Loading...
03/21/2000 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES MARCH 21, 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 Thomas A. Miller, Council President Dave Earling, Councilmember (arrived 7:16 p.m.) Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Christopher Davis, Councilmember (arrived 7:40 p.m.) ALSO PRESENT Maia Krause, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Robin Hickok, Police Chief Ray Miller, Development Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Noel Miller, Public Works Director James Walker, City Engineer Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Stephen 1 oho, Wastewater Treatment Plant Mgr Don Fiene, Assistant'City Engineer Steve Fisher, Recycling Coordinator Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Change to COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO genda RESCHEDULE AGENDA ITEMS 5, 7 AND 8 AS AGENDA ITEMS 3, 4 AND 5 DUE TO THE LIMITED AVAILABILITY OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmembers Earling and Davis were not present for the vote.) COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmembers Earling and Davis were not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested Item K be removed from the Consent Agenda, Council President Miller requested Item F be removed, and Councilmember White requested Item H be removed. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmembers Earling and Davis were not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve Feb. 11 -12. (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11-12,2000 Minutes Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 1 1 r� Approve Mar. 6 Minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 Approve (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35939 THROUGH #39656 FOR THE WEEK OF Checks MARCH 6, 2000 IN THE AMOUNT OF $584,806.89 Claims for Damages (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM KAREN CAMMACK ($601.25), AND FROM SAMIR MEDAWAR (UNSPECIFIED AMOUNT) rtists Contract (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH ARTISTS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX TO EXTEND COMPLETION DATE Sr. Center Recreation Services (I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN RECREATIONAL SERVICES greement AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER rd. #3298 (,J) ORDINANCE NO. 3298 AUTHORIZING EMERGENCY RESPONSE COST RECOVERY Emergency Response UNDER RCW 38.52.430 Cost Recov. (L) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS AND Edmonds CONDITIONS RELATED TO SUBSURFACE SEDIMENTS TESTING FOR THE Crossing EDMONDS CROSSING PROJECT Project Item F: Approval of Councilperson's Creed Council- COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT person's TO TABLE THIS ITEM FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AND WORDSMITHING BY THE Creed COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmembers Earling and Davis were not present for the vote.) The item tabled is as follows: (F) APPROVAL OF COUNCILPERSON'S CREED Item H• Proposed Resolution to Resist Future Attempts to Impose Unfunded Mandates Upon the City of Edmonds and Its Ratepayers and Taxpayers Councilmember White indicated he would not support this resolution. Although he understood the intent of the resolution, he pointed out some of the most important legislation had been unfunded mandates such as civil rights, Endangered Species Act, etc. He preferred to consider each mandate individually and would not support a resolution that resisted all unfunded mandates not supported by the City. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM H. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER WHITE OPPOSED. (Councilmembers Earling and Davis were not present for the vote.) The item approved is as follows: IReso #980 unfunded (H) RESOLUTION NO. 980 TO RESIST FUTURE ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE UNFUNDED Mandates MANDATES UPON THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND ITS RATEPAYERS AND TAXPAYERS Item K: Authorization to Sign Interlocal Agreement between the Edmonds School District and City of Edmonds Police Department Councilmember Petso advised this item included contracts for this school year and the next school year with the school district funding 25% of the officer. She said it may be possible to request the funding be increased to 50% for the next school year if half the officer's time was spent on that assignment. She suggested approving the contract for this year and the Mayor direct staff to contact the school district regarding next year's contract. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 2 Police Chief Robin Hickok indicated that action would be satisfactory. He explained the Public Safety Committee felt the 60 -day period to renew or re- negotiate the contract would allow sufficient time for re- negotiation if necessary. He said the school district was paying other cities approximately the same percentage. He said revising next year's contract would require all three police departments (Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood and Edmonds) to negotiate with the school district. Councilmember Plunkett explained the Public Safety Committee recommended placing both contracts on the Consent Agenda, as only a 60 -day notification was required to re- negotiate the contact. In addition to the percentage the school district paid, there were other issues raised such as the officer being at the school rather than in other areas of the City. He said the 60 -day period was sufficient for the City to make necessary changes in the contract. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM K. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER Edmonds PETSO OPPOSED. (Councilmembers Earling and Davis were not present for the vote.) The item School approved is as follows: District/ Police Agreement (K) AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CITY OF EDMONDS POLICE DEPARTMENT 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Petrinville Bruce Jones, attorney representing Bruce and Nancy Erickson, 7513 Ridge Way, Edmonds Sanitary regarding easements required for the Perrinville sanitary sewer improvements, said his clients did Sewer not object to the condemnation as there was nothing untoward about the City's selection of their lot for Improve- ments the sewer alignment. He said his clients desire compensation for the sewer line crossing their property. He said if the condemnation proceeded with the legal description provided in the ordinance, the Ericksons would. incur additional legal and appraisal costs to assess the impact of the legal description on a possible subdivision of their lot and any damage to the property as a result of that alignment. Mayor Haakenson advised Mr. Jones that his comments /questions would be addressed by staff when Council reached that agenda item. (item #5 on the revised agenda). Council President Miller clarified the relief Mr. Jones' client was seeking was realignment. Mr. Jones agreed that would solve the problem. Reduced Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, observed the State upheld the reduced license tab License Tab fee. He pointed out the decision made by .the Washington State Supreme Court in June would be appealed further. He advised there would be a ballot issue in November to "roll back all tax increases" and recommended the Council consider that in their 2001 budget preparations. Perrinville Rene Van Loveren, 18214 76 "' Avenue W, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to the ordinance to condemn Sanitary Sewer their property for construction of a sewer on 70h Avenue. He said they first learned of this project when Improve- -his wife encountered surveyors trespassing in their yard and they received little or no information or ments details regarding the proposed project. The City was now threatening to condemn their property if they did not agree to an easement. He said they have numerous concerns regarding the work to be done and the affect. it would have on their property. He recalled on New Year's Eve three years ago heavy rains and snow melt caused raw sewage to pour out of the manholes on 76`h, into their driveways, yards and basements. He questioned whether this would occur again if 200 -300 homes were added to the sewer line. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 3 Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said he drove along Sunset Avenue this evening and nset Ave. recommended Councilmembers visit the area. He ointed out that more people view the unobstructed nset v p p p view of the water, the beach and the mountains from Sunset Avenue than from any other place in the City, from cars, benches, or while walking. He said future decisions made regarding that area may eliminate that natural view. He said Sunset Avenue was the only location the beach, ferries trains, etc. could be viewed from an elevated position. 1 -695 Police Officer Hargenson, President of the Edmonds Police Officer's Association, said they Budget understood there would be serious budget cuts as a result of I -695 and questioned why the citizens of Cud Edmonds would be put in jeopardy for police and fire services for the library. Mayor Haakenson advised further audience comment would be permitted when additional parties arrived to discuss.Agenda Item #5 (due to the rearrangement of the agenda). Council agreed to address Agenda Item #8 next to allow additional parties an opportunity to arrive prior to the discussion. of Agenda .Item #5. Non- 4 DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF conforming THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.40, NONCONFORMING ADUs USES. BUILDING SIGNS AND LOTS, TO ADD A NEW SECTION 17.40.025. NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Planning Manager Rob Chave referred to the ordinance and memorandum prepared by the City Attorney as a follow -up to Council action regarding accessory dwelling units (ADU) and said staff was seeking . direction to fmalize the ordinance. City Attorney Scott Snyder recalled when the Council reviewed the ADU ordinance, there was some discussion regarding grandfathering legal non - conforming uses. He asked if the Council wished to extend grandfathering to existing ADUs in the City and if so, to attached and/or detached ADUs. He recalled there were a variety of viewpoints expressed by the Council when this issue was discussed previously. Councilmember Petso advised she was contacted by a citizen regarding an ADU and asked if the proposed ordinance would address that citizen's situation. Mr. Snyder advised there was a factual disagreement with staff regarding the information that ipdividual provided. He said if the situation was as presented in the individual's letter, it would be a legal non - conforming use. However, there were factual questions and the burden was. on the citizen to prove that the use was established prior to adoption of the zoning ordinance. If the proposed ordinance was adopted and extended to attached ADUs, the individual would be covered. Mr. Chave commented it was often difficult to prove the use was legally established. Mr. Snyder commented without a building permit, it was problematic to prove when the use was established. Council President Miller asked what the unintended consequence of grandfathering would be. Mr. Chave answered the intent was to ensure ADUs were registered and met code requirements. The unintended consequences would be if there were numerous ADUs and they caused neighborhood problems; the potential. existed that the City had allowed a use to become legal by "ignoring the rules." He pointed out the ordinance addressed ADUs creating a problem by allowing nuisances to be addressed via the permit review process. If an ADU was registered and allowed to continue but created difficulties for the neighborhood, the use could be reviewed and potentially eliminated. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 4 Council. President Miller asked what exposure the City had by grandfathering illegal ADUs, such as neighbos filing a class action lawsuit. Mr. Snyder pointed out the City had several protections including that a complainant would be required to exhaust all administrative remedies. As Mr. Chave indicated, the City had an existing process to revoke a permit and to impose additional conditions. He said the advantage of grandfathering ADUs was they could be inspected to ensure they were safe and habitable. Mr. Chave said if an ADU was creating a problem, staff would likely be aware of it already. Staff suspects there are numerous ADUs in existence- that do not create a neighborhood disturbance; by allowing them a legal avenue to be recognized, the ADUs could be inspected to ensure they met codes, etc. Council President Miller asked if the owner of an illegal ADU was likely to come forward if they were aware the ADU would be subject to inspection. Mr. Chave said it would be made clear to residents that if they did not take advantage of the amnesty period and a complaint was filed in the future, they would not have any choice regarding continued operation of the ADU unless they could prove it was legally established. Mr. Snyder pointed out those registering their ADUs would also have the advantage of selling their home with a legal ADU. Council President Miller supported an amnesty period for illegal ADUs. Councilmember Plunkett reiterated his interest in grandfathering attached and detached, ADUs. He pointed out the City had annexed many areas over the past 10 -20 years, many residents may not be aware whether their ADU was legal. He said grandfathering ADUs would allow them to be identified for code enforcement purposes as well as used to assist the City in meeting GMA goals for affordable housing. Council directed staff to proceed with development of an ordinance to grandfather both attached. and detached ADUs. Ord. #3299 5, ORDINANCE NO. 3299 PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PERMANENT EASEMENT Acquisition INTEREST AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INTERESTS IN, UNDER of OVER, ALONG, ACROSS, AND UPON CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED ON 76TH. AVENUE Easements/ Perrinville WEST 181sT PLACE SOUTHWEST AND HOMEVIEW DRIVE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT Sanitary SANITARY SEWER MAINS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE PERRINVILLE AND NORTH Sewer LIDS PERRINVILLE SANITARY SEWER LID IMPROVEMENTS TOGETHER WITH ALL NECESSARY APPURTENANCES AND RELATED WORK TO MAKE A COMPLETE IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORD WITH APPLICABLE CITY STANDARDS, FOR THE CONDEMNATION, APPROPRIATION TAKING AND DAMAGING OF LAND OR OTHER PROPERTY NECESSARY THEREFOR: PROVIDING THAT THE ENTIRE COST THEREOF SHALL BE PAID FROM AVAILABLE FUNDS; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROSECUTE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW FOR SAID CONDEMNATION AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE City Attorney Scott Snyder advised this item was not a public hearing; however, the Council would extend the opportunity for additional comment under Audience Comment due to the rearrangement of the agenda (resulting in this item being reviewed by the Council earlier than the agenda indicated). City Engineer Jim Walker explained this item had been ongoing for some time and the LID closed last . year due to I -695 concerns. Before closing the LID, the consultant began obtaining the necessary easements for the design they created. The consultant's intent was to create the least costly design with the minimum impact for the entire project. He said at the time the LID was closed, Council was advised if the easements could not be obtained, staff recommended condemnation. He said residents in the area Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 5 were anxious to have the sewers installed. He advised the consultants have done the majority of negotiations with residents. Assistant City Engineer Don Fiene pointed out the process of negotiating the easements had been ongoing since June 1999 when a sub - consultant was hired to address the easement issue.. The residents within the LID were not offered compensation initially due to the benefit from the LID and although they were