Loading...
05/23/1995 City CouncilApproved City Council Minutes 1995 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES MAY 2391995 Following an Executive Session on a legal matter called pursuant to notice, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:10 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 Michael Springer, Fire Chief Robin Hickok, Assistant Police Chief Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Art Housler, Administrative Services Director Paul Mar, Community Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreations Manager Noel Miller, Public Works Supervisor Jim Walker, City Engineer . Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, Deputy City Clerk Rhonda March, City Clerk Christine Laws, Recorder Mayor Hall recognized representatives from Troop 301 and Troop 342 of the Boy Scouts of America who are working toward their citizenship and community merit badges. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Tom Petruzzi advised that City Attorney Scott Snyder had an emergency arise and would like to leave early, and therefore would like to have his presentation held earlier in the meeting. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO MAKE ITEM NO. 7 ITEM NO. 6, AND ITEM NO. 6 ITEM NO. 7. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items passed are as follows: APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 1 (A) ROLL CALL 6P?Ry Vr5 � (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 25,1995 (C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 16, 1995 E t AM ICJ N'T (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #951771 THRU 9952571 FOR WEEK OF MAY 15, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $124,365.88, AND PAYROLL WARRANTS #952387 THRU #952674 FOR THE l.R���,¢Ad�s PERIOD OF MAY 1 THRU MAY 15, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $376,755.54 pD*oN (E) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30,1995 (F) ON MAY 1, 1995, FOR THE OF A TRAILER MOUNTED CoM ��E5 OF BID TO PACIFIICSE AIRPORT COMPRESSSSORPENED AND WARD AMERICANC COMMERCIAL COMPANY FOR $10,750.48 (INCLUDING SALES TAX) R65a�0 (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO EXECUTE 1995 EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH Gou�G 1 COUNCIL RESOURCE PERSON !DR p�R (H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE A TRACTOR LOADER (1) DECLARING VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SELL AT , bgs JAN ES MURPHY AUCTION COMPANY C1,EAX PAY (J) AUTHORIZE FUNDING SOURCE FOR CITY CLERK TERMINATION PAY �'ty ��grjON RESOLUTION 817 AUTHORIZING U. S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS' DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROGRAM g� �p�LRRrn D�F (L) AMEND CURRENT CONTRACT WITH DEWILLIAMICHARF TO PROVIDE A REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION COST PROJECTION OF A 25-YARD VS A 50-METER X 25-YARD POOL POOP CONFIGURATION (M) AAUTHORCIO TION FOR TRAINING SERGEANT TO ATTEND FBI NATIONAL ACADEMY W S R�j0dA oly r8 te.o0 3. PROCLAMATION ON "PUBLIC WORKS WEEK" It, Mayor Hall presented a Proclamation to Noel Miller, Public Works Superintendent, declaring May 21-27, I o 5 1995 to be National Public Works Week in the City of Edmonds. She called upon all citizens to acquaint �,109X themselves with the issues involved in providing our public works services and to recognize the Y, 60K contributions which public works officials make every day to our health, safety, comfort, and quality of life. Mr. Miller explained that this year Lynnwood staff and Mountlake Terrace staff approached Edmonds and wanted to do something jointly in recognition of Public Works Week. Since Edmonds has the new facility and the space, it gladly hosted the event. He said there was a lot of participation, including from Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood and Edmonds Mayors. 4. ANNUAL REPORT TO COUNCIL BY SISTER CITIES COMMISSION SrSTEy 5 Don Carr, 9832 - 225th Place SW, Edmonds, Chairman of the Sister City Commission, first called Council attention to the Annual Report where each of the committee chairs wrote of the activities over the CoMm past year. He remarked it was a year of many good times, and one of sadness. Many of the Commission APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 2 founders have retired from the Commission. He introduced Steve Waite who is a new Commissioner. He also acknowledged Arvilla Ohlde's attendance at each Commission meeting. Mr. Carr said there are a lot of dedicated commissioners who have put in many hours of service during 1994 and the years preceding. They selected a teacher who is sent over under contract with the Hekinan School District to teach at all their junior high schools. She has a busy week travelling from school to school assisting with their language program and exchanging ideas, customs, etc. They have liked her so much, they have invited her to stay another year. The program has worked so well that in April he got a request that we send another teacher. They are canvasing schools and looking for volunteers. The relocation for a year is entirely paid for by the Hekinan School District. The other major part of the program is the student exchange. This year we had 10 Hekinan students that came to visit us, along with 2 teachers. We sent 8 students and 1 teacher to Hekinan. Mr. Carr further reported they were asked to host the Washington section of the International Sister City Commission which is quite an honor. All sister cities around the state were invited to attend and provided with information as to what to see and do. It went very well, and many have indicated they wish to come back. Mr. Carr then discussed the major fundraiser this year with the Taste of Edmonds. They earned money that can be used to provide scholarships to students that can't afford to be able to participate in the student exchange. He reminded Council that there are two scholarship programs. One was matched dollar for dollar for money they earned toward the trip, up to $300. Most participants took advantage of this program. They also offered a hardship scholarship for situations where maybe because of illness, loss of employment they were asked to submit a request, with the details remaining confidential, for review. Mr. Carr said the year was topped off in November with a visit from Hekinan's Mayor Kobayashi and 18 others. He then thanked the City Council and Staff for their assistance with the program. He looks forward to an exciting 1995. Mayor Hall thanked Mr. Carr, the Commission and Arvilla. She also recognized Don and Michelle Carr as great hosts. Council President Petruzzi, on behalf of the Council, complimented and expressed appreciation for the efforts of all those who participate each year in this process. 