Loading...
03/02/1999 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES MARCH 2, 1999 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Gary Haakenson, Council President Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Meghan Cross, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Ron Haworth, Interim Fire Chief Kevin Taylor, Assistant Fire Chief Robin Hickok, Police Chief Paul Mar, Community Services Director Ray Miller, Development Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor James Walker, City Engineer Don Fiene, Hydraulic Engineer Stephen Koho, Wastewater Treatment Plant Mgr Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Doug Farmen, Accounting Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED. 2.. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Miller requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL_ MEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page I I (A) ROLL CALL Approve (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 1999 /23/99 Minutes Approve (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #29331 THROUGH #31091 FOR THE WEEK OF Claim FEBRUARY 22, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $421,800.30 Warrants Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page I I laim for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM ERIC R HANSEN mages ($314.11) xiliary (F) REPORT ON FINAL COSTS FOR PURCHASE OF THE AUXILIARY GENERATOR nerator FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF or WWTP PROJECT onstruction (G) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE WASTEWATER osts for I TREATMENT PLANT AUXILIARY GENERATOR AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF enerator I PROJECT urchase of (H) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT PUMP GEARBOX FROM Pump Gear 113ox SCHWING AMERICA, INC. ids for (I) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR TWO INCINERATOR EXPANSION Incinerator JOINTS x anion Item E: Report on General Fund Financial Position for the Period Ended January 31, 1999 General and Report Councilmember Miller observed sales tax for the current month was over budget by $28,000 and the for 1/31/99 utility tax was under budget by nearly $40,000. He asked if this was an aberration for the month or a trend. Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler answered it is hoped the increase in sales tax is a positive trend that will continue. The utility tax is a negative trend that will continue, possibly offset by the additional sales tax revenue. Based on the most updated figures, it appears there will be a $200,000 shortfall in utility taxes for the 12 -month period as indicated by the first two months of this year. Councilmember Miller requested this issue be placed on the Finance Committee agenda to discuss ways to resolve the shortfall. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED. The item approved is as follows: (E) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999 3. PRESENTATION OF AWARD OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING Presentation Mayor Fahey said this is the fourth time since she has been in office that she has had the pleasure of Achievement presenting this award. The numerous times the Finance Department has received this award is an wazd p g p ongoing acknowledgment of the fine job they do keeping records and preparing the annual financial report. She presented the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to Accounting Manager Doug Farmen and read from the letter that accompanied the award, "the Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management." Mayor Fahey expressed her appreciation to Mr. Farmen and the entire Finance Department for the fine work they do for the City. Mr. Farmen said this is a group effort and is the product of the Finance Department's hard work. He said this is the seventh or eighth year the City has received this award and the result is an improved bond rating which lowers the debt service to residents. He expressed his appreciation for the Mayor and Council's support. Councilmembers each congratulated Mr. Farmen. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 2 4. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) TO BE KNOWN AS THE NORTH PERRINVILLE SANITARY SEWER LID, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING SEWER MAINS AND SERVICE ublic City Engineer Jim Walker recalled that at the public hearing the City Council held in December 1998 earing for regarding LID No. 215, a number of residents who liad not signed the petition expressed an interest in ID 216 participating in an LID for sewers in their area. The City received a number of petitions that were presented to the Council in January and a decision was made to hold a public hearing for the entire area that currently does not have sanitary sewers. He said it was easier to hold the hearing for the entire area and delete properties if necessary than to renotify if additional properties expressed an interest. He said fairly strong support has been received from most of1the area, the exception being areas along Olympic View Drive. There is currently only one property owner in that area, representing two parcels, who has signed a petition in favor of the LID. Although Hydraulic Engineer Don Fiene has had discussions with the property owners, they have not indicated a position regarding the LID. He suggested the Council hold a public hearing, determine the support for the LID and determine the boundaries to be included in the next LID. Councilmember Earling observed Exhibit 1 (map of the LID area identifying proponents) showed property owners who have signed the LID petition �nd those against the LID. He asked if the blank properties had not indicated a position. Mr. Walker answered at the time the map was prepared, staff could not identify their position on the LID. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing and described the procedures. Stephanie Graham, 18026 72nd Ave W, Edmonds, stated that she has supported the LID from the beginning and circulated petitions. She questioned why, now that this LID appears to be moving forward, the estimated cost is significantly higher than originally estimated for the entire area. She asked what the additional cost, approximately $1,600 per property owner, represented. She said their understanding was this area, which is centrally located in the area to be sewered, would be of similar assessments. Kim Kirkendahl, 18017 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, indicated he had the same question Ms. Graham had regarding the cost of the LID assessment. i Doug Frechin, 7515 181" Place SW, Edmonds, said his main concern was with wording in Resolution 273, "on 1815` Place SW on Homeview Drive thence1500 feet west, thence northerly approximately 400 feet on easements through Lots 14, 15, and 2 of Homeview Addition No. 2 to 180`' Street SW." As the owner of Lot 14, it appears a sewer line will go through or along the edge of his property. He is opposed to the LID and said the assessment will be approximately $2,000 more than the LID in the surrounding area ($10,000 versus $12,000). He was also concerned about what else will be installed such as sidewalks, curbs, etc. He said 181" Place SW is a cul -de -sac and the stormwater comes down the street and flows through his property. He asked if a storm drain would be installed. He questioned how the $12,000 LID assessment is paid by the homeowner. If a ten -year, low- interest loan is available, he said that would represent a minimum of $100 per month for the next ten years. Terry Gross, 18105 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds; said he did not receive a notice regarding petitions being circulated for the first LID and his neighbor did not sign a., petition for that LID. Although he i Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 3 asked to be included with the first LID, he (Mr. Gross). was not. Now his assessment will be $2,000 more than his neighbor's assessment. Terry Chasteen, 18012 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, said they are not particularly in favor of the LID because they have not had any problems with their system but realize some people down the street may need them. She said she could support the LID if other amenities were included such as sidewalks. If residents are to be "penalized" with this huge cost, there should be something else included such as sidewalks. She asked what their legal responsibility was to notify prospective purchasers of their home of the possibility of an LID. Steve Mulvihill, 7013 180 ", Edmonds, said most people have not considered the total cost which he estimates is $27,000 including interest payments, residential hook -up, increased monthly sewer fee, and re- landscaping. He said this is an extravagant issue that has not been fully analyzed by many of the property owners who are in favor of the LID. He recalled when annexation was discussed, streetlights were promised but there has been no action on that issue. Howard Hance, 7530 181a1 Place SW, Edmonds, said he was originally opposed 'to annexation and to the LID but may be changing his mind. When showing his house he found prospective purchasers were wary of the septic system and the realtor felt it would increase his property value. He said, it appears now to be to his advantage to have sewers installed, noting this area was developed 30 years ago and the drainfields likely will need replacement in the near future. He said it is not a matter of whether it will cost property owners money but rather when. Lon Redwine, 7012 179` Street SW, Edmonds, said until 1991 his address was 17905 72nd Place W. In 1991 Snohomish County told him his address was wrong and the street should not have been 72nd Place W. The City's map does not show the road leading to his property nor the other two properties on his street. He asked" how the sewer will come to his property and if it does not, why he will be assessed. $12,000. Councilmember Miller asked if there was an easement to reach his property. Mr. Redwine answered there is a paved extension of 179'h Street SW. Andy Hymes, 7005 179`n Street, Edmonds, said he and his wife were in favor of annexation to Edmonds as they were facing the need for a new drainfield because their existing drainfield was failing. They signed a petition in favor of the LID but unfortunately the majority of property owners on 179' Street were not in favor of the LID so their area was not included in the first LID. As their drainfield was failing and no repair options were available, they had the drainfield replaced at a cost of $15,500. The remaining useful life on the drainfield is 25 -30 years based on the proximity of the new drainfield. In the past few months, numerous property owners on 179`' signed the petition in favor of the LID so 179'' is now under consideration for inclusion in the LID. He said the LID represents an onerous financial burden to them due to the assessment, associated costs for hook -up in addition to the cost of replacing their drainfield. If the LID moves forward, he questioned how it would apply to his property versus those with 30 -year -old drainfields with significantly less useful life. Robert Moen, 7104 179 " