02/15/2000 City CouncilI
1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
FEBRUARY 15, 2000
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the
Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Jim White, Council President Pro Tem
Dave Earling, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Christopher Davis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Maia Krause, Student Representative
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Thomas A. Miller, Council President
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Robin Hickok, Police Chief
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor
James Walker, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Sandy Chase, City Clerk.
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCELMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Orvis pulled Item N from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
WHITE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
pproval of (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 2000
Minutes
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #35929 THROUGH #38991 FOR THE WEEK OF
JANUARY 31, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $262,955.22. APPROVAL OF CLAIM.
pproval of WARRANTS #35930 THROUGH #39074 FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 7, 2000, IN
laim THE AMOUNT OF $151,997.27. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #27502
arrants THROUGH #27242 FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 16 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2000,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $352,292.44,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2000
Page 1
laims for
Damages
(D)
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM FORREST &
CHERRYL BAILEY (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND JAY McCOLLUM ($125.00)
axicab
(E)
APPROVAL OF TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSES FOR CHECKER CAB CO., INC.
perators
AND YELLOW CAB
Grants to
(F)
AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD GRANTS TO LOCAL ARTS ORGANIZATIONS FOR
Arts Organi-
PROMOTION OF ARTS EVENTS AND CULTURAL TOURISM
ations
(G)
APPROVAL OF AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT
ual Plat
OF OLYMPIC VIEW CREST, 20 -LOT FORMAL SUBDIVISION (File No. P- 98 -72;
-98 -72
Property Location: West Side of Olympic View Drive Between 180 " Street SW and 181"
Place SW; Applicant: R. L. McDuffy Associates and NW Independent Builders, LLC)
SW Sno. Co.
Public
Safety
(H)
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL
Comm.
COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHWEST SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Agency
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY
(1)
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL WAIVER OF EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 20.80 —
Elliott
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN
onsulting
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH ELLIOTT CONSULTING, INC.
Purchase
(J)
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A DUAL DRIVE UPGRADE FOR EXISTING
Dual Drive
KLAMPRESSES AT THE TREATMENT PLANT FROM ASHBROOK ($29,702, Including
Upgrade
Sales Tax)
[Purchase
[Vehicle
(K)
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE 2000 FORD EXPEDITION FROM THE STATE
CONTRACT
Purchase
(L)
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE INTERNET SOFTWARE
Software
urchase (M) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE NETWORK SOFTWARE TO IMPLEMENT
Software TECHNOLOGY PLAN
Item N: Resolution No. 976 Interpreting and Applying the Fees to be Charged a Variance
Applicant Pursuant to Resolution No. 967, the Annual Fee Resolution for the Year 2000
Councilmember Orvis explained he wished to vote no on the proposed resolution as he voted against this
issue when it was discussed with the Council previously.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM N. UPON ROLL CALL, THE MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBERS
ORVIS AND EARLING OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows:
e (N) RESOLUTION NO. 976 INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE FEES TO BE
Variance rince
Fees CHARGED A VARIANCE APPLICANT PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 967, THE
ANNUAL FEE RESOLUTION FOR THE YEAR 2000
3. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION
Proposed OF APPROXIMATELY 193 ACRES KNOWN AS THE "SUNDQUIST" ANNEXATION. WHICH
Sundquist IS GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF 228TH STREET SOUTHWEST; WEST OF HIGHWAY
Annexation 99; EAST OF 88TH AVENUE WEST; AND NORTH OF MAPLE LANE AND 234TH STREET
SOUTHWEST (File No. AX -98 -101)
Councilmember Petso excused herself from participation in this matter due to prior involvement datiiig
back to last summer.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2000
Page 2
Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson displayed a map illustrating the boundaries,of the proposed annexation
area and landmark parcels within the proposed annexation area. He. explained at the Council's January
18 meeting, the Council met with the proponent, Eric Sundquist, the resident who brought this issue
forward. At that time, the Council discussed, 1) the final boundary, 2) whether the area would be subject
to existing bonded indebtedness, and 3) what zoning would be applied to the area (pre- zoning process or
other method). At the January 18 meeting, several questions were raised by the Council and a decision
was made to delay determination of the final boundary as well as the decision regarding assumption of
existing bonded indebtedness until public testimony had been provided. Regarding zoning, the City
typically adopts comparable zoning to Snohomish County's zoning to maintain/mimic existing zoning.
Mr. Wilson explained the proposed annexation area was approximately 193 acres and he identified the
boundaries of the area. He identified the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property on 228h and
Fire Station #10 that is owned, operated, and maintained by the City but is currently in unincorporated
Snohomish County. He advised the proposed annexation area abuts the City limits on.the south and east
and the area to the north was unincorporated Snohomish County although a small portion on the north
side was within the City.
Mr. Wilson said one of the issues raised by the Council was what revenues and expenditures could be
expected over the next two years and whether there would be a positive or ,negative cash flow. Mr.
Wilson advised that information was outlined in detail in the Council packet and Administrative Services
Director Peggy Hetzler was present to provide further information if necessary. He suggested that issue
be addressed following public testimony in the event similar questions were raised.
In response to questions raised regarding the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property that is
within the proposed annexation area, Mr. Wilson explained the total valuation of the Olympic View
Water and Sewer District property was approximately $702,000 and the total assessed value of the
proposed annexation area was approximately $66 million. The petition method annexation process
requires signatures of property owners representing at least 60% of the total valuation of the proposed
annexation area for an annexation to be considered for final approval. He pointed out $702,000, the
value of the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property, was an insignificant amount of the total
assessed valuation. He advised there were few commercial properties or multi- family properties
included in the proposed annexation area and their total assessed valuation ranged from $5 -7 million. He
said none of these properties could individually or collectively "make or break" the annexation. In order
to succeed, the annexation would require the overwhelming support of single family property owners in
the area.