5. DISCUSSION ON ACQUISITION OF FIRE STATION 910 AS PART OF THE FIRE SERVICE 0� AGREEMENTS �p Administrative Services Director Art Housler stated that over the last several years there has been ongoing discussion with the Fire District where they have asked to receive reimbursement of costs for the services provided to the citizens of Edmonds. This amounts to $395,000 annually. This was not acceptable to the City at the time, so through extensive negotiations over the last six months a conclusion was reached that it would be better by the way the numbers come out to acquire that station and man it with City of Edmonds fire staff. Mr. Housler commented that with the five areas of annexation, 4,600 people wish to come into Edmonds. Taking that factor into consideration, and these people are and would be served by that fire station, then the numbers work out at just about a break even point if the station was acquired. Councilmember Bill Kasper asked how much money that area produces would be surplus to fire, police, and the acquisition. We have so much money coming in from this area, we know that fire and police want APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 3 these items, we have to acquire a station we didn't want built in an area that is mislocated, and they are stuck with it. He thinks this has to be carried to a dollar figure to show that the City would be actually gaining by doing this. Mr. Housler responded that the five annexed areas to which he referred consist of 4,600 people. The additional cost for 6 police officers, 1 detective, 1 staff assistant, cars and all equipment is $390,000. The fire station operation cost, annually with 12 fire staff and all the equipment and everything else, is $1,084,900. That is the Public Safety portion. Roughly, the total figure is $1.5 million. Councilmember Kasper again asked how much money was contributed. Mr. Housler responded that, assuming we acquire the fire station, we would receive $1,164,000 from annexations, and since we own the station, the Fire District would pay us $392,000. Based on those expenses, they are offset by the revenues. Councilmember Kasper then asked about the administrative costs and whether those would come from future annexations. Mr. Housler said it nets out about $35,000 net cost to the City if we acquired the station. It was confirmed this was not overhead but direct expenses. Mr. Housler also said that given the boundaries of that area, it can be assumed that other residents of other areas will want to come into the city, and anything above that would be a net revenue basis. Councilmember Kasper asked for confirmation there would not be a need for additional police or fire personnel after the closing of this avenue. Mr. Housler said we would not have any additional fire staff, but believed there were two or three additional police officers if the whole area were absorbed into the city (another 7,800 people). Mr. Kasper asked if Council has accepted the figures of the staff for all those employees, or if there was still room to not grant as many others in the fire coverage and shift coverage. Mr. Housler said he would think Council would want to sit down with Staff and go over the justifications for the figures. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY, THAT COUNCIL INSTRUCT THE CITY CLERK TO SET A HEARING ON THE ACQUISITION OF FIRE STATION NO. 10 AS PART OF THE FIRE SERVICE AGREEMENT, WITH THAT HEARING TO BE HELD ON JUNE 6, AND TO PUT OUT THE APPROPRIATE NOTICES FOR THAT HEARING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Earling said he was assuming that at the hearing there will be numbers provided for the public to understand as far as potential income and expenditures that we may face with this decision. Mr. Housler indicated he will summarize this information onto transparencies for the hearing. Mr. Housler closed his portion of the discussion by saying that it was the recommendation of Staff and the Mayor that Station 10 be acquired. Fire Chief Michael Springer noted for Councilmember Kasper that the numbers of fire personnel will be the same as it is currently. Before going on to the next item, Mayor Hall introduced and welcomed Councilman George Beckett from the City of Woodway, Planning Board Chair Ken Mattson, and Jane Cunningham, the new Fourth of July Parade Grand Marshall. Council President Petruzzi commented to Paul Mar that sometimes innocent people get caught in the crossfires of political infighting, and that happened last week, and he apologized. roe 6. PRESENTATION BY CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF AND tf l RESPONSE TO INITIATIVE 164 AND REGULATORY REFORM lbq City Attorney Scott Snyder thanked Council for allowing him to change places on the agenda. He stated there are probably few issues that will impact the City of Edmonds as much as Initiative 164. He indicated he would be discussing a methodology for approaching what would be both an expensive proposition and APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 4 one that could attack or change many fundamental concepts that have to do with the Edmonds Community Development Code, and the way the City has done business for many years. As the Council is aware, the Association of Washington Cities is seeking to place Proposition 48 on the ballot. Part of the uncertainty has to do with the effective date of Initiative 164 or Proposition 48. Unless 90,000 signatures are obtained, Initiative 164 will go into effect July 20 of this year. In that situation, although the individual legislators have indicated a desire to revisit Initiative 164 and clean up many of the questions that have been raised with regard to it, the City cannot afford to wait until that happens. Mr. Synder stated that the day it becomes effective the City will begin to receive development permit applications. He suggested the City will undoubtedly get a number of building permits for people in 25' houses to go to 35' in an attempt to vest rights. Secondly, the City absolutely must pass its Comprehensive Plan amendments and any changes to the Community Development Code prior to the effective date of this measure. If not, the City could be liable for conducting an economic analysis of the impact of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Snyder advised he plans to discuss a process of risk management. That process should rest on a review of the City's enforcement priorities. That is, what you as a City seek to accomplish through your zoning codes and a frank assessment of the costs, both in terms of paying taking claims in appropriate situations in order to preserve the quality of life in the community, and also how the inevitable cost of Initiative 164 should be passed back. Should they be borne by developers in general through the Building Code and an overall increase of fees? Or, should those costs be borne by the general taxpayer? He then explained outlines of his presentation are available .upon request. City Attorney Snyder asked that copies be provided to the Architectural Design Board, the Planning Board, and other City boards that could be effected. Basically, the structure of Initiative 164 lowers the hurdle for taking claims in the state. Any taking may be compensable. It is going to be lot specific. You could not be compensated for a taking that occurs due to the activities on an adjacent lot. The issues that arise are, first, when do the takings occur. The statute itself, or the provision, has a 10 year statute of limitations. The additional problem is that the definition of action is first defined in what would appear to be a very narrow scope aimed at the initial purpose of the initiative which are the impacts of SEPA, Shoreline, and Critical Areas Ordinances. The definition of action, however, is much broader indicating a broad variety of action which clearly could include the issuance of a building permit. We have three potential vesting dates, and that is one of the first questions the court is going to have to answer and the Council will have to wrestle with. Is it 10 years forward from the date from an action, is it 10 years backward as a remedial statute, or does the action or taking occur when an individual comes in and files a building permit? Those numbers are critical for this community. Mr. Snyder's first suggestion is that Council must move forward and pass the Comprehensive Plan. The second issue is going to be a frank, public discussion of what this community's priorities are. The act has a number of things which are defined either as not takings or things which are not compensable takings. The first thing that this community should engage in through your Planning Board and your staff is going through your code and trying to determine which of the defenses available to the City are there. As the Edmonds Community Development Code is updated following the Comprehensive Plan enactment, make specific legislative findings if some of the things which you are doing fall within these categories which are either not takings or takings which the State must compensate for. The best examples are takings