the City before making any final decisions. Councilmember Myers agreed that while he would like to see the area annexed, he would like to see what it will cost the City after negotiations with the Fire District before voting one way or the other. City Attorney Snyder advised that as Council is aware, this is simply giving notice to the County so that we can begin the process given the lengthy BRB review period and the necessity to get this matter on the ballot certainly merits prompt consideration of the resolution. He thinks the answer to the question lies in the structure of the state statute which, even assuming you pass the resolution tonight, there were favorable votes in the area and the BRB approves it, the final decision is always that of the City Council which does not actually annex this property until it passes an ordinance to do so. That ordinance can only be passed after all three of the events just referred to have occurred. It would also be with a public hearing. Councilmember Hall expressed concern over the Fire District holding this matter hostage when all they have been doing in the last year and a half of negotiations is stall. He does not want to provide any ammunition for further delay. He believes if Council can give approval to the commencement of the process, it should. Council President Petruzzi commented that an appropriate settlement with Fire District No. 1 is paramount in the whole issue because taxes would have to be raised for the entire city to do it, and he doesn't think the current citizens would appreciate that. He suggested these citizens may wish to make their desires known to the Fire District. The City is looking for equity. If there is an equitable settlement, there will be no problems from the financial side. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, OF INTENT TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD AND THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL STATING THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS IN THE EVENT OF AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE ON THE ANNEXATION AREAS SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NOS. AND TO ANNEX EITHER THE SHERWOOD VILLAGE ANNEXATION, OR THE COMBINED SHERWOOD VILLAGE AND FOREST GLEN -AUTUMN PLACE AND VICINITY ANNEXATION BUT NOT THE FOREST GLEN -AUTUMN PLACE AND VICINITY ANNEXATION BY ITSELF. THIS IS UNDER EXHIBIT 9. Councilmember Kasper brought up that Council has not reviewed the employment records. Councilmembers Earling and Myers will support the motion based on the City Attorney's assurances regarding future procedure. Councilmember Hall expressed reservations about one area not making it and the other area making it, and he has a feeling given the past voting power that Area B might be stronger than Area A and may in that regard carry the entire area if voted in together. Councilmember Nordquist also indicated he will support the motion but he wanted to correct the impression that the negotiations with the Fire District was on a rather negative Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 7 base, but rather within the last two months or so there has been a change of direction, and he believes there is hope on the horizon. CITY ATTORNEY SNYDER PROVIDED AS A POINT OF ORDER THAT WE HAVE BLANKS FOR NUMBERS AND WON'T HAVE NUMBERS TO FILL IN UNTIL COUNCIL PASSES EXHIBITS 6 AND 7 AS RESOLUTIONS 815 AND 816. HE SUGGESTED THE MOTION BY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT COULD INCLUDE PASSAGE OF RESOLUTIONS 815,816 AND RESOLUTION OF INTENT 270. THAT WILL ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE AND INTENT. THE MAKER OF THE MOTION AGREED; SECOND AGREED. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Snyder said the motion did not reflect it, but for the record, the exhibits showing the annexation areas with comparable zoning will be attachments to the resolution as forwarded as well to the County BRB. Mayor Hall called a short break while the room cleared. The meeting reconvened at 8:25 p.m. 7. HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REDUCE SPEED LIMIT ON 175TH a �p 5 h ), STREET S.W.. WEST OF 76TH AVE. W. TO TERMINUS TO 20 M.P.H. Council President Petruzzi disclosed that he lives in the subject area and that his wife signed the petition. 1�5 City Engineer Jim Walker reported that this matter was brought by residents who petitioned the City. There was concurrence to try to reduce speed. He stated that the change in speed limit would only effect those residents. Mr. Walker also indicated the police department had some concerns which would be brought up at next week's Public Safety Committee meeting. It was raised that this is a one -quarter mile long culdesac. Chief Miller indicated that enforcement was the question. Discussion of street signage followed. City Attorney Snyder advised that while the City Engineer has certain discretion, in order to lower the state minimum speed limit of 25 m.p.h. Council has to do so by ordinance. Councilmember Fahey asked why the issue of speed bumps was deemed inadvisable when enforcement was such an issue. The concern with speed bumps mostly concerned emergency vehicles. Mayor Hall opened the public portion of the hearing. David Bracilano, 7806 - 175th Street S.W., is a parent with two children, and he is concerned with their safety and wellbeing. He feels there is a legitimate need for speed reduction on 175th S.W. He said he would have preferred speed bumps or islands but believes a good compromise is the 20 m.p.h. speed limit would go a long way to reduce the risk. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Council President Petruzzi indicated that in July 1994 a petition was signed by 24 or 33 households in the area for the installation of speed bumps. The City rightly convinced the citizens that the speed bumps would not correct the problem, not only from an expense standpoint, but also from the standpoint of what speed bumps do when you are trying to transport a patient in an aid car or policeman is trying to respond to an emergency. At that time Staff had recommended an alternative of lowering the speed limit to see if that would aid the problem. COUNCILMEMBER JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL FOR THE PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE NO. 3021: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8.16.040 RELATING TO THE DECREASE OF STATE LAW MAXIMUM SPEED TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION 12 TO REDUCE THE SPEED ON 175TH STREET S.W. WEST OF 76TH AVENUE WEST TO 20 M.P.H. AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 8 Councilmember Earling asked if it was the intent to pass the ordinance tonight or pass it along to the committee for public safety and then bring it back to the Council. Council President Petruzzi noted that was the staffs recommendation. Councilmember Nordquist said he made the motion after having read that part over and believes we are at a point where the options have been considered. He thinks everything hereafter should go to the committee. If this isn't working, the committee should look at in maybe 90 days and send at least the paperwork to the committee but get this in place now so they can start enforcing it and then in 90-120 days look at it and see if it is working and try something else. Mr. Nordquist did not want to put the time in the motion because he thinks the ordinance stands on its own and afterwards, if we want to make another motion to have this as something on a future agenda for the Public Safety Committee, he thinks we can do it. Councilmember Fahey will support the motion because this is what the people want for their culdesac, but she wanted to be sure there was an understanding that there is no implication that this speed limit is going to be heavily enforced and the police called out for violation of that speed limit. Her sense is that if the people in the culdesac don't observe the reasonable speed limit, it is up to them to police themselves MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Nordquist asked Council President Petruzzi to put on a future agenda for the Public Safety Committee the review of the action taken tonight and any additional follow-up that might be needed. Council President Petruzzi noted to Ms. March that there was time scheduled at next week's Public Safety Committee meeting, and that it might be good to get a record of that Public Safety meeting to get the Police Chiefs concerns. From that committee then move it forward another 120 days for review. 8. HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EXISTING CAPITAL 00 FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT TO INCLUDE THE PURCHASE OF THE EDMONDS Afft 11 FINANCIAL CENTER LOCATED AT 121 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH FOR A NEW CITY IP HALL Lllv Disclosures: Council President Petruzzi disclosed, though not required, that as disclosed on his PDC report 01 Mr. Mike Meeks was his campaign treasurer in 1993. He understands Mr. Meeks is one of the partners in the flo IL property, but he has no idea of what his ownership is. Mr. Meeks did not participate in the negotiation meetings with the City. This is not a required disclosure, but Council President Petruzzi wished to make it part of the record. Councilmember Earling disclosed the possibility that Stan Dickinson served on his campaign staff. Councilmember Fahey disclosed that Bob Smith is a partner in the building, and he and his wife donated to her campaign, and his wife worked on Councilmember Fahey's campaign not as a chairman, but did work on the campaign. In addition, they have a daughter in school with Councilmember Fahey's daughter so they are close friends by that relationship. She does not think that would in any way impact the decisions that have been made since the decisions were made for the good of the City and not because any of the Council was tying to aid any of the partners in any kind of profit or anything else. Councilmember Earling asked City Attorney Snyder to review for Council the obligations for disclosure. City Attorney Snyder advised that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is codified in the state statute. That statute has a specific exception that -provides that councilmembers comments prior to an election as in the process of electioneering as well as election contributions and connections which are disclosed in the PDC form are not disqualifying interests nor do they violate the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Mayor Hall read the following statement into the record: "In 1991, the Edmonds City Council recognized the pressing need for new City Hall facilities. • September 16, 1991 The architectural firm of Aral/Jackson was selected to design a facility to meet the space needs of our growing city. • September, 1992 Administration renegotiated a contract with Arai/Jackson to begin a Phase I Space Needs Study. Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 9 • And, in September, 1992 Phase II of the Space Needs Study was approved Staff of each city department was then requested to draw plans to fit their department's projected needs. City Council also requested their space needs. Based upon these requests, the Arai/Jackson firm brought forth drawings. There were no specific dollar amounts as these plans were preliminary. • March, 1993 Phase II of the Space Needs Study was approved Midway into this second planning phase, it was decided that alternate sites and options should be considered. Councilmembers Petruzzi and Earling were designated by City Council to approach the partners of the neighboring Financial Building. A price was given; negotiations took place; impasse was reached; and negotiations ceased. • Summer, 1993 Staff was requested to revisit the space needs requirements being planned for the current City Hall site, downsizing where possible. City Council looked at alternative concepts to a consolidated scheme. The Financial Center was chosen from a number of sites. A formal appraisal of the Financial Building was authorized by Council. Negotiations with partners of the Financial Building resumed with Council President Petruzzi as point person. After some months of meetings, a purchase price of $4,345,000 was reached. Council President Petruzzi and I signed an agreement to purchase on April 6, 1995. 1 must stress, however, this purchase will not meet full City Hall needs. Additionally, funding will be needed to finance facilities for police, court, fire, and parking. Also, monies for demolition and interim operation space must be included. A target date of February 6, 1996, has been set by Council to submit a bond issue to the voters for these Public Safety and parking facilities. I furnish this brief overview for all to consider and discuss in a spirit of cooperation." Planning Manager Rob Chave gave Council a brief history. The Planning Board had a hearing and unanimously voted to urge Council to approve the ordinance amending the existing Comprehensive Plan. This is necessary because our existing plan does not yet reflect all of the updated figures, needs, assessments, etc. that the Growth Management Plan will be referencing when it is adopted. This is an interim to get us to a point where the Growth Management Plan is adopted. The Planning Board reviewed the information it submitted to Council for approval, and this recommendation is consistent with that. Community Services Director Paul Mar utilized the overhead to show and explain specifically the first three items of Exhibit 4 in the Council packets. He showed the facilities occupied and what the current space needs are. Discussion followed with regard to whether the City Administration figure was accurately $6,000,000 but whether that figure should more appropriately be $5,000,000. Costs will be put together in the next several weeks on what is being done with the building. Mr. Mar was reminded by Council President Petruzzi that those costs as presented may not be approved as much as would be liked and cited the example of the Public Works Building. Mr. Housler noted that regarding the bond issue, it has been proposed that a bond issue would be $5,000,000 to pay for the building and renovate it. It will be a debt service payment at 6% for 20 years or $432,000 on an average annual basis. Also being considered at this time is a 1/4% real estate excise tax. The money brought in from 1994 from that revenue source was $387,000 so there is an unfunded amount of about $45,000 which Mr. Housler believes would come from the General Fund. The issuance of a bond issue of this magnitude would be $65,000. That would have to be incorporated either into the bond issue, increasing the debt payment, or it would have to be funded from cash on hand. Council President Petruzzi, for the record, confirmed with Mr. Housler that the fees being discussed are standard fees for any bond issues that we would issue and that if the City were to build, buy or whatever, these bond fees would still be there. Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 10 Mayor Hall opened the public portion of the hearing by reading a portion of a letter from Irene Rayner. who stated she supported the purchase. Don Stay, 715 Sprague, encouraged acceptance of the ordinance. He feels it gets us a long way toward meeting some of the facility goals that must be had in the city. He commended Council at the way this was handled and commended the Mayor for signing the deal. There are four things he appreciates as a citizen: continuity of location, adequacy of the facility, the quality of the facility is to be commended, and it is a financially responsible decision. Gerald Perry, 217 Fifth Avenue North, reiterated all of Mr. Stay's comments and urged Council to pass the ordinance. Mr. Perry reported what had been rumored and in the press had been negative because it asserted that the City was paying a premium for the building. He suggested this is a false approach because every move that an outfit makes cause tremendous administrative problems and turmoil. He cited the various ways that cause loss of time and money. With this move, it will only require one move and you will save the money that would otherwise be spent in searching out a place for the City administration to live during construction. You have the best advantage for communications, and the telephone company could set you up in that building very easily and very quickly. Mr. Perry feels that even if there was a premium, the City would be far ahead economically in the long run. Gary Grayson, 19703 - 88th Avenue West, is here as a private citizen and as a member of the Planning Board in support of this ordinance. He said he didn't believe Council had a copy of the draft minutes of their last meeting when they had the first public hearing regarding this ordinance. Council President Petruzzi interjected that he had seen them and had a response he would read into the record later. He also indicated to Mr. Grayson that a lot of the questions that were asked actually had been answered in numerous newspaper articles and in the documents themselves. Mr. Petruzzi was assuming not all of them had the opportunity to read the rather lengthy appraisal, to read an opinion letter from a MAI appraiser in Edmonds that the seller's obtained, and the lengthy purchase and sale agreement. But the points about those questions, and even though we have stated most of them, we will repeat them again