In response to an inquiry regarding whether the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property should
be excluded from the boundary of the proposed annexation area, Mr. Wilson explained during
annexations, Snohomish County looks to cities to annex the full right -of -way as part of annexation
thereby transferring ownership, maintenance, public safety issues, etc. to the local jurisdiction. If the
Olympic View Water and Sewer District property on 228' was excluded, the City would either have to
propose to eliminate 2280' from the annexation which the Snohomish County Council and staff have
effectively lobbied the Boundary Review Board in the past to ensure those areas are included. Another
option would be to include a portion of the right -of -way and exclude a portion of the right -of -way, such
as excluding the right -of -way which would result in a gap of approximately one block that would be
unincorporated. This would lead to confusion over which jurisdiction had the public safety
responsibility in this area.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2000
Page 3
Mr. Wilson said Olympic View Water and Sewer District currently had other property within the City
limits; the main headquarters building on Edmonds Way, which was annexed into the City several years
ago. Although Olympic View Water and Sewer District's property on the north side of 228`h would not
be included in the proposed annexation area, by annexing the entire right -of -way, there would be
improved access to the City as the right -of -way permitting agency. He pointed out most of the work
between the two properties would occur in the right -of -way.
Mr. Wilson said staff recommends the Council authorize circulation of the petitions with the boundaries
as presently drawn. He said the Council must make the decision regarding_ bonded indebtedness. Staff
also recommends comparable zoning be adopted as part of the annexation to maintain continuity and
then any zoning issues could be re- evaluated as part of the City's annual Comprehensive Plan review
process.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the City
received three letters and a telephone call, 1) L. Smithson (no address) opposed to annexation, 2) C. R.
Maier, 8727 Holly Lane, Edmonds, opposed to annexation, 3.) an additional letter from C. Maier,
opposed to annexation, and 4) Barbara Abruzzo, 23018 81" Place W, Edmonds, in support of
annexation.
John Hidell, 22430 86" Avenue W, Edmonds, a resident since 1965, said they went through this about
two years ago when a vote was taken not to annex. He questioned why annexation was being sought
again and why by this method. He was opposed to annexation and said Snohomish County had been
very good to their neighborhood in addressing any street and light problems.
Bob Brown, 23014 83'd Avenue West, Edmonds, said in the past 35 years, there had been '/z dozen
votes rejecting annexation to Edmonds. He asked why it was thought this annexation request would be
more palatable to residents in the proposed annexation area than past efforts. He questioned why he
would want to annex into Edmonds.
Patricia Meeker, 22711 96th Avenue West, Edmonds, a commissioner with Olympic View Water
and Sewer District, said she was present to answer any questions regarding Olympic View Water and
Sewer District's position on the annexation.
Steve Kish, 8925 229th Place SW, Edmonds, (outside the annexation boundary), asked how the
annexation boundary was established, who Mr. Sundquist was, whether he was related to the "Woodway
Sundquist development," and how annexation would change the neighborhood as it would cut the
neighborhood in half.
Pat LaJambe, 22921 85th Place W, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to annexation. She said previous
votes indicated the majority of residents were opposed to annexation. She recalled Perrinville voted to
annex into the City but voted not to accept the bonded indebtedness. She said City records indicate the
Council voted to include the bonded indebtedness for their area. She said Mr. Wilson indicated residents
in the proposed annexation area would have to accept the bonded indebtedness if the annexation effort
was successful. She questioned why the Council found it acceptable for other areas not to, be included in
the bonded indebtedness but their area would not have any say in the matter. She said the Council- also
voted to include the $770,000 value of the fire station property as part of the required 60 %. She objected
to including the fire station property as it was not a private property and would not be included in
property taxes. She recalled that although Mr. Wilson indicated the value of the Olympic View Water
and Sewer District and the fire station properties were insignificant and could be included on the petition
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2000
Page 4
in favor of annexation, those properties represented $1.5 million, the equivalent of 5 -10 'houses. She
requested any annexation petition state that assumption of the bonded indebtedness would be required.
Eleanor Howard, 22815 801' Place W, #8, Edmonds, a resident. since 1989, said there had been at least
two ballot issues regarding annexation during the time she lived in the neighborhood; both times, the
ballot issue was rejected by citizens in that area. She said she saw only two signs announcing tonight's
meeting, signs that required exiting your vehicle and getting down on your knees to read. She said when
Olympic View Water and Sewer District had a hearing, everyone got a notice on their door. She
questioned why there had not been more publicity regarding this effort. She questioned what final say
residents of the area would have.
Mark Strom, 8826 228" Street SW, Edmonds, adjacent to (but outside) the proposed annexation area,
said he did not know much about this annexation effort and was unable to find out what the public
process was to move this effort forward. He understood annexation efforts have occurred in this area in
the past.
Larry Brainerd, 23118 84th Avenue W, Edmonds, asked what was motivating Mr. Sundquist's efforts
to have this area annexed. He expressed his appreciation for the flyer mailed to him regarding tonight's
meeting. He questioned how annexation would impact him, what costs he could expect and what
different services or service levels he could expect. He said annexation had been rejected twice and
unless the benefits were clearly established, it would likely be rejected again.