which occur through the State Environmental Protection Act, the Shorelines Management Act and the APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 5 Uniform Building Code. Those are all laws in which the first section of each statute says that this has a public purpose, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the State of Washington that shorelines be open and accessible to the public and protected, that the State's environment be protected. One of the initial things is setting aside those things which the City does at the express direction and mandate of the State. Your citizens expect the City to do the policing for them. Again, in a residential neighborhood as in a subdivision, you have private remedies in enforced subdivision covenants. The second category that the City should review very carefully is whether its requirements constitute a public nuisance. An example from your code would be your development standards which prohibit noise and glare from lights from intruding on adjacent property. Those are police power enactments. Those are enforcement measures where basically the City is standing in the stead of the private property owner and protecting individuals from intrusion. The problem is that public nuisance has a very narrow, well-defined definition. In many cases it involves an actual physical intrusion on your property. Simply having an activity operating next to your's if there is no physical intrusion is usually not a nuisance. City Attorney Snyder reiterated. State mandates first and public nuisances second. The third category are situations in which the State does not mandate that the City enact a certain type of critical areas regulation, but gives you a model, tells you you must enact it by a certain date, and if you don't you are not going to get cut in on State grant money. There are certain things in this third area of SEPA and critical areas that are exercises of the City's valid police powers. Two that have helped to define the character of this community and have served the City are 25' height limitations and the Architectural Design Board. Neither of those are mandated by the State. The enforcement of them restrict the value and use of the property. They have been enacted for no clear public nuisance doctrine. This state does not recognize the doctrine which protects the passage of light and air from one property to another. Those are the sorts of issues on which this community is going to have to have a frank discussion and determine how much protection we can afford. What is the value to the community? Both the 25' height limit and the Architectural Design Board have been in effect in this city for more than 10 years. How much money are you willing to spend to defend these concepts which are very basic to your codes? His opinion is as we work with Staff to inventory your codes, go into more detail on matters such as height limits as they are somewhat part and parcel to the City Zoning Code that that taking, if it occurred at all, occurred far back in the past. By Mr. Snyder's recollection it was 20-30 years ago, actually back in the early'50s at the time of the first zoning code. The Architectural Design Board, of more recent vintage, is in some respects more defensible. One difficulty you have since some of the requirements are very flexible is the date that the taking occurs. Again, is it when a building permit application comes in and is rejected or rejected by the ADB. As noted in the materials provided Council, one tool which he thinks is going to be critical he has listed is a reasonable use exception. This is the creation of a general process in this community to review code impositions by requiring that applicants identify when they believe takings have occurred. You can no longer require applicants to pay for studies or plans, but Mr. Snyder finds it difficult to believe the courts of Washington are going to say a developer does not have the obligation to provide accurate, factual information to accompany their application and to have reasonably investigated the codes to find out what impact, if any, code provisions have. With regard to the Regulatory Reform Act, Mr. Snyder informed that it requires each community in the state to redo its codes by December of this year to basically do much of what this city has done now with the Architectural Design Board. There must be a one hearing process. There may still be appeals, but they will be required to be appeals on the record. As you review and enact regulatory reform, the Planning APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 6 Board and this Council will be juggling when that hearing is to occur. What Mr. Snyder suggests in terms of a reasonable use process was described. Mr. Snyder suggested the next issue which must be cleared up this year in advance of the budget is how are those costs which the City is now going to have to take on going to be spread. Again, the City can no longer require a developer to pay the costs of an EIS, of a critical area study, of a traffic study. One of the things you are going to need to discuss is how that money is spread around. The Council has sat through several discussions with builders as you attempted to struggle with your fee structure and make it fair. One fundamental question is easy to spot up front is: are the cost of these studies going to be spread through the building permit fees to those who file for building permit applications so that they all pay equally. Or, are you going to pass that cost on to the general taxpayer by paying for those costs through the general revenue? Once the City has inventoried the codes and has determined what the costs will be, it seems to Mr. Snyder that there is a point where the fundamental question for the City is how much regulation can we afford. How much is it worth to us as citizens and taxpayers in a community to maintain the quality of life in this community? Mr. Snyder does not want the City in a position of being asked to do things politically and practically that there are not the resources to do. There will be certain provisions -- the Architectural Design Board for example -- what is it worth to this community. What are the costs and potential defenses for the 25' height limitations. Mr. Snyder advised that if Proposition 48 gathers its 90,000 signatures, is placed on the ballot and fails, and Initiative 164 goes into effect, the Washington State Legislature cannot amend it for two years. Mayor Hall asked Mr. Snyder for confirmation that we don't know when the 30 days begin with a taking, but yet within 30 days we have to pay. Mr. Snyder responded that we don't know when the taking takes place and won't know necessarily what the final value is. Condemnation has a very precise process and very precise fees. That is one reason why Mr. Snyder recommended that the City undertake a reasonable use exception so that we can require developers as early in the process as possible to be pinned down to what that taking is, why they think it occurs, so we can both create a record and allow the Council or appropriate body to narrow the regulations in order to alleviate that taking or reduce the amount. Resonding to Councilmember Myers, Mr. Snyder stated it is called Initiative 164 and does not become Proposition 48 until it gets enough signatures to get on the ballot. They are both the same. Council President Petruzzi commented on Initiative 164. This bill can do more damage to the Edmonds way of life than anything we've seen heretofore. It is possible this law could simply destroy a greater part of the basic structure that we have built in Edmonds over the last 100 years. Despite constant lobbying by city councils and mayors of many cities in the state of Washington, the legislature stubbornly passed this bill. Mr. Petruzzi feels it a terrible bill which is extremely poorly written. A prestigious law firm last month in their monthly report had a lead article which