tonight. There is concern about full disclosure and perhaps the people have not had an opportunity to read the papers or the documents. Mr. Grayson had questioned the cost of potentially building a new building opposed to the purchase of this facility because it includes the cost of land. He went to the Mayor's office and looked at the two documents referred to, and he looked at the cost basis. It seems to him that the cost -basis for a Class B facility seems to be that it would be cheaper to build a facility in the 33,000 square foot. Mr. Housler was asked if the 1/4% real estate excise tax was an additional tax. He said that the existing 1/4% real estate excise tax would pay for this building with the additional 1/4% to replace the money that is being used for park acquisition and improvements throughout the city. David Page, 1233 Olympic View Drive, also a member of the Planning Board, expressed support. He went into the various capitalization and other issues on which he bases his support. He thinks the City made a good purchase. He believes this to be an example of good government at work. What he felt to be the biggest accomplishment was that the City bought a $5,000,000 building with no real estate fee. He commended Mr. Petruzzi and Mr. Earling for working for nothing and negotiating a sale that results in savings to the City of about $1,000,000 in total savings. Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, noted a rumor Councilmember Myers raised about the Port building a structure to house the tenants leaving that facility. Councilmember Myers attended the Port meeting last week, and they did speak to the point that they were going to engage an architect to come back with some plans for an office building on their property in the hope that they could then attract some of the people who are in the Financial Center to relocate down there. Mr. Demeroutis asked if that was the case why the Port could not work in conjunction with the City on a building. He questioned the life expectancy of the Financial Center and Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 11 what additional space is going to be needed to house the community services and administrative branch of the government where we haven't addressed the public safety needs. He feels that the purchase of this building will probably destroy the opportunity of passing a bond for public safety which he feels is a priority in the community. He would also like to see the numbers of which Paul Mar was speaking. Mayor Hall indicated the public should know that public safety, court and parking must be addressed and should be educated in these matters. Larry Whitney, 9128 Sierra Street, believes the need for additional space in Edmonds is inevitable. He thinks the purchase of the Financial Center is nothing but political wisdom. The price tag of $5,000,000 versus the Cadillac of $18-30,000,000 is fiscal responsibility. The utilization of the site, because of the off-street parking both adjacent and underneath the building, plus the proximity to the business community and the present civic center is a windfall for the City. Tom Snyder, 8204 - 182nd Pl. S.W., also spoke in favor of the purchase and commended Council for all their efforts and actions taken. He feels this is prudent business decision. He brought up the subject of cost overruns on building a new building, and that whatever you factor in won't be enough. He suggested that by moving into the newly -purchased building, Public Safety and the court could utilize already owned property. He again expressed his appreciation for Council's efforts and recommended that the Council approve the ordinance. Ron Robinson, 1423 Eighth Ave. S., urged passage. He felt it a prudent move and good first step. He expressed pride in the work done. Rob Morrison, 250 Beach Place, was substituting for Ken Matson who is ill. Mr. Morrison was asked to explain to Council why the Planning Board approved his checklist that he presented to the Board. Since Council President Petruzzi has a response, he did not go into it. He reported to Council that the Planning Board had a unanimous vote on the matter. The public portion of the hearing was closed, and the matter was remanded to Council for action Council President Petruzzi read into the record his response: LETS SPEAK TO THE PRICE WE HAVE AGREED TO PAY AND SOME OTHER ISSUES: First of all we should say that the building was not for sale when we approached the sellers. Just relate this transaction to one in which your home is not for sale, but one of your neighbors comes up to you and says something like: "Gee I really like your house that you have been living in for a number of years, and I want to buy it because mine is worn out and I want you and all of your family to move out. Oh, and by the way I had your home appraised and I want you to take the price my appraisal says your home is worth". I think most of us might have a bit of a problem with that situation, in fact we might even want to take their temperature to make sure they were feeling O.K. However we did ask the owners of the Financial Center to both sell and leave their building and to make sure that all other businesses in the building also leave and relocate in other buildings. We had an appraisal completed about a year ago, (May 1994) which was based on the leases in the building at that time. The sellers had an analysis completed by a local appraisal company who issued a letter of opinion to the sellers on January 30th of this year. Our appraisal which did not take into consideration that some 10 or 12 businesses would be required to pull up stakes and move, whether they wanted to move or not, at great expense to themselves, came in at $3,950,000. On the other hand the sellers appraiser told them that to replace the land and building that they are selling to us would cost them between $5,025,000 and $5,550,000. Copies of both evaluations are available through the City Clerk's Office. We eventually settled on a price that was 10% higher than our one year old appraisal, but that figure is a flat figure with no other money being paid to the sellers for the fact that they and a lot of other businesses must move from the building within I 1 and 1/2 months from the closing date. In addition during that time period all rents paid by all tenants, including the partnership members, will come to the city as income. Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 12 We as a government agency would not be able to buy such ideal land and build the same building for say less than $6,000,000. Some people would say an even higher fl. It is a proven fact that government simply cannot compete with private industries in regards to construction cost efficiencies. King County just spent about $60,000,000 fixing a roof that no private enterprise would have spent anywhere near that kind of money for the same fix. Mr. Ken Matson of the Planning Board asked several questions during the hearing at the Planning Board. While most of those questions have already been answered either during recent public discussions or in several newspaper articles published within the last couple of weeks, for the sake of clarity and full disclosure here is more information. Please bear with me if it seems that we are repeating some of the information. Mr. Matson apparently did not have the opportunity to read both evaluations of the property and the purchase and sale agreement, all of which are of public record in the city clerk's office. The City will pay no more to the sellers than the price as shown in the purchase and sale agreement, that is $4,345,000. I REPEAT ABSOLUTELY NO COMMISSIONS WILL BE PAID TO ANY PARTY WHATEVER IN THIS TRANSACTION. I REPEAT! THE PURCHASE PRICE ALSO INCLUDES THE ATTACHED LAND THAT IS USED AS PART OF THE PARKING LOT. I REPEAT! Other expenses in doing this transaction have been or will be: The appraisal approximately $4500, structural, electrical and mechanical inspections by an engineering company $3600 but approved up to $5000; a level one environmental assessment at an estimated cost of between $3000 and $6000. Mr. Mar will have more current information on that issue this evening. Closing costs will be very limited. We will pay 1/2 the escrow fee and our share will be $1000. The seller must pay for the title insurance, as stated in section 6.2 of the agreement, and it will cost them $7416, We would only pay for any title endorsements, and only if we request any, however we do not see such endorsements as a major expense item. If there is any personal property that comes with the property, (however we understand there is little or none), we may be required to pay some small amount of personal property tax. The only other closing costs to us will be a few $s for recording fees and naturally attorney fees for a review of the documents. There is a description of Purchaser's closing costs in section 6.1 on page 6 of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale. Our inspections will tell us what repairs should be made and naturally we will look to the administration and staff for recommendations as to additions and changes that they would like to make to the building. As the Council has already made public a couple of weeks ago, we have noted that the appraiser made a comment regarding roof repairs in the amount of $20,000. Depending on what the administration and staff will recommend for improvements and floor plan reconfiguration we feel we should spend approximately, (as we have made public), $500,000 on those changes. The Council's goal is and has been, (which has also been made public), to buy and re -furbish this property and be in it no more than a total of $5,000,000. PLEASE NOTE THAT DURING THE FIRST PUBLIC COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON THIS PROPERTY WE INSTRUCTED THE STAFF AND PLANNING BOARD TO LOWER THE $6,000,000 THAT WAS BEING PROPOSED TO THE COUNCIL, DOWN TO THE FIGURE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN DISCUSSING ALL ALONG AND THAT IS THE $5,000,000 TOTAL PACKAGE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. ALSO IN RESPONSE TO OTHER_ OUESTIONS RAISED BY MR. MATSON. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY .VERY, VERY CLEARLY THAT THIS PURCHASE IS IN NO WAY CONNECTED TO ANY OTHER DEALINGS THAT THE CITY OR CITY COUNCILMEMBERS MAY HAVE OR HAVE HAD WITH ANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE SELLING ENTITY. THESE SELLERS ARE LOCAL BUSINESS PEOPLE VERY ACTIVE IN THE COMMUNITY FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE COMMUNITY AND ITS CITIZENS. IF THIS TRANSACTION DOES CLOSE IT IS HOPED THAT THESE BUSINESS PEOPLE AND THEIR BUSINESSES REMAIN IN EDMONDS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF OUR COMMUNITY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3022 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CAPITAL 'FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT OF THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ECDC 15.10.000 TO INCLUDE PURCHASE OF THE EDMONDS FINANCIAL CENTER FOR THE USE OF CITY ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES INCLUDING CONSOLIDATION OF ALL OR A PORTION OF THE CITY'S ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 13 EFFECTIVE AND INCLUDE THAT OPTION PARAGRAPH ON THERE SINCE THERE WAS A HEARING. Councilmember Fahey asked for clarification of the $6,000,000 as opposed to $5,000,000. City Attorney Snyder indicated the reason that was before the Planning Board is that was referencing what the Planning Board originally recommended to the Council. That document was used to show them that this proposal was consistent and the cost would be less than the original $6,000,000. This proposal is $5,000,000. That chart will be updated in your GMA discussions to show the $5,000,000 figure. MOTION CARRIED. �, 9A. UPDATE BY COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR PAUL MAR REGARDING . TRANSPORTATION ISSUES AND FUNDING FOR THE MULTIMODAL PROJECT A Community Services Director Paul Mar indicated he would split his remarks into two parts: the open house and environmental scoping meeting of last Thursday, and the second part which is to discuss the land ownership of the parcels that were discussed in the memo attached to the agenda packet. Last Thursday the Open House was held at the Edmonds Senior Center on the Multimodal Project. There were about 10 members of government agencies, Washington State Department of Transportation's various divisions, the Ferry Division, the Office of Programmability, and the Northwest Region, representatives from the Federal Highway Administration, Kitsap County Public Works, the Mayor, and our City Staff. Councilmembers Fahey and Kasper were also there. There were 15 members of the consulting team, and the attendance over the entire evening was about 60 citizens. He discussed the set-up used and things done during the open house. As far as he could determine, the comments ranged from a fear of the order of magnitude of this change, and other citizens that are totally supportive of what the effort is and is trying to accomplish. Funding was also a concern. The consultant team is in the process now of sorting through .the questionnaires, and they will provide a summary report that will be incorporated in the scope of the environmental analysis. Mr. Mar hopes to bring that summary report back to Council in the next two to three weeks. Mayor Hall complemented Mr. Mar on a job well done. Discussion followed on whether or not the Main Street site was included in the studies. Main Street is the "no action or no build alternative" which is essentially remaining at Main Street. Going into the environmental impact portion is the Point Edwards site which is clearly stated in the scoping. The Mid -Waterfront is the back-up alternative". The consultant team is identifying the definition of the "do nothing alternative". Councilmember Kasper indicated that the "do nothing" to Council was represented by the four "nos", and to his knowledge they still stand. Councilmember Kasper thinks the public is afraid Council has already conceded to the ADA overhead structure like on the other side and that traffic build-up will be somewhere in the city instead of in the periphery. He asked how Council could get around a public hearing to explain it. Mr. Mar listed two primary options available: 1) hold a public hearing to reaffirm or to redefine the Council's original position on the four nos, and 2) invite the Washington State Ferry System which would be the sponsor/applicant for the overhead loading project in whichever fashion Council desires. Council President Petruzzi advised Mr. Mar that, it was Council consensus that there should he a hearing on this issue He would like to set that for June 20. At that hearing it should be determined where Council stands, reconsider the four nos and discuss what Council knows about the proposed construction on the present site which is supposed to be a temporary construction. Mr. Mar expressed his understanding that with regard to the overhead project, the design would begin this year; they would come into the City for the appropriate permits in 1996; they would enter for construction in 1997. The Washington State Ferry System is in the process of firming that up at this time. Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 14 Councilmember Kasper thinks Council needs to define the four nos. In talking with Adm. Parker, Mr. Kasper said he couldn't speak for the Council but that as far as they were concerned the four nos were standing. The question came up whether we would consider a floating second dock and a floating access, not a structure that was going to have to built and then tom apart. Council also indicated it wanted a time frame on how long it will be there. All of this must be brought into play, and Councilmember Kasper doesn't see it anywhere. He feels it essential to bring the public back in on this. There was further discussion and reporting on the time frame as it exists now. Mr. Mar suggested inviting the ferry people to the June 20 hearing. There was also discussion of the meaning of "do nothing". Council President Petruzzi then wished to discuss the ownership control or use and development of property next to the ferry terminal. Mayor Hall noted the time limit has been exceeded. Councilmember Nordquist called a point of order: this is a real estate item and is not listed on the agenda. He asked the attorney if it should not be listed as an agenda item. Mr. Snyder advised that at a regularly scheduled Council meeting the Council can consider anything it pleases. If it were an action item or related to a matter that required a public hearing or this was a special council meeting, there would be other restrictions that would apply. At a meeting like this Council is free to take discussion. Council President Petruzzi referred to the last two pages of the Agenda Memorandum. Council President Petruzzi asked City Attorney Snyder to analyze the easement and come back and advise Council if it has the right of control over what is being planned in that area. Mayor Hall indicated John Wallace has something on this. Councilmember Kasper expressed agreement with the question being asked, but also raised another. He is concerned about the two 30' parcels of property the City deeded to the Port. He says the City has never been involved with the parcel the ferry dock is on as it is in Parcel C, but there is still a fence shown way out there that we own. He also raised the question of the zoning in the area. It still shows as commercial zoning, so the City should have some control over that property. He thought the City was going to ask the DOT or the AG's Office to see what they thought, but that has not been done. Mr. Mar showed an enlarged photo of the area to show where the parcels are and there was discussion as to each of the parcels and the ownership. 9B. UPDATE ON TRAIN SPEED APPEAL Mayor Hall called Councilmember Kasper's attention to her memo of May 1 regarding train speeds. "� PEES Councilmember Kasper thinks it needs to be worked out whether we really want to pursue this matter or let it S die. He thinks if Edmonds rolls over, its compatriots are going to roll over. His concern is that this thing permits the freight trains to go whether or not the passenger trains go. Yet, the whole thing started on the premise that in order to get the passenger trains to go, you had to get the freight trains up to speed. This bothers him, and he feels it must be dealt with. He asked City Attorney Snyder to provide an update on the status. Mr. Snyder advised he was unsure why Council did not get a copy of the decision because one had been provided to Barb Mehlert, he had briefed the Mayor and Paul two weeks ago. This had a 10 day appeal period which has expired. The City's ability to appeal has therefore expired. As he explained to the Mayor and Mr. Mar it would have been a one in a million shot for the City to successfully appeal. The burden would have been on the City to establish that there was not substantial and competent evidence on the part of the WUTC to make your decision. Having attended the hearings, this was a judgment call, and the record was replete with their reasons. A part of that record that the Hearing Examiner and the WUTC refer to was the need for public benefit from initiating Amtrak service, and that the Order Mr. Kasper referred to is that to achieve the train speeds through the single -tracked portion of Edmonds, the train speeds for the far more numerous freight trains would have to be increased as well. Mr. Snyder suggested to Council that if Amtrak service is not instituted or is stopped, that the City always has the ability to petition, as we have in the past, to have the train speeds reduced. At that time Council have a discussion and hopefully will have some better idea of what the commuter rail system is like and whether there is a need for differentiation in train speeds. Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 15 a; '4 Mayor Hall briefed Council on conversations she had had regarding train speeds. COUNCIL PETRUZZI TO EXTEND THE MECOUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM MEETING FOR A LITTLE BIT. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Myers had been in contact with a number of people regarding the issue of trains. He suggested another tactic to be used would be to have our Police Chief or officers down there and actually use their radar gun on the trains going through there. What happens is that the engineer himself is responsible for the ticket, and the engineer told him that was a very effective method. City Attorney Snyder said the City of Edmonds utilized that tool in 1971 and 1972, and Burlington Northern then went to the state legislature and had the ability of the City to do that taken away. That ability to cite trainmen is now limited to first class cities. Council President Petruzzi asked if this matter should be placed on next week's agenda as part of the committee as a whole. Councilmember Kasper desired to have it with the committees as a whole. City Attorney Snyder clarified that the appeal period had run and if there were a change of circumstances the City to request a reduction in train speed. Council President Petruzzi said this matter will be on for next week for the Committee session as a whole. Mr. Snyder advised he would not be at next week's Council meeting, and it will take approximately two weeks to get Council an opinion on the real estate question asked. Mr. Petruzzi further advised that Council would speak with Mr. Mar and have him new week explain the various options. 10. UPDATE ON EDMONDS FINANCIAL CENTER ACQUISITION PROCESS �tdR�ERL Community Services Director Paul Mar gave a brief update on the acquisition process. He called Council attention to the updated schedule. The City issued a notice to proceed for Boateng & Associates. The contract price agreed upon was $2,700. They were on site at the Edmonds Financial Center on Monday to do their inspection and have assured him they will have a report ready for Council's meeting on May 16. Council President Petruzzi indicated it would be put under this section. If the reports come in by the middle of next week, Mr. Mar will have them in Council packets by the end of the week. Councilmember Hall mentioned that one thing bothering him had to do with the terms of the contract. He asked if Council will have an opportunity to go through this in a public hearing before the period is passed. His specific concern is the issue of not being able to buy the mineral and oil rights to the property and why the sellers want to retain that. Council President Petruzzi stated that the document had been made available and tonight was the hearing. Councilmember Hall indicated his strong desire to publicly state that as a concern. Council President Petruzzi responded that in most real estate dealings it is a standard thing and is not a big negotiating item. He does not think he has sold a piece of property that mineral rights were a major item of discussion. There was further discussion on this practice. 11. MAYOR ,,It Mayor Hall announced a National Day of Prayer and a service on Thursday, May 4. On Saturday evening Of there was a wonderful turnout,and the Edmonds Arts Festival and the Museum Board had the unveilingof the ny a p ��.RY& Chihuly pieces. She was told there were in excess of 400 people in attendance. Councilmembers Myers, Earling and Council President Petruzzi were also in attendance. Mayor Hall was concerned about security, but I4N 1 is pleased with the fact that Frontier Bank came forward and provided sealed showcases. Olga 12. COUNCIL Council President Petruzzi would like to have a fifth meeting this month for a number of reasons. One very Cnµ�� important reason is that will be the last Tuesday Council will have before it removes the contingency period on p this property. Councilmember Myers thinks it important to have the fifth meeting and will support it. It was y Council consensus to have the fifth meeting but not to load it up. ;o0 Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 16 lmember Hall f the etter om Mr. Tom ercast regarding ald e in Hutt 15A6��PAO Park.ClHe understands he ssue on hiss hatltherefris a deadline f when these eggs will hatch htch andlwhen the dwff construction project that is going to take place near, that nest. He expressed hope that someone from the staff will reply to Mr. Overcast and determine the status of that project so that he will know. Mayor Hall will ask Mr. Mar tomorrow. He also commended Staff and Administration on Sound Shake Day held last week for all iD the work they did. He explained some of he things that were being done by various departments for he test. �6AA99 The only criticism he heard was that the public did not get involved as much as was anticipated. Maybe that could be encouraged next time. Fire Chief Michael Springer explained that this was a statewide disaster preparedness drill -- Sound Shake 1995. More are anticipated in the future. Two components were tested in our city -- one was opening up the emergency operations center which was at Public Works facility, and the other was a damage survey assessment and within the first hour we came in with nearly 200 disasters that they had to deal with and did effectively. From his standpoint it was very successful. Councilmember Kasper asked if there would be a meeting on the Fourth of July. Councilmember Myers advised the Council that it would soon have the addition of a new student representative. ItEet - Meadowdale High School will provide a school representative from June until December and hen Edmonds- Woodway will provide one from January through the end of May. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. / • �. Approved City Council Minutes May 2, 1995 Page 17 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 -10:00 p.m. MAY 2, 1995 CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. (10 Min.) CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 1995 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #951118 THRU #952149 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 24, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $247,426.17 (D) APPROVAL OF TEAMSTERS' UNION LOCAL#763 LABOR CONTRACT (E) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM ROBERT PAYNE, JR. AND RUTH PAYNE, AND RYAN AND LYNDA PAYNE AT 23216 76TH AVENUE WEST FOR PAYNE SHORT PLAT #S-92-262 STREET DEDICATION (F) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FROM HEARING OF APRIL 18, 1995 ON ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A FREE STANDING SIGN AS PART OF AN OVERALL APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERMITS AT 7711 LAKE BALLINGER WAY (Applicant/Appellant: The Carpet Shop / File No. AP-95-33 / ADB-95-18) (G) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FROM HEARING OF APRIL 18, 19,0 ON HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE TOTAL REQUIRED STREET SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 17 FEET AT 7309 164TH PL. S.W. (Applicant/Appellant: John Gough / File No. AP-95-39 / V-95-9) (H) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE WATER MAIN LOCATOR FROM ACKLEY TOOL COMPANY ($3,766.00 INCLUDING SALES TAX) (1) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN 1995-96 ON -GOING TESTING SERVICE AGREEMENTS WITH HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, AND BOSS AND MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS, INC. (J) AUTHORIZATION FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES COORDINATOR TO ATTEND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF LOCAL ARTS AGENCIES CONFERENCE (NALAA) 3. AUDIENCE (3 minute limit per person) 4. (5 Min.) PRESENTATION TO CANINE OFFICER DON ANDERSON AND RETIREMENT OF POLICE DOG SHADOW 5. (10 Min) MEETING WITH JOYCE OLSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR COMMUNITY TRANSIT 6. (30 Min.) HEARING ON PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF AREAS SURROUNDING AND INCLUDING SHERWOOD VILLAGE, WOODWAY MEADOWS & HOLIDAY HILL (File. No. AX-95-24) 7. (10 Min.) HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REDUCE SPEED LIMIT ON 175TH STREET S.W., WEST OF 76TH AVE. W. TO TERMINUS TO 20 M.P.H. - continued - EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MAY 2, 1995 PAGE 2 8. (60 Min.) HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EXISTING CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT TO INCLUDE THE PURCHASE OF THE EDMONDS FINANCIAL CENTER LOCATED AT 121 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH FOR A NEW CITY HALL 9. (15 Min.) UPDATE BY COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR PAUL MAR REGARDING TRANSPORTATION ISSUES AND FUNDING FOR THE MULTIMODAL PROJECT 10. (5 Min.) UPDATE ON EDMONDS FINANCIAL CENTER ACQUISITION PROCESS (5 MIN.) 11. (5 Min.) MAYOR 12. (15 Min.) COUNCIL Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this Meeting appears the following Wednesday evening at 7.00 p.m. on Channel 36, and the following Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.