Bailey Vickell, 8427 Holly Lane, Edmonds, said in 1997, residents of the Esperance .area rejected
annexation 67% to 33 %. He stressed residents in this area had. repeatedly said no to annexation. He said
those seeking signatures on the annexation petition asked people if they wanted to receive information
about annexation, thereby misleading those who signed the petition. He questioned what the benefits of
annexation were, explaining their water is provided by Olympic View Water and Sewer District, their
power from PUD, and police from Snohomish County. He said The Edmonds Paper indicated a new
police officer would be hired at a cost of $90 for a $300,000 home. He said they already have police
protection. He said residents inside and outside this area still experience car and home invasions, which
Edmonds Police have not stopped. He said their being annexed to Edmonds would not be better for
them. He reiterated the City needed to show what they could do for them, commenting most people have
been misled by information in the newspaper. He questioned how many of the property owners' voices
in the 193 acres were being heard. He objected to property owners being the only ones with a voice in
this vote.
Rich Johnson, 8706 Holly Lane, Edmonds, a resident since 1965, said he came tonight to hear the
latest "fairy tale" regarding how much better his life would be via annexation.
John Justice, 8808 223" Place SW, Edmonds, outside the annexation area, said there were numerous
young families in the proposed annexation area as well as older residents on fixed incomes. He said due
to the size of many properties in the proposed annexation area, their taxes would increase if annexed to
Edmonds. He said this was unfair to older residents as well as young families. He said anytime a city or
company undertook annexation or a merger, there was something in it for them and not for the citizens or
employees. He was opposed to annexation, indicating once that area was annexed, his neighborhood
would likely be annexed next. He urged the Council not to overturn the public's vote and to leave them
alone.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2000
Page 5
Phil Assink, 23202 83rd Avenue W, Edmonds, spoke "mostly" in favor of annexation due to the
proximity of Council meetings and the gracious response to his inquiries to City Hall. He indicated he
made some suggestions to Mr. Wilson regarding the process and suggested they be pursued. He
observed there was some resistance to annexation in the neighborhood and suggested the Council
consider not requiring assumption of the bonded indebtedness as a gesture of solidarity to the area. He
understood the GMA had some impact on how annexation of small unincorporated areas occurred. He
expressed his appreciation to Edmonds' mutual aid response into their area, as they do not have Sheriff
Department's presence voluntarily, only on an emergency basis.
Karen Zollman, 8826 228`h Street SW, -Edmonds, adjacent to the annexation area, said she was
concerned with the financial impact of annexation. She said they moved from Seattle to the
unincorporated area due to King County's history of asking voters for things, voters voting them down
but then getting them anyway (such as the stadium). She was concerned with repeatedly rejecting votes
and having the same issue brought up again. She commented property values were increasing
astronomically and it was painful to be stuck with increased taxes when incomes did not increase at the
same rate. She said their choice was to subdivide their property or move.
Larry Brainerd asked if there was a significant development project that underlies the move for
annexation.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
In response to questions raised by the public, Mr. Wilson explained in the state annexation statutes that
govern the way cities review and process annexations, there are two processes for annexation — the
election method (voted upon at a special or general election) or petition. method. The state did not
specify which method could be or must be used, both are provided as options. In either option, the City
did not have the unilateral authority to annex an area without participation or "vote" by residents in the
area. He said unlike the election method process, the petition method was a two step process; a resident
interested in annexation approaches the City requesting initiation of an annexation process which is what
Mr. Sundquist did. In this instance, staff discussed the petition method annexation process with the
resident interested in pursuing annexation and City staff, utilizing the past history, state law and
Boundary Review Board requirements for evaluation annexations, determined the annexation
boundaries. Mr. Wilson explained the Boundary Review Board considers whether the proposed
annexation area was a defined area, was easily identifinable and was a logical service area, which
generally equates to boundaries along major streets. Another criterion is that an annexation area be .
contiguous to an existing City limit boundary. In this instance, approximately 40 -50% of the annexation
boundary was contiguous to existing City limits.
Once the boundaries had been established, the petitions were prepared by the City to ensure they met the
requirements of state law and the Boundary Review Board. The proponent's responsibility in the first
phase was to seek sufficient signatures to indicate interest in the annexation — signatures of property
owners representing at least.10% of the total assessed valuation. The signatures are sent to Snohomish
County Auditor who verify the signatures and issue certification that the signatures are from property
owners in the annexation area. In this instance, the petition that was certified had signatures of
approximately 12% of the total assessed valuation. This initiates the process to the City Council for
consideration whether to allow circulation of a formal petition. He stressed after certification of the
initial petition, the Council could not simply annex the area, they could only authorize circulation of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2000
Page 6
petitions for formal action. Whether this petition succeeds or fails will be determined by the
participation of property, owners in the proposed annexation area.
If the Council approved circulation of the annexation petition tonight, that would allow the proponent to
gather signatures. He would have up to six months to gather signatures (under state law a signature on a
petition is only valid for six months from the date signed). If the proponent was unable to gather
signatures from property owners representing 60% of the assessed valuation, the annexation dies. If he
was successful in gathering sufficient signatures from property owners representing 60% of the,assessed
valuation, the petition would be forwarded to the Snohomish County Auditor for certification of the
signatures. If the 60% was gathered and certified, the City would prepare a report that was submitted to
the Boundary Review Board who designates a review period for soliciting comments from other agencies
that may be affected by annexation such as Olympic View Water and Sewer District, Snohomish County,
emergency services agencies, etc. as well as comments from residents within the proposed annexation
area. If after 45 days the Boundary Review Board found the annexation was consistent with state
requirements for approving the annexation, they could approve it or hold a public hearing to determine
whether the boundaries should be modified, the annexation denied, or the annexation approved. Once
the annexation was approved by the Boundary Review Board, it would be returned to the City and the
Council was required to hold an additional public hearing which will be followed by Council action to
adopt an ordinance to accept the annexation and establish an effective date.
Mr. Wilson said as part of the process, the Council met with the proponent to discuss the boundaries and
the Council will now determine if the boundaries were logical and represented good service areas.