started out by saying that it was an extremely poorly written bill and that the only way the true answers were going to come were after years and years of litigation. The cost of litigation alone is simply going to be staggering if this is not defeated in November. The cost of claims will be staggering. It is something that could literally bankrupt cities in addition to destroying the ways of life of various different cities. Mr. Petruzzi added that the accountability of this law must clearly be laid at the feet of the State Legislature. He invited all to contact their legislators or drive to Olympia and force them into some action. APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 7 The people have previously not been aware of the impact this will have on the cities. He credited Councilmembers Fahey and Myers for being justifiably concerned and bringing this up for discussion. Councilmember Barbara Fahey asked for an expansion regarding information received in a conversation she had had with a property rights activist that said we are waiving red flags that are inappropriate and that this bill isn't going to have that kind of impacts on cities. This person firmly believes it will ultimately be from this point forward that this bill will have any impact, that there is no retroactive aspects to this. Mr. Snyder responded that there are several theories. The bill itself incorporates a 10 year statute of limitation. It does not in any portion of the bill indicate that it is intended to be remedial or retroactive. In the legislative record the legislator who was providing the committee report specifically referenced this as a remedial statute. At that point red flags go up. When you provide a remedy or remedial statute to the state, it is one which may be applied retroactively. A second theory or problem regards Section 4 which discusses the sorts of taking that are intended to be regulated, and Mr. Snyder read some of that section. He said that when you read that section in isolation it would appear that this deals with critical areas or SEPA. The difficulty is in the latter section under Section 7(4) "restraint of land use best defined means any action, requirement or restriction by a governmental entity other than actions to prevent or abate public nuisance that limits the use or development of property". You have a template and general standards that are opposed, but the exact restriction on property won't arise until a permit is applied for and denied or limited or conditioned. In addition to the issue of remedial and whether we go back 10 years, the question is when the taking occurred. Does it occur when a building permit is applied for to do the thing now restrained? Mr. Snyder asked for Council permission to discuss with Snohomish County Prosecutor Crider and other communities in our area a declaratory judgment action to define what the financial responsibility of the City is. We are not going to be able to defend or determine claims on takings until we have actually had somebody whose property has diminished in value. One thing that we can clear up in the interim and might bring the point home to the State Legislature, and the Supreme Court might entertain, is a definition of the what are the State enactments that the State has to pay for. As cities have to pay in 30 days, the cities have to know to whom to send the bill. Mr. Snyder asked for authorization to discuss with other communities and other municipal attorneys and prosecuting attorneys and bring back to Council some sort of recommendation on how the City could participate in getting an answer -- not fund the cost yourself or bring the action yourself but participate in some reasonable way or a portion of the cost in determining what the State tab is. Mayor Hall said the five mayors of South County meet once a month, will be meeting next week, and will have that issue on their agenda. Councilmember Fahey asked if there was any kind of conflict of interest or reason why they, as City Council members, are precluded from attempting to get signatures on this initiative. Mr. Snyder indicated the Mayor received an excellent AWC two -page exposition on what Council's limits are under the Public Disclosure Laws. He stated that Council can give press conferences and can discuss these issues at public meetings, but the City cannot use public facilities to ask for those signatures or have them sitting out in public offices or use public cars. If you, as a private citizen, want to circulate that on your own time, they can be circulated. Council President Petruzzi commented that he thought he read that in order for us to get what we want on the ballot we are going to have to defeat Proposition 48. One of the things we must be very careful of when APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 8 we are telling people to get the proposition on the ballot in November and then vote it down. He clarified that in order to defeat Initiative 164, Proposition 48 must be defeated. �, 7. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON TRANSPORTATION PLAN 16 Po 70^ Planning Manager Rob Chave said Engineering has continued their review of the Transportation Plan. PAR They did spot a couple of corrections in the bikeway section. He passed out a memo to give additional background. It is some technical terminology that was in the transportation element regarding bike routes versus bike lanes, etc. Also in the memo being passed out are a couple of specific recommendations or ideas Council highlighted during the previous public hearing. One deals with the City taking on a leadership role coordinating transportation action as mentioned by Councilmember Earling. Staff has put together possible goals to address that. In addition, there was another policy suggestion dealing with pedestrian safety in and around schools and playgrounds, the original suggestion also being made by Councilmember Earling. Regarding Councilmember Fahey's previous questions, Mr. Chave indicated there were a couple of references in the policies that should be checked to see if it covers the concerns. Mr. Chave went on to report one correction which is not significant right now but which could get confusing if the notation is not made now. The corrections were made to Appendix Tables E-5 and E-6. The corrections dealt with the ferry traffic issue, and Mr. Chave was concerned that later discussion would be impeded unless the corrections were made. Mr. Chave will forward a correction page with those changes made so that page of the plan can be replaced Councilmember Kasper questioned the map presented. City Engineer Jim Walker responded that this is the actual map adopted by the State on their functional classification system. They consider Third Avenue down to Pine Street and Pine Street itself to be part of a principal arterial. Councilmember Kasper noted that Staff is showing it as a collector. Mr. Walker reported the actual traffic volume counts on it are significantly lower than a lot of other streets. It was confirmed it was a ferry route. Mr. Walker indicated if Council desired, Staff could change the designation in Edmonds' plan to something higher. Discussion followed regarding the changing of one road from collector to arterial and another from state highway to collector. Mr. Chave said that in part Edmonds' classifications show some semblance of a relationship with the State classifications, but we are also trying to set it commensurate with the traffic volumes we experience. There will not be an exact match between the two. Councilmember Kasper reminded him not to forget from where the funds came. Mr. Chave thinks that was one of the things highlighted in previous discussions. No matter what our classification is internally for our purposes, we still make a translation when we go to the State seeking money because it is their classification under which we are seeking the money and not our's. Councilmember Kasper thinks the Planning Board have gone a long ways in trying to contain the traffic. His primary objection was that it looked like we were disguising accommodation as if it was containment. When you look at this and if we enforce what we did here and not try to work around it, Mr. Kasper thinks there is containment to a certain extent. Councilmember Kasper then asked when we are going to get into the Comp Plan changes. He asked if there would be a similar amount of time to discuss those. He referenced specifically the senior housing issue which he hasn't seen come up anywhere. Mr. Chave said there had been various comments at various stages of the elements. He is going to try to consolidate those in one memo that highlights the various changes they have had to date. They will need to schedule that at a meeting between now and the 20th. APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 23, I995 PAGE 9 Councilmember Myers reminded Mr. Chave that he would still like to take a look at the traffic figures when the ferry wasn't running. Mr. Myers was advised it was scheduled for the Community Services Committee in June. Some of the basic count information will be presented earlier. Councilmember Nordquist questioned the fact that the short section between Highway 99 and Edmonds Way and is only two blocks long is listed as a principal arterial, and 220th which is a major arterial connecting to the freeway, when it crosses Highway 99 it reduces to a minor arterial. It seems to Councilmember Nordquist that the only major East-West arterial Edmonds has is on 196th, and he feels somewhere along the line something else needs to be declared as another avenue to take off some of the pressure. Mr. Chave says that if Council were to look at the recommended arterial system plan in Edmonds' Transportation Element it identifies from 76th East along Highway 99 as a minor arterial type 1. When you hit 76th going West it drops down to a level 2 arterial. Part of the process is we will adopt the plan and there may be a period of adjustment where the State's system is discussed. It has not been changed in many years and needs updating. Councilmember Nordquist also reported he had read in a paper in Kitsap County that we can expect a super ferry to arrive in Edmonds as soon as the two new ones are constructed. He wondered if another layer would be put on Edmonds Way because he feels the traffic on that street will be unbearable. Councilmember Nordquist closed by complimenting and acknowledging the Planning Board for a job well done. Council President Petruzzi also thanked Mr. Mattson and the Board for their very fine job. Council President Petruzzi asked for clarification on page 42 language regarding repaving and re -striping to a four -lane street, minor arterial type 1 from Main Street/212th Street from 9th Avenue North to SR 99. He asked if that plan was immediate. Mr. Chave responded that it was in the plan as a 20-year time period but it does not appear in the 6-year plan. Discussion was held concerning the number of lanes and the rate at which they would be added as well as other anticipated changes and alternatives. Regarding the next stage, Mr. Chave intends to try to get all the corrections, comments, etc, packaged together and to Council and attempt to schedule some time fairly soon so Council can look at everything. He will try to get some suggestions together for that timing and coordinate with the Council President for scheduling. Mr. Chave reported further that the draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued Saturday. The comment period runs about 30 days. There will be a public hearing which is tentatively scheduled for the 8th of June which is a Thursday. For lack of space, that meeting will be held at the Port. Mr. Chave expects there will be changes to make to reflect the current state of affairs with the plan. Councilmember Earling thanked Mr. Chave for drafting the two changes from comments he had made last week. He appreciated the City taking a leadership role in solving transportation issues and also help with safety of children in and around school parks. Councilmember Kasper noted the only thing left out was the issue of 84th and 88th being combined into a collector arterial which was supposed to have been done after 9th Avenue. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO OPEN THIS MATTER FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. MOTION CARRIED. APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 10 Jane Cunningham, 1030 Grandview, Edmonds, was granted three minutes. Ms. Cunningham expressed her concern over Olympic View Drive and Puget Drive. She noted an accident several months ago, it is not well lit, and has other traffic and parking problems. She also indicated how honored she felt at being the Grand Marshall for the Fourth of July parade. Mayor Hall suggested Ms. Cunningham talk with City Engineer Jim Walker concerning some of her questions. 8. UPDATE ON FINANCIAL CENTER ACQUISITION PROCESS Prior to the commencement of this item, Mayor Hall indicated she had some remarks she would like to make. She had concerns about last week's meeting and some of Council President Petruzzi's remarks. She read the following statement: You, as Council President, appointed Councilman Roger Myers to set the scope of work. The Council voted on April 18 to hire the firm of Whitely -Jacobsen, Inc. to conduct the analysis of the building. Your remarks exaggerate the negative. The results of the study do find the numbers higher than expected. Also, the Council is not firm on locating the Council chambers in the building. These factors, plus renovations over the next year or so, call for honest assessment. Only then can proper prioritization occur. You prefaced your remarks by saying that you work for Washington Mutual Bank, and they have been involved in at least ten building renovations. Further you referred to two sources connected with Washington Mutual who aided you in assessing the Whitely -Jacobsen material. Who are these experts? I would like to set the record straight with them. You stated in public and on television that one source said the report seemed to have been written to kill the deal. This is a serious implication. At no time were directions given by administration to kill the deal. I am sure the Whitely -Jacobsen firm which has been doing business with the City for nearly 30 years would take exception to that implication also. Let me state one more time, the Financial Building is a fine building. However, the purchase price is far above the City's own contracted appraisal which was authorized by the Council. The results of the structural analysis indicate that a substantial sum of money will be needed to retrofit to our needs and requirements. And, finally, there is one highly perplexing element in this Financial Building purchase scenario. Why would the Council wish to purchase the building when one partner in said building is suing the City? It is most distasteful to me, and certainly not fair to our citizens, that the Council is willing to pay a premium while the City is expending money for litigation. As Council President, I would like rationale from you to support this transaction. Councilmember Myers clarified the only reference that he made to any codes in the letter that he originally sent out was to bring up these up-to-date seismic codes. He made no reference to any other codes so did not outline the entire scope of work Council received. Council President Petruzzi indicated Council had spent almost two months setting the record and reasons. He stated a number of Mayor Hall's statements were inaccurate. He said Mr. Myers had already brought one up. He stated the first night that Mayor Hall did not want to buy the building. There was a brief discussion concerning interruptions. Community Services Director Paul Mar called Council attention to the up-to-date schedule contained in the packets. As indicated in