impacted, they would have a shorter connection to the sewer stub. Once it appeared the easements would be provided, Council was approached in November 1999 and another sub - consultant was hired to do appraisals for the condemnation process. He clarified if condemnation occurred, the property owner must be compensated. He distributed a memorandum regarding the Erickson's situation. W. Fiene displayed a map of the area and identified the location of the easements. He said eight easements needed to be obtained; three are within the LID (#4, 5 and 7 on the map) and five outside the LID ( #1; 8, 2, 3, and 6 on the map). He said the property owners outside the LID have always been offered compensation. He explained easements on properties 1, 8 and 4 were temporary. The easement on property 1 was a joint easement for a joint tract of land owned by four property owners, one of whom is Rene Van Loveren. He said the Erickson's property was #7, on Ridge Way. He said the sewer line from Homeview Drive to 70h Avenue was the best alignment for the sewer. If this alignment was not used, a pump with a lift station would be necessary which would likely not result in a justifiable project, as the cost/benefit would not be present. Mr. Snyder reiterated there was a lengthy history associated with this project. This LID had been underway since June and the final alignment had been determined. He pointed out the one basis for challenging the LID was not using proper engineering alignment. He stressed this was the logical engineering alignment and had been established in June 1999. Other than minor changes to the alignment, there would not be major re- engineering of this project. He acknowledged that although residents may have questions, notification was provided in October 1999 and an offer was mailed on February 18, 2000 requesting a response. He said the owners of the nine properties listed in the condemnation ordinance did not respond. Mr. Snyder stressed passage of the ordinance did not do anything other than formally continue the process. He said the ordinance was necessary in order to file condemnation but he assured negotiations would continue. He said if the intent was to construct the improvements in this year's construction season, the condemnation ordinance needed to be passed now. He reiterated even with the passage of the ordinance, the City would continue to negotiate with the property owners and the City Attorney would be authorized to file condemnation proceedings if appropriate. He stressed if property owners negotiated, condemnation would be unnecessary. Councilmember Petso asked if the topography of the site was such that the pipe through property #7 could be moved to the west. Mr. Fiene answered staff agreed to re- engineer that alignment if the easement was provided at that time but the property owner did not respond. He said it would not be fair to the property owner on the other side, who provided an easement, to re- engineer the alignment and compensate the Ericksons. He said some re- engineering may still be possible. Councilmember Petso observed if the ordinance was approved, citizens would still have the opportunity to provide an easement if the alignment was moved. Mr. Fiene answered it may be possible if a property owner was willing to grant an easement without compensation. However, he did not want this to delay the project. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 6 Mr. Snyder asked if the $5,000 cost of re- engineering was approximately the value of the easement. Mr. Fiene agreed. The following comment was permitted as Audience Comments due to the rearrangement of the agenda resulting in this item being considered by the Council later than anticipated and the parties' belief that public comment would be permitted regarding this item.) Julie King, 18211 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, a property owner affected by a temporary and permanent easement request, said they have responded to the City. She commented on the lack of detail provided regarding the project and said plans had been provided regarding how the footprint of the line would affect their property but not regarding the boring or the long term impacts. She said the short and long term impacts to their property as well as the surrounding environment had not been adequately considered. She referred to the greenbelt area behind her home and expressed concern with placing sewers and a manhole in that area. She felt it was premature to threaten condemnation when adequate information regarding the project and the impacts had not yet been provided. She objected to the City offering what they felt was unjust compensation as well as the threat of condemnation. She said the temporary easement would use the majority of their front, side and back yard and heavy equipment and construction crews would be utilizing the temporary easement. She expressed concern with the impact that heavy equipment would have on their landscaping. She said a permanent easement was requested along the side of their yard that included restrictions on property use. She said the compensation offered was nothing near what they consider to be the value of the property. Mr. Fiene said Ms. King's husband requested compensation in the amount of $20;000 and was not willing to negotiate. Mr. Fiene said the City could offer compensation in the amount determined by a fair appraisal; the figure offered was the amount determined by the appraisal. Regarding Ms. King's comments regarding the greenbelt and manhole, Mr. Fiene clarified the area where the bores would be done was not an official greenbelt but rather a ravine. He said there would be one manhole in the ravine, to the east of the Kings property. Councilmember Petso asked if the landscaping would be restored to the previous condition. Mr. Fiene answered yes.. Mr. Snyder advised the easement required restoration of the site in addition to any compensation paid. Councilmember Petso asked if there was the ability to refuse to accept the project or compel adequate restoration if the restoration was not completed to the satisfaction of the property owner. Mr. Fiene answered yes. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the easement would affect the stability of the lot. Mr. Snyder pointed out it was a rare lot in the City.that did not have a sewer or side sewer within 10 -15 feet. He clarified if a property owner's property was damaged via the installation of a sewer, the homeowner had the right of lateral and subjacent support, requiring additional compensation if appropriate. He stressed the City was only obtaining an easement, not the right to damage a citizen's property. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about any long -term affects. Mr. Snyder advised the City was required to install the sewer line in a workman like manner; if the.City was negligent in installing and/or maintaining a sewer line or any other public project, the City would be required to pay for any damages. He recalled the majority of the claims paid by the City were a result of sewer back -ups. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Snyder clarified this was not a public hearing and was not the appropriate venue for negotiating a price. The proposed ordinance was to initiate the next step of the process. He reiterated this was only the beginning of the process and there would be adequate time to negotiate. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 7 (The following comment was permitted as Audience Comment due to the rearrangement of the agenda resulting in this item being considered by the Council later than anticipated and the parties' belief that public comment would be permitted regarding this item.) James S. Fitzgerald, Livengood Carter Tjossem Fitzgerald & Alskog, Kirkland, representing four property owners at the cul -de -sac of 182nd and 76`h Avenue West — Van Loveren, Hilstroms, Larsen, Jarman, said his clients received letters from Jim Haney, Ogden Murphy Wallace, requesting an easement and stating if they did not provide an easement, the City would proceed with eminent domain proceedings to obtain the easement. He said the temporary easement was requested by the City to allow a contractor to use the sole access to their homes for a minimum of what they understood to be at least a week and perhaps longer to bring in heavy pipe and equipment to construct the sewer line. He said his clients have been unable to obtain adequate information from the City to address the numerous concerns they have regarding the project. Mr. Fitzgerald said his clients were not necessarily unwilling to enter into agreements, including easements for the purpose of allowing construction of the sewer line, but several questions needed to be answered such as how long the property owners would be deprived of access to their homes, when construction would begin and end, what happened if construction took longer than anticipated, what was the probability of construction taking longer than anticipated, whether the City anticipated the need for them to vacate their homes and if not, what provisions would be made for their safety, what type of heavy equipment would be used, what the affects of the heavy equipment would be on their asphalt private, road and concrete driveway, whether a hold harmless and guarantee against future damage would be provided for long term affects,of the project, and how and when their property would be restored. Mr. Fitzgerald said the proposed ordinance was premature, until the City had made a serious attempt to address the property owners' questions. If the City chose not to address the property owners' concern, he assured they would likely be addressed during litigation if the City filed eminent domain proceedings. As he preferred to negotiate now, he recommended action on the proposed ordinance be delayed and the Council direct staff to work with his clients over the next 30 days to address their concerns and to determine if the issues could be amicably resolved. If the issues could not be resolved during a 30 -day period, the City could proceed as necessary. Mr. Snyder pointed out nothing happened with passage. of the ordinance and. questioned why Mr. Fitzgerald recommended its passage be delayed rather than passing the ordinance followed by negotiations. Mr. Fitzgerald said it was preferable to negotiate first before passing an ordinance that indicated the City would engage in proceedings to take the property. He said passage of the ordinance was unnecessary, as his client's concerns had not yet been addressed.. Mr. Fiene advised a meeting had been scheduled with the Van Loverens and other property owners but they cancelled the meeting. He stressed-he returned all telephone calls regarding the LID and he reached resolution on all issues raised. He indicated he was willing to discuss concerns but had not had any of these issues brought to his attention. He acknowledged the sub - consultant may have been aware of some of these concerns. He said it was urgent that this process proceeds to ensure the project could begin this summer. He said the project was already running behind schedule due to numerous delays. He reiterated negotiations could continue following the passage of the ordinance. Councilmember Plunkett asked how delaying passage of the ordinance would affect the project. Mr. Fiene said it would further delay the project, as obtaining the easements was the primary reason for Edmonds City' Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 8 project delays. He reminded that 60% of the property owners signed the petition for this LID, petitions circulated by the property owners in the area. Council President Miller asked what impact delaying the passage of the ordinance for .30 days would have. Mr. Fiene said it would push construction into the winter season. He said working in an open trench in the winter would drive up the cost of the project and cause problems. He pointed out the easement issue began in June 1999 and two sub - consultants have been working on it. He stressed it was time to move on. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Fiene assured he was available to address the issues raised. He said numerous letters have been sent to property owners although he acknowledged property owners outside the LID had not received as many from him but had been in contact with the sub - consultant. Councilmember White asked from whom and when .Mr. Fitzgerald and his clients had sought information that was not provided. Mr: Fitzgerald said his understanding was his clients learned of the project when surveyors trespassed on their property but was unaware of the exact date. He understood a meeting with his clients and staff was set up but was not cancelled by his clients. They had asked several questions and staff responded they did not know the answers. Councilmember White asked with whom that meeting was held. Diane Van Loveren said after the surveyors were on their property, a negotiator for the City, John Richter, presented an easement and requested they sign it. She said no written information regarding compensation has been provided although Mr. Richter indicated the City might be willing to pay $200 to replace landscaping. She advised Mr. Richter that they had numerous questions and Don Fiene was contacted regarding holding a neighborhood meeting. When she asked Mr. Fiene about the type of construction, etc., he. indicated he was unable to answer her questions, as the contract had not been let. • She said the neighborhood determined there was no reason to have a meeting. Mayor Haakenson asked Ms. Van Loveren if their property was within or outside the LID. She answered they were outside the LID; the first they heard of it was September 8, 1999, when a negotiator contacted them. She said no information had been provided introducing or describing the project. She said the neighbors initiated the meeting with the City and although Mr. Fiene was willing to meet with them, after speaking with him on the telephone when it appeared he did not have the answers to their concerns, they felt it was appropriate to seek legal counsel. Councilmember White asked when this occurred. She explained a negotiator came to their door on September 8, 1999, and she spoke with Mr. Fiene a week or so later. She said they have received only one letter from Mr. Fiene in October informing them the City would begin condemnation if they did not sign the easement by the specified date. She agreed she could have called Mr. Fiene but felt the City owed it to them to approach them and inform them of the project since the City wanted to use their property. She reiterated they had not received any written information introducing or describing the project. She said the surveyors were surprised they had not been notified. She said they, as property owners outside the LID, were disappointed with the way the process had been handled. ' She reiterated their desire for further information -including the impact on their landscaping, driveways, access, safety, etc. Councilmember White asked if the property owners had any further conversations with Mr. Fiene. Ms. Van Loveren answered no; the only-discussions they.bad were with the negotiator, John Richter with Langley & Associates. She said they did not have any further discussions with City staff other than Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 9 1 correspondence between the City and Bob Tjossem (an associate of Mr., Fitzgerald's) regarding the requirement for the City to obtain the property owners' permission to use their cul -de -sac, a private road. Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Fiene if he could provide answers to the concerns expressed within 10 -14 days. Mr. Fiene answered yes. Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Fitzgerald if two weeks would be adequate to respond to the issues he raised. Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to provide a letter outlining their concerns within 2 -3 days. For Council President Miller, Mr. Fiene advised John Richter was a sub - consultant's of CHS Engineers, Inc. Councilmember White said he could appreciate the property owner's frustration but questioned their reaction to their frustration. He indicated if someone wanted to come onto his property and dig it up, he would not sit idle for six months, he would contact the City. He understood the property owners' belief that the City was responsible for contacting them but felt it would make sense for them to pursue the issue. He expressed concern with the timeline for this project and the likelihood that a delay would push construction into the winter months, thereby increasing the cost to all participants in the LID. Councilmember White proposed the following revision to the fourth paragraph on page 2 of the ordinance, "WHEREAS, the City engineering staff has recommended that condemnation proceedings be instituted with the understanding that settlement discussions with the property owners can 4ways shall continue even. after those proceedings are instituted, and ". He also recommended staff be directed to answer the concerns that had been raised. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUN.CILMEMBER EARLING, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3299, REVISING THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 2 OF THE ORDINANCE TO READ, "WHEREAS, THE CITY ENGINEERING STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THAT CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS BE INSTITUTED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS CAN ALWAYS SHALL,CONTINUE EVEN AFTER THOSE PROCEEDINGS ARE INSTITUTED" AND DIRECTED STAFF TO ANSWER THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS. Council President Miller said he was initially concerned with the 200+ residents in the LID and their need to move forward with this process, however, it appeared the City may, have delegated too much of the negotiations to the sub - consultants, resulting in a great deal of miscommunication. He agreed the citizens could have. approached the City sooner and the City could have done a better job informing citizens. He suggested the Council defer action for two weeks to allow negotiations to occur and if that process was unsuccessful, the condemnation ordinance could be considered again. He said this would not significantly alter the construction schedule and would show the City was acting in good faith. Councilmember Plunkett agreed with Council President Miller's proposal to delay two weeks but not any longer. Councilmember Earling said the City had tried to act in good faith throughout this process, which had been in the public eye of the past couple of years. He said during the six -month period that has elapsed, there have been continuing problems with septic systems in the LID area. Although he understood the psychological reasons for delaying this action for two weeks, he pointed out the City Attorney assured the City could continue to negotiate if the Council passed the ordinance tonight. If this action was delayed two weeks, the City may be in the same situation with these property owners at the end of that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 10 time. He supported the motion so that more time was not lost and there was not the risk of more failed septic systems. Councilmember Orvis supported Councilmember White's motion, expressing concern that a delay would push construction into the winter. He was reassured by the City Attorney's comments that property owners would be compensated for any damages incurred in addition to the easement. Councilmember Earling requested the City work in good faith during the next two week period to address the concerns Mr. Fitzgerald had agreed to outline and, at the end of two weeks when all the questions were answered, property owners could then choose whether to pursue litigation. Councilmember White agreed that was the spirit of his motion. Councilmember Petso agreed there had been a significant amount of miscommunication and that progress could be made to address the concerns citizens had. She agreed the Council needed to move forward. She recommended staff should be available for a public meeting. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER OPPOSED. The ordinance approved is as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3299 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PERMANENT EASEMENT . INTEREST AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INTERESTS IN, UNDER, OVER, ALONG, ACROSS, AND UPON CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED ON 76TH AVENUE WEST, 181sT PLACE SOUTHWEST, AND HOMEVIEW DRIVE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT SANITARY SEWER MAINS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE PERRINVILLE AND NORTH PERRINVILLE SANITARY SEWER LID IMPROVEMENTS, TOGETHER WITH ALL NECESSARY APPURTENANCES AND RELATED WORK TO MAKE A COMPLETE IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORD WITH APPLICABLE CITY STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR THE CONDEMNATION, APPROPRIATION, TAKING, AND DAMAGING OF LAND OR OTHER PROPERTY NECESSARY THEREFOR; PROVIDING THAT THE ENTIRE COST THEREOF SHALL BE PAID FROM AVAILABLE FUNDS; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROSECUTE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW FOR SAID CONDEMNATION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE Snohomish 6, PRESENTATION OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY SOLID WASTE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN County Solid Waste Comp Plan Public Works Director Noel Miller introduced Steve Goldstein, Project Manager, Snohomish County Solid Waste Division, and Steve Fisher, Edmonds Recycling Coordinator, and recognized audience members Norm and Evelyn Nicholson who participated in the development of the plan. Mr. Goldstein explained State law required every county and city to have an updated Solid Waste Management Plan and for facilities and solid waste programs to be in accord with the plan. He explained in 1989, Edmonds and other cities asked Snohomish County to develop a Solid Waste Management Plan, which was approved in 1990. At that time, the City entered into an interlocal agreement for Snohomish County to manage and dispose of the City's solid waste for the next 20 years. He said this presentation was to identify changes in the plan and to seek the Council's input but no formal action was required. Mr. Goldstein stressed the Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan would not increase costs; although some of the programs in the plan were new, the level of effort'was appropriately the same and only redirected the effort. He explained the purpose of the Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan was to help protect and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page I I .preserve human health, environment quality, and natural resources by guiding solid and moderate risk waste management efforts and decision in Snohomish County between 2000 and 2006 and influencing them until approximately 2020. He explained moderate risk wastes were hazardous wastes produced by households and small quantity generators, generally small businesses, basically hazardous wastes produced in .small quantities. He said this plan incorporates two existing plans, the moderate risk waste plan adopted in 1983 and solid waste management plan. Mr. Goldstein said the mission in the 20 -year plan was to protect people, the environment, and natural resources by preventing, reducing and solving problems associated with Snohomish County solid and moderate risk wastes. He described the three goals of the plan, 1) to reduce or prevent the generation of solid and moderate risk wastes, 2) to solve problems related to solid and moderate risk waste, and 3) to provide necessary administrative support for the other two goals. He said the 6 -year plan . addressed issues of a short -term. nature such as financial integrity of the system, ongoing planning /public policy decision - making mechanisms, moderate risk wastes, waste prevention, recycling, solid waste system capacity, illegal dumping /other enforcement issues. Mr. Goldstein described improvements to be made to the Everett transfer station due to its technological obsolescence; the possibility of increasing waste handling capacity in the eastern portion of the County due to population increases in that area; increasing the capacity of the southwest recycling and transfer station, the most heavily used facility in the system; and considering privatization of new or existing facilities. Councilmember Earling asked if any Snohomish County Solid Waste's programs had been impacted by reductions in the Health District's funding as a result of I -695. Mr. Goldstein answered Solid Waste enforcement (overseen by the Health District) was funded via grants and contracts. Mr. Goldstein invited Councilmembers to contact him with any additional questions. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Residential 7. PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE Sanitary RESIDENTIAL SANITARY SEWER RATES TO A VOLUME BASED CHARGE AND TO, Sewer Rates INCREASE OVERALL SEWER UTILITY REVENUE A MINIMUM AVERAGE RATE OF 5.8 PERCENT FOR THE YEARS 2001 THROUGH 2005 Public Works Director Noel Miller explained on January 25 the rate consultant made a presentation to the Council .regarding their findings with the most current rate study which includes an increase to the sanitary sewer rates and provides options to change from a fixed residential rate to a rate based upon the amount of water a resident puts into the City's sanitary sewers. He recognized staff members who were involved with the City's sewer utility, Assistant City Engineer Don Fiene, City Engineer Jim Walker, Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager Steve Koho, and Finance Director Peggy Hetzler. He explained there were two issues before the Council, 1) the need to increase revenues to fund capital replacement and renovation projects identified in the Sewer Comprehensive Plan and 2) whether residential rates should be based on the amount of water sent to the Treatment Plant. Mr. Miller displayed a list of revenue requirements for 2000 — 2005, explaining the consultant's analysis of the City's expenditure needs indicated a rate increase would not be necessary until 2002 but the rate increase at that time would be very significant, 23.7 %, followed by several smaller increases. The consultant suggested the rate increases be spread over a five -year period to lessen the annual increase. He explained a volume rate would include a fixed charge as well as a unit cost for the amount of water Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 12 sent to the Treatment Plant. The consultant developed three options, A) continue to charge a fixed cost, B) charge a small fixed cost for utility administration and a higher cost per unit of wastewater, and C) charge a higher fixed cost for utility administration and a lower cost per unit of wastewater. Staff's preference and Council's indication at the January presentation was to proceed with Option C, a higher fixed charge. Mr. Miller displayed sample bills for each option, comparing options A, B and C and low, average and higher users. He pointed out a low user under Option C would pay approximately $31 bi- monthly versus a flat rate (under Option A) of $47. High water users would have higher bi- monthly water rate under Option C, nearly $70. Mr. Miller said the bigger issue was why revenues needed to be increased further. He explained the 1999. Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan identified 32 citywide problems that needed to be corrected over the next ,20 years. He displayed a map identifying the location of the projects, explaining there were, numerous pipes that needed to be replaced, upsized or renovated and three of the City's 14 pump stations needed to be rebuilt. He said overall spending previous to development of the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan was limited to $100,000 per year for capital projects. The Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan identified over $2 million in projects to be completed over the next six years. He said of the seven major projects, five were pump stations, the other two were correcting major problems in pipeline segments. Mr. Miller displayed a photograph of the sewer line on Admiral Way that illustrated a section of. pipe that had no bottom. He advised a 1,400 -foot section needed to be replaced along Admiral Way this summer. He explained the pipe reached this condition as a result of a former processing plant at the end of Admiral Way (no longer in operation) that processed animal wastes and the chemicals used were very corrosive on the pipe. Mr. Miller displayed a photograph of a manhole above a pump station located between the ferry terminal and Caspers. He displayed a photograph of the wet well illustrating the product (sewage) inside and said normally the pumps can keep up with the flow but once or twice a year during heavy rains, the pumps cannot keep up, the sewage rises in the wet well and overflows into Puget Sound. He said although the City was technically not in jeopardy with the Clean Water laws that exist, the desire was for communities to reduce frequency of sewage overflow into a fresh body of water whenever feasible. He explained another project was to upgrade the electrical service at a number of pump stations. He explained the electrical equipment was originally installed in the 1960s; electrical shorts have occurred and it was difficult to find parts. He displayed a video photograph of the 24 -inch interceptor line on Edmonds Way, pointing out deterioration of the concrete pipe at the joint resulting in the rubber gasket no longer keeping the joint watertight. He said this project would require relining of approximately 3,000 feet of 24 -inch pipe. Councilmember Miller displayed a comparison of Edmonds' rates with the Consumer Price Index and average single - family sewer rates. He pointed out Edmonds' rates were flat between 1* 977 and 1987 and spiked at that time when construction of the secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant occurred. Rates remained steady until 1998 when the most recent rate increase occurred. The chart illustrated the most recently proposed increase in rates. He said the average single- family rate was higher than Edmonds ratepayers would pay. He displayed a comparison of neighboring jurisdictions, pointing out rates ranged from $35.30 (Olympic View Water and Sewer District) to $62.42 (City of Bothell). He commented many of the higher rates were cities whose flow went to King County who has a higher rate due to their capital projects. Cities with lower rates typically had their own treatment plant and were not associated with the King County system. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 13 Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, did not object to increasing revenue sources when there was a need and he believed the 6 -year CIP indicated there was a need, particularly an emergency need to replace the lines that were deteriorating. However, he said a great deal of the costs were replacement of an entire lift station. He questioned replacing the entire lift station if the wet well was undersized and suggested modifications be made to increase capacity instead. He said replacing the electrical panel at lift stations was the most urgent need due to problems that occur if the lift station failed. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, pointed out the possibility of water rate increases and stated his intent to further review this matter. Ed Bartell, 21315 95`h Avenue NW, Edmonds, referred to the proposed change in rate calculation based on volume of usage and said only the water lines had a mechanism for measurement. He pointed out 2 -3 people living in a multi- family dwelling or a single - family residence would generate approximately the same amount of sewage. He explained the "perk" on a residential lot was much higher than a multi- family project that had more building and pavement. Therefore runoff from the single — family lot would be considerably less than on the multi - family lot. He said although single family residents may use more water for lawns, etc. they actually generate less runoff. He recommended this be 'studied before the volume -based charge was finalized. Chuck Cain, 520 Forsythe Lane, Edmonds, expressed concern with the volume usage,. commenting he used an average amount of water during the winter but used more in the summer months to water his lawn and garden. He said his winter water bills were currently approximately $100, and $180 in the summer but the water in the summer did not enter the system. He questioned if water usage would be averaged. Gail Sarvis, 1101 12`h Avenue; Edmonds, a business owner in the City, expressed concern with the increase in water rates for her business. She pointed out that in January 1999, the sewer portion of her bill was $2.48 per 100 cubic feet of water consumed and increased to $2.92 per 100 cubic feet of water in March, an increase of approximately 17% during a two month period. She said her business was already charged based on volume and her business, hairstyling, consumed a lot of water. She inquired how much of an increase would occur and over what period of time. Due to the nature of her business, she understood she needed to absorb a larger amount to pay for the sewer system but as a small business owner, she was concerned with increases that continue to occur. Chuck Graham, 20430 81" Avenue W, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to any increase in sewer rates. He said the majority of their water usage -was for the lawn and garden, water that did not enter the system. He questioned why a larger pump; operated more frequently, could not be installed at the lift stations. He referred to the chart illustrating average rates and said this was not a.race to see who was number one, it was a race to see whose rate was the lowest. Steven Lime, speaking on behalf of the Harbor Square project adjacent to the Port of Edmonds, observed two years ago sanitary sewer and stormwater charges were segregated on their bill. With that came a significant rate increase on the sanitary sewer portion of the bill, a 32.7% increase in 1998 and a 14.6% increase in 1999, a total of 47.3% in two years. He said with that increase and stormwater charges, a commercial customer could have seen their sanitary sewer /stormwater costs double during the first year. He said if the rate was increased by 6.56/o over the next five years, the total increase would be 108% over eight years. He questioned what projects were funded by the first 47.3% increase, whether those projects Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 14 had been completed, if excess funds or a deficit remained, and what projects not seen two years ago would be funded by the rate increase over the next five years. He asked if there were plans to raise the water rates. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Mr. Miller explained due to increased water usage during the summer months, the rate would be calculated based on average water consumption during November to April. In response to questions regarding the capital projects, he explained Edmonds was established in 1890 and installation of sewer lines began in the early 1900s. Sewer pipes generally last 100 years; the average life of a pump station was 30 -40 years. He agreed with Mr. Graham that`cost effective methods should be used but stressed the importance of doing a project right to ensure further improvements were not necessary in ten years. He said the entire pump stations would not be replaced, the existing wet well volume would be used and another holding tank added if possible. He said many of the components used in the pump stations were not manufactured any longer which made it difficult to find parts. He said the cost of projects in the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan had been estimated but were conservative figures. In response to a question whether all the projects were known at the time of the last sewer rate increase, Mr. Miller said staff was aware of some of the projects at that time but wanted to develop a document that identified all projects. He agreed -the City did not want to be a leader in sewer rates. He said the City had attempted not to increase utility rates until necessary and that was the reason for larger increases versus gradual increases. Regarding increases anticipated for other utilities, he said the last water rate increase occurred in 1992 — 1994 and it was anticipated water rate increases would be necessary due to increases in the City's wholesale water costs. He said a water rate study was budgeted this year. Stormwater rates would likely be increased during the next year due to additional requirements of the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Councilmember Davis recalled a citizen inquired about the difference between multi - family and single family rates. Mr. Miller explained the scope of work for the rate consultant included consideration of the customer classes. Their research indicated a multi - family user consumed 30% less water than the average single- family customer. Councilmember Petso commented she was not entirely in favor of the volume -based water rates. She pointed out some customers' water usage would be calculated on the six month period November — April; however, other customers' water usage would be calculated over the eight -month period, October — May. She recalled October 1999 had record water usage and some citizens may water their gardens in May. She said if the rate was changed to volume - based, this discrepancy should be investigated. Mr. Miller agreed. Mr. Miller said a change to a volume -based rate would be delayed at least a year as the City was in the process of acquiring a new financial system and approximately a one year delay would occur before the utility software package would be operational. He said a flat rate increase could be instituted in the meantime and the volume -based rate instituted next year. ,Further, there was a constitutional question whether a public vote would be required to increase water rates, and until that question was answered, an increase was not possible. Councilmember Petso asked if new information regarding the cost of capital projects and Public Works Trust Fund Loans would be provided to the consultant to possibly reduce the amount of the increase. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 15 Mr. Miller answered yes. He said staff was also considering other financing methods of collecting revenue that would not impact current customers. . Observing the Port of Edmonds owned most of the land around the sewer on Admiral Way, Councilmember Orvis asked if the Port could assist with the project. Mr. Miller answered the portion on Admiral Way was within the City right -of -way; the Port was one of the City's customers who paid for sewer service. Mr. Miller said there were sufficient funds currently available to complete that project but the project costs would draw down the available funds. Mayor Haakenson summarized no action was required, the purpose was to take public comment. omm. g, REPORT ON COMMITTEE MEETINGS Services/ Dev. Serv. Committee Community Services/Development Services Committee Councilmember Petso reported the committee discussed a proposed ordinance regarding handbills. She said the Downtown Parking Committee recommended the ordinance that prohibits placing handbills on windshields be repealed. She was opposed to repealing the ordinance due to her objection to having information placed on her windshield, and the current ordinance may be potentially unconstitutional, requiring it to be redrafted. Staff was directed to contact the City Attorney to determine if there was a solution that met her concerns as well as the constitutionality concerns. Also, the development of a Snohomish Countywide arterial Network (SNOCAN) was discussed. She explained the purpose of the group and the City's participation was to allow funding of upcoming construction projects. Staff has taken an active role in commenting on the project, particularly better project coordination between Snohomish County and King County projects. Councilmember Petso reported the Committee discussed the Bikeway Comprehensive Plan. Staff indicated comments made at the Planning Board's public hearing favored the plan. She said minor projects listed in the plan were funded. She said the plan would allow City to require certain bicycle accommodations