Regarding bonded indebtedness, the Council will make a decision regarding whether the proposed
annexation area will be subject to the bonded indebtedness. If so, state law requires that it be clearly
stated on the formal 60% petition. He stressed the Council had not yet made a decision regarding
whether the. area would be subject to bonded indebtedness and that would be part of the decision made
tonight. He explained signing the petition was a vote in favor of annexation, not signing the petition was
a vote against annexation.
In response to the question of why the issue of annexation was being brought up again, Mr. Wilson.
explained there was no limit on the number of requests that could be made for annexation. In the past,
the City put annexation out for public vote as part of multiple requests for annexation. This time, the
process was citizen driven. If a resident asks to pursue the annexation process, the City could. not refuse
them the opportunity to pursue the process. In its public role, the City must remain neutral on the .issue
and provide factual information regarding the annexation to the proponent and the public. In the past,
fact sheets have been prepared and made available to the public that address issues that are frequently
raised.
Regarding the question of Perrinville's assumption of bonded indebtedness, he explained the election
method process required the annexation area to vote on whether to annex as well as whether to accept the
bonded indebtedness. If residents vote against accepting the existing bonded indebtedness, the Council
makes a decision whether to accept the annexation without the bonded indebtedness or the Council could
choose not to accept the annexation. He summarized the question regarding assumption of bonded .
indebtedness is asked in both methods of annexation.
In response to assessed valuation of Olympic View Water and Sewer District and the fire station
property, he said staff considered the top ten valuations of property in the area based on Snohomish
County records. The top ten were chosen as the lowest value in the top ten was $501,000 with remaining
properties valued at below $400,000, indicating predominately single family properties.. Property values
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2000
Page 7
for the top ten properties ranged from $501,000 to $1.3 million. Only three properties are assessed over
$1 million, one in the $800,000 range, two in the $700,000 range and three in the $500,000 range. The
top ten properties account for only approximately 13% of the total assessed valuation of the entire
proposed annexation area. He stressed it required 60% for the annexation to succeed under the petition
method process. Even if all the top ten property owners signed the petition, signatures from at least 47%
of the remaining assessed valuation would be required for the annexation to proceed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
ORVIS, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 45 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
(Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote.)
Regarding notice, Mr. Wilson explained staff did the best they could to provide notice. The area was
posted in seven locations. Notices were mailed to all property owners of record within the proposed
annexation area (utilizing records obtained from Snohomish County), and notices were mailed to
property owners within 300 feet of the boundaries of the proposed annexation area in an effort to have as
wide spread public notice as possible. He said notice was mailed at least ten days prior to the public
hearing.
Regarding what benefits a resident might derive from the proposed annexation, he said what was felt to
be beneficial varied by individual. When comparing the tax rate property owners in Snohomish County
pay versus the property taxes that would be paid if the area were annexed into'the City, the City's taxes
and fees (stormwater, etc.) are $1.18 less per $1,000 of assessed valuation. For a home valued at
$200,000, the annual savings would be $159 or an 8.9% reduction. He clarified the City did not establish
property valuations, that has been and would continue to be the responsibility of Snohomish County. He
pointed out some taxes would remain the same whether a property was located in unincorporated
Snohomish County or the City such as state schools, local schools and hospital district. The City's
additional tax rates include the EMS levy and public safety bond. The proposed annexation area would
still be required to pay off the Fire District 1 bond voted on previously. He explained even including the
public safety bond and the Fire District's existing bond, the savings would still be $1.18 per $1,000 of
assessed valuation. He said the tax applicable to the City's public safety bond was approximately $0.27
per $1,000 of assessed valuation. He said although Snohomish County did not have a public safety bond
or the EMS levy, they have a road tax and library tax and Fire District 1 has a regular levy, a special
levy, and a bond that are. included in the property taxes currently paid by property owners in the proposed
annexation area.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to page 52 of the Council packet, "South Snohomish County vs. City
of Edmonds 2000 Detailed Comparison of Property Tax, Single Family Residence," and asked whether
that could be made available to the public. Mr. Wilson answered in past annexations, an annexation fact
sheet has been prepared and made available to the public. He said the fact sheet would include the
information on page 52 and page 53 (2000 Comparison of Costs including. property taxes, surface water
charge, utility taxes and street lighting charges).
Council President Pro Tem. White asked Mr. Wilson to address the affect GMA has on annexation. Mr.
Wilson explained the Planning Principles of GMA attempted to identify areas that were urban in nature
that should receive their urban services from urban entities rather than from the ,county, a regional
service provider. He explained urban services include sewer, water, police, fire, road maintenance, etc.
versus regional services such as criminal justice, etc. GMA required urban growth area boundaries to be
established by the county; everything within South Snohomish including this area was considered to be
within an urban growth area. Therefore, the logical entity to provide services and planning would be the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2000
Page 8
local jurisdiction rather than the county. He said urban areas would provide urban levels of service such
as transportation, housing, employment to take advantage of scales of economy such as not extending
sewers to unincorporated/rural areas and take advantage of areas that are already urban in nature. He-
pointed out GMA did not mandate that areas be annexed but it was logical that local services should be
provided by the urban entity.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Snohomish County Sheriff's Department patrolled this area. Police
Chief Robin Hickok answered they may send an occasional deputy through the area but he was not aware
of the schedule for patrols. Councilmember Plunkett recalled a comment was made by a member of the
public that public safety was provided on an on -call basis. Chief Hickok answered for situations such as
domestic violence or felony in progress, they would send a vehicle likely from the South Precinct (164'
Street in Lynnwood). Councilmember Plunkett asked if that differed from how the City of Edmonds
would patrol the area. Chief Hickok answered the City's traffic unit would respond to a traffic complaint
within a day and there would be a 4- minute response to most calls with a 2 minute or less response for a
"hot" call. He stressed he was not criticizing the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office, the City was
simply closer and could provide faster service. He explained Edmonds would also provide routine patrol
through the area 24 hours a day.
In response to the question regarding whether the proponent was seeking a development proposal, Mr.
Wilson said in his conversations with Mr. Sundquist, there had not been any indication .regarding a
specific development proposal. Mr. Sundquist owns a property approximately the size of a single family
lot and had not mentioned any development proposals during this process.
As there were additional questions from the audience, Mayor Haakenson reopened the public
participation portion of the public hearing. Council President Pro Tent White requested residents address
their historical objection to annexation.
Eleanor Howard, 22815 — 88`h Place W #8, Edmonds, asked if there would be an opportunity during
the second step of the petition process to find out why Mr. Sundquist wanted to pursue annexation. She
said they have been opposed to annexation in the past because they were led to believe their taxes would
increase. Councilmember Earling asked who led her to believe her taxes would increase. Ms. Howard
answered that was the talk in the neighborhood and what her landlord told her.
Steve Kish,' 8925 229`h Place SW, Edmonds, said he was still unclear where the existing Edmonds
boundaries were. Observing Mr. Sundquist apparently owned property in the area and thereby had the
right to petition for annexation, he asked if anyone could petition for annexation. If so, could he (Mr.
Kish) request the boundary be amended to include another area?
John Hidell, 22430 86 ' Avenue W, Edmonds, asked how the decision was made to discount the votes
taken in the past. Mayor Haakenson responded state law allowed any citizen, including Mr. Sundquist,
to petition for annexation regardless of previous votes. Mr. Hidell said the previous vote had no life.
Mayor Haakenson agreed.
Rich Johnson, 8706 Holly Lane, Edmonds, commented that Mr. Sundquist owned property in the area
and asked if he lived in the area.
Larry Brainerd, 23118 84`h Avenue W, Edmonds, said the lack of opportunity to vote on this issue
brought people who were passionate about it to meetings. He said he and many others live in this area in
quiet enjoyment. He said the petition process was begun by someone with a personal motivation, and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2000
Page 9
long before he became aware of that effort. He was skeptical when he learned only last week that a
meeting was being held this week regarding this process. He was more skeptical upon learning there had
been two previous votes and a process had been determined that did not include voting.
City Attorney Scott Snyder said this was a required step, the second of eight under state law that would
be required to annex the area. The City received a petition; this hearing was required by state law to
allow the Council to establish the boundaries for the next petition to be circulated. Regarding the
question of how the annexation boundaries could be amended, he said they could be amended by the
Council tonight, amended by the Council when the petition was returned, or amended by the Boundary
Review Board.. He stressed when the City received a petition, as it did from Mr. Sundquist, its obligation
was to consider it and that was what the Council was doing — determining whether to authorize
circulation of a petition that requires signatures from property owners of 60 %. of the assessed valuation
in the proposed annexation area.
Mayor Haakenson asked if the City could turn down a citizen's request for annexation. Mr. Snyder
answered staff was obligated to accept the petition, forward it to Snohomish County to have the
signatures certified and the petition returned to the Council for this public hearing.
Ed Poole, 8708 228" SW, Edmonds, asked Olympic View Water and Sewer District's position on the
annexation.
Pat LaJambe, 22921 85th Place W, Edmonds, reiterated her question regarding the $770,000 valuation
of the fire department property and her understanding that the Council had authorized the mayor to sign
the petition on behalf of the City. She said only this area was paying the bond debt for the fire
department and suggested that be reason for reconsidering this area's assumption of the public safety
bonded indebtedness. She said she had not seen or received notification of the January 18 meeting but
expressed appreciation for the notice of tonight's meeting. Regarding the implication that Snohomish
County did not address public safety issues in their area, she described incidents when the Sheriff's
department responded in less than ten minutes regarding a traffic issue and a follow -up response to an
accidental 911 call she made. She commended the service that Snohomish County provided in these two
incidents.
John Justice, 8808 233rd Place SW, Edmonds, said he was under the same assumption that taxes would
increase upon annexation. He said many of the homes in the proposed annexation area are single family
homes according to Snohomish County and his understanding regarding the differences between
Snohomish County and City lot sizes, annexation would result in some lots accommodating another
home. He asked if this would result in another lot and thus increased property taxes.
Paul Stevens, 8631231" Place SW, Edmonds, asked what other differences between City and County
they might expect other than taxes and fire and police service. He verified his taxes increased when he
moved from the City of Edmonds to unincorporated Snohomish County in 1996.
Pat Meeker, 2271196 Ih Avenue West, Edmonds, a commissioner with Olympic View Water and Sewer
District, said in August, the district was approached by Mr. Sundquist to sign the petition that would
begin the process for annexation. Olympic View Water and Sewer District did not want to be involved
and felt if they signed, their property would become part of the annexation process although the property
was not taxed. The district felt it was up to the single family residents to determine whether they wanted
to be annexed. However, if they did not sign the petition, they still became part of the process; therefore,
they had asked to be removed from the annexation area.
Edmonds City Council Approved'Minutes
February 15, 2000
Page 10
Larry Brainerd asked if Mr. Sundquist discussed his intent regarding development with Olympic View
Water and Sewer District. Ms. Meeker answered no, he had not. Mr. Brainerd said he was concerned
because Olympic View Water and Sewer District's property was valued at approximately $800,000 and
he felt it would have an affect. However, as indicated tonight, the property represents. only 1.2% of the
total assessed valuation of the area and therefore had little affect.
Lorraine Garrett, 22818 86`h Place W, Edmonds, asked the affect of annexation on zoning and
whether it would result in multi- family housing rather than single - family homes.
Mr.. Wilson identified the existing City limits on the map. In response to the question regarding whether
there would be an opportunity to determine Mr. Sundquist's interest in annexation, Mr. Wilson said Mr.
Sundquist owns one parcel of land with a single family home valued at approximately $168,000.
In response to the question whether anyone could petition for annexation, Mr. Wilson answered yes, in
the past, commercial property owners typically initiated the petition method annexation. It was unusual
for an individual to pursue a petition method annexation for such a large area, approximately 193 acres
and 800 residents.
Mr. Wilson referred to Mr. Snyder's response regarding past votes, and'explained the annexation statutes
do not include a shelf life for a vote. One vote would not preclude someone else initiating annexation
immediately for the next ballot or initiating a petition method annexation. He said staff was. simply
responding to inquiries as they arise and assisting the proponent in adhering to the state statues regarding
annexation. Mr. Wilson said he was unaware whether Mr. Sundquist lived in the area but was aware he
owned a single family residence in the proposed annexation area.
Regarding the City signing the petition for the fire station property, Mr. Wilson said the, City, as a
property owner, had the proprietary right of any property owner to sign the petition. In this instance, the
City has a facility owned, maintained and operated by the City in an unincorporated area. The City was
asked and agreed to sign the petition of intent but that was the only document that had been signed. This
allowed sufficient signatures to allow the process to proceed to this point to allow discussion with the
public regarding the appropriate course of action but the City was not obligated to sign any future
petitions. He said the valuation of the City's property represented only approximately 1% of the total
assessed valuation, not a significant player in obtaining the 60 %.
.In response to whether this was the only area that currently paid the Fire District bond, Mr. Wilson
answered no. Any of the areas that annexed within the past five years south of 220` such as Firdale
Village and in the Westgate area, were in Fire District 111 and as part of the original bond, were still
required to pay for it.
Regarding why the public did not receive notice of the January 18 meeting, Mr. Wilson explained the
annexation regulations established by the state require the Council to meet with the proponent to discuss
issues such as the boundaries, bonded indebtedness, zoning, etc. The meeting with the proponent did not
replace the public hearing and was intended to be a fact - finding opportunity for the Council with the
person initiating the process.
In response to questions regarding zoning, Mr. Wilson displayed a map illustrating comparable zoning
designations for the area. In response to the question whether lots could be developed with an additional
single family home, Mr. Wilson said it was possible but may not be any different than was currently
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2000
Page 11
allowed by Snohomish County. He explained Snohomish County's single - family designation, R 8400
requires 8,400 square feet of lot area per single family unit. The City's comparable zoning designation is
RS 8000; which requires 8,000 square feet of lot area per single family unit. He explained if a property
owner in unincorporated Snohomish County with 16,000 square feet was annexed into the City, they
could have the potential to subdivide into two single family lots. One difference between the City's
single family zoning designation and Snohomish County's was the City did not have a duplex zone but
the county did. Snohomish County regulations allow a single family lot that is 1'/2 times the size of the
minimum lot size, requirement to construct/establish a duplex on the property. Therefore, a property
owner with a 12,600 square foot lot in Snohomish. County could have a duplex; however, a 12,600 square
foot lot in the City would still be one single family lot.
Regarding- other changes in service that could be expected, Mr. Wilson said this was similar to the
question regarding what benefits would be derived from annexation. He commented one- person
indicated to him that annexation would allow greater ease to attend City Council meetings locally and in
the evening versus attending Snohomish County Council meetings during the day in Everett. Others like
the ease of accessing services in the community, including some who already utilize those services and
feel it would be appropriate to annex and help pay for those services. He said other benefits may include
locally processed building permits and locally held hearings.
Mr. Wilson responded to the question whether zoning would change if the area was annexed, stating the
only significant change was in single family that he addressed previously,(RS 8000 in the City versus R
8400 in Snohomish County). He identified the boundaries of the proposed annexation area, explaining
nearly all zoning to the west was single family R 8400 zoning. There are portions along Hwy. 99 that are
zoned GC (General Commercial) and one parcel currently zoned multi- family residential that would be
annexed with a comparable zoning. He said staff recommends adoption of comparable zoning to keep
zoning as status quo as possible. He said the only changes that would/could occur would be via
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, which requires a public hearing process. He explained
the City was attempting to make the Comprehensive Plan amendment process a neighborhood -based
process to encourage neighborhoods to participate. He said staff did not foresee any changes to zoning at
this time.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DAVIS, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
(Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote.)
Councilmember Orvis .asked if the zoning information would be included in the information packet that
is made available to the public. Mr. Wilson explained the zoning is required to be part of the petition
just as the issue of bonded indebtedness is required to be included on the petition. The back of the
petition would include a map illustrating the existing zoning in Snohomish County and comparable
zoning in the City.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for deliberation.
Council President Pro Tem White pointed out Councilmember Petso, who removed herself from
consideration of this item, was an Olympic View Water and Sewer District Commissioner and that
aspect of the annexation had been thoroughly discussed by the Council.
Council President Pro Tem White said he found this process offensive because the law required a citizen
to obtain permission to petition fellow citizens and this public hearing was required to determine whether
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2000
Page 12
the Council would grant that fundamental right. He said regardless of how citizens in the proposed
annexation area may respond to the petition for annexation, he expected any citizen to be granted the
right to petition fellow citizens.
Councilmember Davis echoed Council President Pro Tem White's comments, pointing out the need for
the process to move forward. Regardless of whether he agreed with the outcome, he agreed it was
important to allow citizens to ask other citizens whether they wanted to be annexed.
Councilmember Orvis said he was primarily concerned with the information that would be distributed to
citizens and was satisfied staff would distribute accurate and thorough information during the process.