the cover sheet, no further tasks have been completed since last week. Councilmembers Kasper and Earling and Mayor Hall met with Mr. Mar yesterday, and the directive was to look at those costs that were in the Whitely -Jacobsen engineering inspection report that we felt were of the highest priority in terms of complying with the codes, and then in looking at how other costs can be categorized. Also included in the memo is a discussion of all of the costs that Staff believes will have to be incurred at some point in time during the life of the acquisition, renovation, and move -in of this facility. As APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 11 discussed last week and at yesterday's meeting, not all of these costs must be incurred on day 1. Some costs may never have to be incurred, but in terms of looking at a strategy to get us into the building, Mr. Mar believes we should have an idea of what all those costs are. If the costs, in terms of the high priority items, are to exceed what the Council has stated as a not to exceed number of $5 million, there is a game plan needed as to how the additional funds will be earmarked. Councilmember Kasper commented that the only item that had been requested dealt with the absolute immediate ADA requirements. He stated further the rest had not yet been requested. Mayor Hall then added another variable as to whether or not Council chambers were to be housed in that building. Councilmember Earling informed Council that in the meeting yesterday the one thing that was asked for specifically for this evening was an ADA breakdown, the kinds of compliance that we have to do to meet ADA requirements as we move into the building. The other part of the discussion centered around over time trying to establish the priorities that first of all Staff would bring forward and then discuss with hopefully some concurrence from the Council as we work toward that $5 million figure and understanding that over time again some of these issues will take longer to resolve. The first priorities were simply to get us in the building and work towards that $5 million cap. He thinks the Councilmembers understand there are changes that should be identified and carried out. Councilmember Earling announced that Councilmember Nordquist would like to sit in on the meetings, and his presence was welcomed. Mr. Earling also said he did not sense an immediacy for us to completely come to conclusion on the priority list prior to the date of June 6. His understanding is that the charge is to work toward some resolution to prioritization and bring those forward to the Council sometime in the next couple of months so that discussion may be held. One item would be whether Council chambers is first or second priority. There are a number of issues like that which would need discussion at some point in the fixture. Council President Petruzzi indicated he would. like Councilmember Nordquist to be on the committee as he has requested because he would be of substantial help to the Council if he were to participate in it. Council President Petruzzi expressed his understanding that these things should be developed over the next few months. He reiterated that "we feel" the building is sound. and is a good building. He thinks there should be some lengthy discussion as to where is the best spot to put the dollars. He noticed that if we went public it would cost an additional $72,000 which could be put into other items. His recommendation will be that Council not worry about putting Council chambers in the building. He reiterated the building was not bought to make Council chambers, but basically for administration. The key issue which Council President Petruzzi feels warrants taking time is the refinement of prioritization. It will come down to wants versus needs. Council President Petruzzi recommended that Item No. 9 on conducting the inspections be shown as a done item. He will check next week to see if there is a problem with encumbrances. Council President Petruzzi questioned Mr. Mar on the legal fees shown on page 3. Council President Petruzzi will check on that and advise Mr. Mar. He also suggested the title report and recording fees may run $250 total. The $70,000 bond issuance cost was a guesstimate. Mr. Petruzzi asked Art Housler for a more accurate figure. The estimate put together from the bond counsel and financial advisor was $65,130 which included attorney fees. Council President Petruzzi said to change that figure to $66,000. In trying to bring this in under $5 million, Councilmember Fahey thinks Council needs to ask itself exactly what are appropriate costs to be included in that $5 million. If we were to build on the existing campus, the $5 million would be a realistic figure to actually build there. In addition to that we would have to lease or find space for all the people for two years and pay the costs of relocating them twice. There is no way that APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 12 we would wind up with a new administrative building and build it for $5 million without having a lot of ancillary costs associated with it. In this proposal we .are only moving once. Although the project should be brought in as close to $5 million as possible, there are some specific cost -saving features going into this that also have to be calculated in. She also asked if we wound up with some excess space in that building what are the options in terms of leasing out some of that space to some other supporting groups that might be able to work in conjunction with the City. Mr. Mar responded that leasing small amounts of space to non -city entities was allowable. Mr. Housler advised that there was a maximum of 10% that could be rented out because otherwise the tax-exempt bonds would be taxable. Councilmember Myers asked if there was an estimate as to the revenue to be generated between the date of closing and the expiration of leases. Councilmember Petruzzi reminded Councilmember Myers that that was taken care of in the negotiations and is in the contract. All of the rents to be paid, including the partnership rents, will be coming to Edmonds as income. They are allowed to say in 11 %2 months. The reason for that time limit is that if we go to 12 months or more, the bonds would revert to taxable bonds. Councilmember Myers asked for a figure on the income the City might expect and suggested it would be money that could be used for some other purpose. Council President Petruzzi advised that Councilmember Kasper had finished reviewing all of the leases and that he was in the process of looking at his review. They will be turned over to legal counsel and Mr. Housler. Staff will have a complete book with each lease in it, a summary of each lease, and the Staff will know from whom to collect what money. Mr. Mar confirmed that with respect to the schedule, Item 12 (Prepare Renovation Costs) will not be done prior to the closing date. Councilmember Hall commented that he is concerned with having individual Councilmembers take parts of the task of reviewing documents and checking on encumbrances and those kinds of things. He indicated his belief that none of the Councilmembers doing those tasks would want to purchase errors and omissions insurance in this regard if there were mistakes made or those types of issues overlooked.. He said Councilmembers could not lay themselves on the line individually. He believes that may be stepping out beyond their purview and authority. He does not wish to slow anything down, but believes if anything needs to be reviewed by legal counsel or deeds reviewed or encumbrances checked upon that we cannot afford to put that responsibility and/or reliability not only on the City Council but on individuals. Councilmember Kasper agreed. He said he did not make any legal decisions, only went through to see that things matched up. It will be turned over to review. He only raised the items he thought should be questioned. Council President Petruzzi indicated he had checked with the attorneys regarding Council's authority to do things. Discussion followed concerning what the assigned task was. From a legal standpoint, Council President Petruzzi will ask legal counsel if we want to spend money to review these particular leases. There is a requirement that all of the leases have to have a modification showing a termination date within the i l %2 months. Council President Petruzzi also clarified that when he was talking about checking on the encumbrances, he was going to call the attorney and ask his feelings on the encumbrances. Anything that would take in legal advice, anything that is written such as the Purchase and Sale Agreement will be handled by the attorneys. 