be made in future developments. She said the Bikeway Comprehensive Plan required new commercial development to install bike racks, a requirement the Council may wish to discuss further. She said another consideration was the maintenance obligations the Plan imposed on the City for new bike paths. Staff was directed to proceed with a public hearing scheduled for April 4. Public Public Safety Committee Safety Committee Councilmember Plunkett said the interlocal agreement between Edmonds School District was approved on the Consent Agenda. He explained the school district paid 25% of the officer at Edmonds - Woodway High School and the agreement approved tonight extends that contract through June 2000. He said there has been discussion regarding the use of an officer at the high school and anticipated that issue might arise during budget discussions. He said the agreement required only a 60 -day notice to withdraw. The Committee also discussed an ordinance authorizing the City to recover up to $1,000 of its emergency response costs for an incident resulting from a person's operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. This item was approved on the Consent Agenda. Police Chief Robin Hickok reported on the Crime Prevention Conference Robin Heslop would be attending, advising the Police Foundation agreed to fund her trip. Finance Committee r mitt Councilmember Earling reported the City had an ending cash balance surplus, of approximately $300,000 ee that had been placed in the Council Contingency Fund. Staff developed a variety of requests (totaling $400,000) for the Council to consider implementing with those funds. A series of items prioritized as critical by staff total approximately $109,000. He and Councilmember Orvis recommended the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 16 Forum: Library Funding Excused Absence $109,000 request be presented to the Council for their deliberation next Tuesday, without a recommendation from the Finance Committee. A preliminary analysis done by Jeff Wilson, Planning Division, and other staff members regarding the salmon listing and unfunded mandates that will result was also discussed. Staff is in the process of developing rough estimates that would be available within a few weeks. The Committee also examined the 125 Fund as requested by Councilmember. Orvis. 9. MAYOR'S REPORTS Mayor Haakenson reminded the public of a forum scheduled for March 23 meeting in the Library Plaza Room to take public comment regarding how to fund the library. 10. COUNCIL REPORTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER WHITE FROM THE MARCH 7TH AND MARCH 14TH MEETINGS. MOTION CARRIED. p7d—g—e—t-7 Council President Miller advised a budget workshop had been tentatively scheduled for April 15. He orkshop advised this would be an opportunity for the Mayor to present potential budget cuts that would be necessary to balance the budget as well as provide an updated revenue picture based on projections and expenditures. Health Councilmember Orvis reported he accompanied a health inspector on an inspection of an Edmonds nspection restaurant. He was impressed with the dialogue that occurred between the cook and the inspector and their interest in ensuring the food was safe. Cities and Councilmember Earling expressed concern with the late notice in the Council packet of a Snohomish Towns County Cities and Towns meeting on Thursday, March 23, 2000. He urged Councilmembers to attend Meeting the meeting,. commenting it was a good opportunity to talk with Councilmembers and Mayors in other cities and build relationships that would benefit the City. n,taing Councilmember Petso recalled the Community Services/Development Services Committee discussed eights building heights at their January meeting and referred the matter to the full Council. She did not recall that issue being discussed by the Council since that time. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. MAYOR ,�i�.cy/.ia. A • �.bf�.�� -cam SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERIC Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 17 1 I L_ AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. MARCH 21, 2000 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 6. (15 Min.) REPORT ON COMMITTEE MEETINGS 7. (5 Min.) PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PERMANENT EASEMENT INTERESTS AND A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INTEREST IN, UNDER, OVER, ALONG, ACROSS, AND UPON CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED ON 76th AVENUE WEST, 181st PLACE SOUTHWEST, AND HOMEVIEW DRIVE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT SANITARY SEWER MAINS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE PERRINVILLE AND NORTH PERRINVILLE SANITARY SEWER Pagel (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11-12,2000 (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2060 (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35939 THROUGH #39656 FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 6, 2000 IN THE AMOUNT OF $584,806.89. (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM KAREN CAMMACK ($601.25), AND FROM SAMIR MEDAWAR (UNSPECIFIED AMOUNT) (F) APPROVAL OF COUNCILPERSON'S CREED (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH ARTISTS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX TO EXTEND COMPLETION DATE (H) PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO RESIST FUTURE ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE UNFUNDED MANDATES UPON THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND ITS RATEPAYERS AND TAXPAYERS (1) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN RECREATIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER (J) AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING EMERGENCY RESPONSE COST RECOVERY UNDER RCW 38.52.430 (K) AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CITY OF EDMONDS POLICE DEPARTMENT (L) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS RELATED TO SUBSURFACE SEDIMENTS TESTING FOR THE EDMONDS CROSSING PROJECT 3. (20 Min.) PRESENTATION OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY SOLID WASTE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 4. (60 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL SANITARY SEWER RATES TO A VOLUME BASED CHARGE AND TO INCREASE OVERALL SEWER UTILITY REVENUE A MINIMUM AVERAGE RATE OF 5.8 PERCENT FOR THE YEARS 2001 THROUGH 2005 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 6. (15 Min.) REPORT ON COMMITTEE MEETINGS 7. (5 Min.) PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PERMANENT EASEMENT INTERESTS AND A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INTEREST IN, UNDER, OVER, ALONG, ACROSS, AND UPON CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED ON 76th AVENUE WEST, 181st PLACE SOUTHWEST, AND HOMEVIEW DRIVE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT SANITARY SEWER MAINS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE PERRINVILLE AND NORTH PERRINVILLE SANITARY SEWER Pagel CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MARCH 21, 2000 Page 2 of 2 LID IMPROVEMENTS, TOGETHER WITH ALL NECESSARY APPURTENANCES AND RELATED WORK TO MAKE A COMPLETE IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORD WITH APPLICABLE CITY STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR THE CONDEMNATION, APPROPRIATION, TAKING, AND DAMAGING OF LAND OR OTHER PROPERTY NECESSARY THEREFOR; PROVIDING THAT THE ENTIRE COST THEREOF SHALL BE PAID FROM AVAILABLE FUNDS; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROSECUTE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW FOR SAID CONDEMNATION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE 8. (15 Min.) DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.40 NONCONFORMING USES, BUILDING SIGNS AND LOTS TO ADD A NEW SECTION 17.40.025 NONCONFORMING, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 9. (5 Min) MAYOR'S REPORT 10. (15 Min) COUNCIL REPORTS Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 46 Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday at noon and 7:00 p.m., as well as, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 46