Councilmember Earling said he understood the intensity of residents who have gone through this process
a number of times but pointed out citizens had the right to petition government, a right any citizen would
expect to have. He observed statements have been made that this process did not allow citizens to vote,
however, property owners would have an opportunity to sign or not sign a petition for annexation. He
supported moving forward with the annexation petition and said the property owners in the proposed
annexation area had the opportunity to do whatever they felt was right.
COUNCII.MEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
WHITE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CIRCULATION
OF FORMAL ANNEXATION PETITIONS FOR THE PROPOSED ".SUNDQUIST"
ANNEXATION AND PLACE ON THE FEBRUARY 22, 2000, COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: 1) THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION
SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 1, 2) THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO ASSUMING THE EXISTING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CITY, AND 3)
THE CITY SHALL ADOPT COMPARABLE ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AS
SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 11 FOR THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION. MOTION CARRIED.
(Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote.)
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Councilmember Petso returned to her seat on the Council.
4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS
Amend ECDC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.75 TO RENUMBER THE CURRENT
0.75 - Lot SECTION 20.75.055 — REQUIRED INFORMATION ON PRELIMINARY PLATS AS 20.75.060.
ombination
C
AND THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 20.75.055 — LOT COMBINATION TO PROVIDE A
MECHANISM FOR COMBINING PARCELS OF LAND OTHER THAN THROUGH THE LOT
LINE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS (File No. CDC -99 -129)
Planning Manager Rob Chave said this ordinance was proposed to simplify the application process for a
lot line combination.. He explained this issue typically arose when there were two properties under the
same ownership and the property owner wished to construct something that would exist, across both
properties. The City requires the lot line in common between the properties be removed. This is a
simple process but in the past required a survey, which resulted in a fairly significant cost to an
applicant. Research indicated a survey would not be required to combine the two lots. Removing the
survey requirement reduces the cost for a lot line combination, making it easier for the applicant.
When the Planning Board considered the ordinance, they recommended paragraph B of Section
20.75.055 be revised to read, "An application for lot combination shall be signed for by all individuals or
entities owning an interest in the property. The application fee shall be the same as the fee established
for lot line adjustments" deleting the remainder of paragraph B. He said staff was agreeable to the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2000
Page 13
Planning Board's recommendation, commenting the remaining verbiage in paragraph B was included at
the Development Service Director's request to allow him some discretion in appropriate situations. Mr.
Chave said the fee included the recording costs and is approximately $150 -$180.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Hearing no comments,
he closed the public participation portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to Council.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
ADOPT ORDINANCE #3296 WITH THE REVISION TO SECTION B AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE PLANNING BOARD. MOTION CARRIED. The ordinance approved reads as follows:
rd mend 9 ORDINANCE NO. 3296 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
0.75 - Lot PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.75 BY
ombination jai NUMBERING CURRENT SECTION 20.75.055 REQUIRED INFORMATION ON
PRELIMINARY PLATS AS 20.75.060, THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 20.75.055, LOT
COMBINATION AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recalled the Consent Agenda at a previous meeting
0 anance Fees included one item that did not belong on the Consent Agenda. This was a variance issue that he said was
included on the Consent Agenda by the Council President at the request of a private citizen. Mr.
Hertrich pointed out this issue did not go through the appropriate , channels. He objected to that
procedure and recommended the Council tune up its rules as that action was inappropriate and the
variance fee did not need to be reduced. He said a fee schedule was established to cover costs and should
be adhered to, particularly during this time of hardship for the City.
6. 1 REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
;�1Ce Finance Committee
°—,&ee I Councilmember Earling said several issues on the Finance Committee's agenda had been approved on
tonight's Consent Agenda. He explained there was an additional $300,000 in the ending cash balance
that was not anticipated in previous projections. He said the Finance Committee recommended that
amount be assigned to the Council Contingency Fund and a process developed to determine how those
funds would be used. He summarized his conversations with some Couhcilmembers indicated there was
general support for this proposal.
COUNCII.MEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
PUT THE ADDITIONAL $300,000 FROM UNANTICIPATED CASH BALANCE INTO THE
COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND.
Councilmember Earling requested the Council be informed of the exact amount as soon as possible.
MOTION CARRIED.
Comm. serv./ Community Services/Development Services Committee
ev. Services
Committee Council President Pro Tern White advised Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde described the
need to increase the use of Seaview Park fields to meet the increased demand on all fields. This was an
administrative action and required no Council action. The Committee discussed public• hearing
notification methods and requirements. The City's notification procedure is thorough and more than
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2000
Page 14
i
1
required by law although signs may be removed without the consent of staff. The City will be
contracting for creation and placement of signs that�are larger and sturdier thus making them harder to
remove or be placed in an inappropriate location.
Council President Pro Tem White reported staff gave a detailed update regarding the Tri- County (King,
Snohomish and Pierce counties) 4(d) framework, the federal regulations that will mandate mitigation for
ESA. He stressed this will affect every stream that has runoff to Puget Sound. The City is closely
monitoring the 4(d) framework and, participating as much as possible in formulating regulations.
Discussion of water and sewer facilities fees followed and staff was directed to place this on a future
Council work meeting agenda. Staff provided an overview of the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan
which will be placed on a future Council agenda for a brief review and Council adoption. Staff reviewed
a new approach to temporary sign regulations, which will be placed on a future Council work meeting
agenda. Sign regulations in annexed areas were discussed and staff explained if the signs were
functioning properly and were not a danger, they would be left as is. Future replacement of such a sign
would require .compliance with the City's sign code. The fmal item, discussion of grandfathering
accessory dwelling units within the city was tabled until it could be determined how /why this was placed
on the agenda.