9/11. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS AND COUNCIL ��gPob� Councilmember Nordquist called a point of order and suggested that the individual council reports, updates on board meetings and council discussion be combined into one discussion item. rp Council President Petruzzi spoke regarding SnoCom and Medic 7. Some of the information was ��'° concerning Sound Shake and what happened to general communications during Sound Shake. They broke APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 13 down rather badly in Snohomish County. Mayor Tina Roberts will speak to Bob Drewell about follow-up in the newspaper. There has been talk for some time about the 800 megahertz system which would eliminate a vast majority of those communications problems. The difficulty will be in educating the public on the need for an 800 megahertz system. The Board, through Mayor Roberts, is going to try to get some communication going with the newspapers to try to start an education program. He also reported there would be discussions with King County concerning their system. Council President Petruzzi announced that Councilmember Myers is the only one who has contacted the Aylr' Council office regarding attending this year's AWC retreat. Barb Meihlert will be mailing in the registration on May 25. As there is money budgeted for additional Councilmembers to attend, the invitation was given. Mr. Petruzzi then noted that the first Tuesday of July is July 4. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED WE DO NOT HAVE A MEETING ON THE 4TH AND NOT ON THE 3RD, AND THAT IF WE HAVE HEARINGS THAT HAVE TO BE HEARD BECAUSE OF THE COMMITTEE NIGHT WE MIGHT HAVE TO DO SOME OF THOSE HEARINGS ON THE IITH (AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST). MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND. Councilmember Nordquist suggested Council schedule the 5th as a meeting night even if it doesn't get used. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST. MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT SIX,'� PETRUZZI, TO SCHEDULE A MEETING ON DULY 5 WHICH IS A WEDNESDAY NIGHT AS M66f a A SPECIAL MEETING NIGHT. Deputy City Clerk Sandy Chase reminded Mayor Hall and Council that on May 5 the Architectural Design Board will be meeting in this room. Councilmember Nordquist suggested Council could meet someplace else. Councilmember Petruzzi and Ms. Chase will work on explaining to Staff that they really don't want to put anything on the agenda for that date unless there is an emergency. Mayor Hall indicated she would explain to Staff. Concern was expressed about vacations that week and a possible lack of staff participation. Councilmember Myers suggested using the new Public Works site. Question was called for. Discussion was requested by, Councilmember Earling. Council yielded to Councilmember Earling. He wanted to encourage a serious look at whether the meeting was necessary. With the number of late meetings recently, and the number of items that are still needing to be discussed, Councilmember Earling believes Council could make good use of the meeting. MOTION CARRIED (COUNCILMEMBER KASPER VOTED NO). Councilmember Nordquist reported on the Health District. He distributed copies of statistics regarding the 1gApregnancy and abortion rate in Snohomish County. This record keeping area is one way in which the �151g Of District serves the community. Mr. Nordquist then thanked Mr. Housler for the Washington Cities Insurance Authority Annual Report and the analysis: He noted that it indicated that the frequency of claims is increasing. Councilmember Nordquist expressed disappointment at the changing of the Summer Market. He wished the internal decision could have been made before it was made a public decision. He expressed his desire that we were helping them to relocate and find another site. Mayor Hall updated him on the status of present negotiations. Councilmember Nordquist also noted that the Anderson Marina is appalling and is getting worse. Lastly, Councilmember Nordquist announced he will be unable to select the art piece on July 11. Councilmembers Myers and Earling volunteered to take over the task. Councilmember Earling provided an update on the senior bus issue on which $4,000 was passed a couple Rof weeks ago. The Senior Center has received a favorable bid for a 23-person new bus. They found money G6from private donation as well as the Boeing Company, along with donations from Lynnwood, Mountlake ,01A Terrace and Edmonds. Councilmember Earlmg also expressed disappointment with the process that APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 14 happened with the Summer Market. He believes a logical site to relocate would be the plaza area between 4th and 5th in the Public Safety and Community Services area. s Councilmember Fahey reported she had attended an Edmonds Visitors Bureau meeting yesterday. There was a great deal of expressed concern over the train situation. There was quite a promotion created around �qEA the passenger train stopping here in Edmonds. They have printed up a booklet about things to do in all the cities where the train is stopping. Edmonds is in the book. Ms. Fahey also reported that Edmonds In Bloom was now incorporated as a separate entity. They have applied for grants from a couple of places and expect to find most of their funding. Councilmember Fahey further reported that this morning she attended a meeting of the Steering Committee on behalf of Cascade for the feasibility study. The County has approved the funding for that study, and they will be putting together the RFR As soon as they complete getting the contracts established, they will be moving forward with an ad to find a group to do the feasibility study for the area. The Economic Development Group is going strong. There will be a meeting every Wednesday night for the next four weeks at the Rain Forest. A different subject will be discussed each night, including marketers and what the City can do in terms of codes and signage that are currently i►t�� seen as obstacles to business development. Ms. Fahey indicated they had 13 applicants for RFQs to hire Coo someone to help with the Strategic Plan. They are being evaluated with interviews next week and the consultant is to be chosen and ready to meet the group as a whole on June 7. f�6 Councilmember Hall relayed a question from the Edmonds Community College individuals taping the G�J's Council meeting as to whether they wished the upcoming fifth Tuesday meeting taped. Deputy Clerk f4Ai 30 Sandy Chase noted that it was originally thought to be televised. Councilmember Hall reminded that ME�r� 6 because of a cord problem, one meeting was not televised. It will not cost extra. It was Council consensus to tape the meeting. As part of his participation on the Health District, Councilmember Hall discussed various issues tH concerning Sound Shake Day. As a response, the District is looking into purchasing cellular phones for the D �, R�eT major staff and administration people where immediate communication is needed. Councilmember Hall thinks that is something the City should look into for its major staff and administration. Councilmember Hall concurred with the others on the Summer Market and expressed his hope that an alternative site can be found. In addition to the other site suggested, Mr. Hall suggested the employee parking lot on the weekends as a central location with plenty of room. Councilmember Myers said at last night's Port meeting there was a presentation on the building occurring foR'f on Port property. He invited anyone interested to attend Port meetings on Mondays. He discussed the plans made so far. The building would be located between Admiral Way and the railroad and across from Arnie's. Councilmember Myers further referenced a conference in Portland, Oregon, on October 17-21 that may be appropriate for the Community Services Director to attend concerning waterfront issues. 10. MAYOR Mayor Hall announced the retirement of City Clerk Rhonda March. An invitation was given to a gathering If E� on Wednesday, May 31, 1:00-3:00 in the Library Plaza Room. The South County Mayors met with another group and, among other things, discussed Initiative 164. She announced the SnoKing Youth Club Auction and' Dinner Saturday night was well attended. The HUD block grant meeting was yesterday in Everett. There was a meeting with Dave and Bill Paul regarding the Financial Building. Tomorrow the train arrives at 10:30. On that train should be West Coast CEO Gil Mallory of AMTRAK, Al Swift of BN, Transportation Secretary Sid Morrison and others. She suggested �RAK since the stop would be longer, lobbying could be done. She discussed the contacts she has had with Tom APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 15 Downs in Washington, D.C. Since Mr. Mallory has been designated West Coast CEO, he is the one with whom we will be primarily dealing. Mayor Hall will, however, keep in touch with Mr. Downs. Mayor Hall called upon Paul Mar for the discussion on the fencing. Mr. Mar reviewed what had transpired to date. He then acknowledged that the Mayor, various Councilmembers, and himself had been making calls. There was a meeting yesterday with the engineer from BN, a representative from DOT, and UTC staff members at which Jim Walker and Mr. Mar sat in. Burlington Northern is willing to put in the fence. Burlington Northern or WSDOT or some combination will pay for those fences. AMTRAK's position is / they will not stop in Edmonds until the train speed increases occur. He reminded Council the WUTC's 414o order says the train speed increases will occur only when the four conditions are met. The two most ff,4od6 difficult are the fencing because we do have to go through a shoreline process. The agreement reached yesterday was: with the understanding that the permanent fencing going through the permit process might take four months, it is in everybody's interest for the train to stop as soon as it can, that the WUTC is going to review a letter to send out tomorrow that says with temporary fencing in place they will increase the train speed limits. Once those train speed limits are increased, then AMTRAK will stop in Edmonds. Mr. Mar then clarified that the inauguration train is tomorrow. The regular run that starts on Friday will bypass Edmonds. He specifically asked the UTC's Attorney General what the turnaround time was for a letter arriving tomorrow or the next day. They could not give a definitive answer, but it will probably be a week or two. We can probably look for the train stopping in Edmonds sometime next month. They were trying to get enough definitive information from all parties to make an announcement here on the platform tomorrow. Councilmember Nordquist asked the height of the fence being negotiated. Mr. Mar said the permanent fence would be those fences Mr. Nordquist suggested as are in White Rock. They are about 3Y2' high. They are going to be Edmonds blue instead of the dark blue in White Rock. The temporary fencing will be the mesh -type fencing that you see at construction projects along the highway. They will be below the bluff and will not be visible from above. Placement of those fences will be directed by Burlington Northern to minimize any liability. Councilmember Earling thanked Mr. Mar for all the work he has done, especially in the last week. He also thanked the Mayor who has worked diligently on trying to resolve this issue. He acknowledged that Councilmembers Fahey and Myers and any other members who had made some phone calls as he had requested last week. He thinks all who attend tomorrow should continue to lobby and also thank Mr. Morrison for trying his best to bring this problem to a satisfactory resolution. Councilmember Earling said last thanks should go to the business community who went out on a limb and tried to organize some economic benefits from this new service that would have a stop in Edmonds. He acknowledged comments made by Secretary Morrison concerning those efforts to try to take an amenity to the city and make it an economic benefit as well. Councilmember Hall pointed out there is a shoreline review process that is going to have to take place regarding the fence. It is at that point Council can have some input, the citizens can have some input regarding any appeals and the process. His feeling is that in the long run these people are going to need Edmonds as a stop because otherwise they won't get the ridership they want and won't be able to make this economically feasible. When their plans don't work, they will want to stop in Edmonds. Mayor Hall and Councilmember Kasper agreed. The public being advised there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m. ,�C lGfit�.f/ LZ, J APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES LA M , MAYOR SANDRA S . CHASE, MAY 23, 1995 CITY CLERK PAGE 16 MAY 23, 1995 SPECIAL WORK MEETING 6:45 P.M. - EXECUTIVE SESSION ON A LEGAL MATTER 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 MINUTES OF MAY 16, 1995 (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #951771 THRU #952571 FOR WEEK OF MAY 15, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $124,365.88, AND PAYROLL WARRANTS #952387 THRU #952674 FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 1 THRU MAY 15, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $376,755.54 (E) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 1995 (F) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 1, 1995, FOR THE PURCHASE OF A TRAILER MOUNTED AIR COMPRESSOR AND AWARD OF BID TO PACIFIC AMERICAN COMMERCIAL COMPANY FOR $10,750.48 (INCLUDING SALES TAX) (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO EXECUTE 1995 EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH COUNCIL RESOURCE PERSON (H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE A TRACTOR LOADER (1) DECLARING VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SELL AT JAMES MURPHY AUCTION COMPANY (J) AUTHORIZE FUNDING SOURCE FOR CITY CLERK TERMINATION PAY (K) APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS' DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROGRAM (L) AMEND CURRENT CONTRACT WITH DEWILLIAM/CHARF TO PROVIDE A REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION COST PROJECTION OF A 25-YARD VS A 50-METER X 25-YARD POOL CONFIGURATION (M) AUTHORIZATION FOR TRAINING SERGEANT TO ATTEND FBI NATIONAL ACADEMY IN QUANTICO 3. (5 Min.) PROCLAMATION ON "PUBLIC WORKS WEEK" 4. (10 Min.) ANNUAL REPORT TO COUNCIL BY SISTER CITIES COMMISSION 5. (10 Min.) DISCUSSION ON ACQUISITION OF FIRE STATION #10 AS PART OF THE FIRE SERVICE AGREEMENTS 6. (30 Min.) CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON TRANSPORTATION PLAN -Continued- EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MAY 23, 1995 PAGE TWO 7. (45 Min.) PRESENTATION BY CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF AND RESPONSE TO INITIATIVE 164 AND REGULATORY REFORM 8. (15 Min.) UPDATE ON FINANCIAL CENTER ACQUISITION PROCESS 9. (10 Min.) INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS 10. (5 Min.) MAYOR 11. (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.