Councilmember Plunkett advised City Attorney Scott Snyder had provided the Council a draft for
grandfathering accessory dwelling units tonight.
ublic Safety Public Safety Committee
Iconnuittee Councilmember Plunkett explained the committee considered a proposal by Parking Enforcement
Officer Debbie Dawson to escalate the fine for repeat parking offenders from $20 - $80' depending on the
number of times they had been ticketed. Councilmember Plunkett explained 64% of vehicles ticketed
are first offenders, 16% are second -time offenders, 9% are third -time offenders and 11 % are fourth -time
offenders. The committee recommended this proposal be forwarded to the full Council on a future
agenda.
7. MAYOR'S REPORT
ings on
oards and Mayor Haakenson reported there were several openings on boards and commissions including an
commissi ons opening on the Architectural Design Board for an architect and builder, one opening on the Arts
Commission, two openings for alternates on the Cemetery Board, and two positions on the Sister City
Commission.
Mayor Haakenson thanked Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson for his presentation regarding the -
annexation, stating he had done an admirable job addressing questions from the audience.
8.
Councilmember Earling advised in addition to several openings on the City's boards and commissions,
Sound Transit there were openings on the Sound. Transit Citizens Oversight Panel. He explained this was a group of 15
Citizens Comm. citizens who look at project plans, accomplishments and deficiencies of Sound Transit. He encouraged
fight Com. p j p P g
any interested citizen to contact the Council office. The deadline for application was the end of
February.
11c Councilmember Earling advised a 45- minute agenda item/public meeting regarding the library was
Ong re. scheduled for February 22. He explained Rindin the library was a large item in the City's budget,
brary r'y P g �Y g t3'
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2000
Page 15
approximately 5% of the General Fund budget. The Council wished to make the public aware of the
potentials for funding the library and issues the City faces on a long term basis due to budget cuts. He
encouraged the public to participate in the hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett echoed the comments Mayor Haakenson made regarding Mr. Wilson's
presentation on the annexation, commenting he handled the issue very professionally. Councilmember
Plunkett also complimented Mayor Haakenson for his efforts regarding the annexation public hearing,
commenting the more expansive process and willingness to take extra questions was important to the
audience.
Councilmember Plunkett reported Council President Pro Tem White, Mayor Haakenson, and he attended
°ns°i'dati°" another Fire Consolidation meeting tonight. A number of issues were discussed . at the meeting and
several small study groups are underway. He said Edmonds' representatives remain open and available
'to all possibilities. He said the meetings are open to the public and are attended by a number of people,
primarily professionals with an interest in the topic. He announced the next meeting was at 4:00 p.m. on
February 29 in the Third Floor Conference Room at City Hall.
Student Representative Maia Krause reported the major issue at school was schedules for next year.
Teachers and administration are determining how to develop schedules so that students get the correct
number of hours.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
ARY AKE SON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2000
Page 16
1
I_ J
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING
650 MAIN STREET
7:00 -10:00 P.M.
FEBRUARY 15, 2000
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 2000
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #35929 THROUGH #38991 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 31,
2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $262,955.22. APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #35930 THROUGH
#39074 FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 7, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $151,997.27. APPROVAL OF
PAYROLL WARRANTS #27502 THROUGH #27242 FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 16 THROUGH
JANUARY 31, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $352,292.44.
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM FORREST & CHERRYL BAILEY
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND JAY McCOLLUM ($125.00)
(E) APPROVAL OF TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSES FOR CHECKER CAB CO., INC. AND YELLOW
CAB
(F) AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD GRANTS TO LOCAL ARTS ORGANIZATIONS FOR PROMOTION OF
ARTS EVENTS AND CULTURAL TOURISM
(G) APPROVAL OF AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT OF OLYMPIC VIEW
CREST, 20 -LOT FORMAL SUBDIVISION (File No. P- 98 -72; Property Location: West Side of Olympic
View Drive Between 1801' Street SW and 181st Place SW; Applicant: R. L. McDuffy Associates and
NW Independent Builders, LLC)
(H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION
AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHWEST SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS
AGENCY
(1) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL WAIVER OF EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 2.80 — PROFESSIONAL
CONSULTANTS, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CONTRACT WITH ELLIOTT CONSULTING, INC.
(J) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A DUAL DRIVE UPGRADE FOR EXISTING KLAMPRESSES AT THE
TREATMENT PLANT FROM ASHBROOK ($29,702, Including Sales Tax)
(K) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE 2000 FORD EXPEDITION FROM THE STATE CONTRACT
(L) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE INTERNET SOFTWARE
(M) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE NETWORK SOFTWARE TO IMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGY PLAN
(N) PROPOSED RESOLUTION INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE FEES TO BE CHARGED A
VARIANCE APPLICANT PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 967, THE ANNUAL FEE RESOLUTION
FOR THE YEAR 2000
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 15, 2000
Page 2 of 2
3. (45 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF
APPROXIMATELY 193 ACRES KNOWN AS THE "SUNDQUIST" ANNEXATION, WHICH IS
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF 228TH STREET SOUTHWEST; WEST OF HIGHWAY 99; EAST OF
88111 AVENUE WEST; AND NORTH OF MAPLE LANE AND 234TH STREET SOUTHWEST (File No. AX
98 -101)
4. (15 Min.) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.75 TO RENUMBER THE CURRENT SECTION
20.75.055 — REQUIRED INFORMATION ON PRELIMINARY PLATS AS 20.75.060, AND THE ADDITION
OF A NEW SECTION 20.75.055 — LOT COMBINATION TO PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR COMBINING
PARCELS OF LAND OTHER THAN THROUGH THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS (File No.
CDC -99 -129)
5: AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
6. (15 Min.) REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
7. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT
8. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS
1
'arking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advanc(
totice for special accommodations. The Council. Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 46 Delayed telecast of this meetin€
appears the following Wednesday at noon and 7:00 p.m., as well as Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 46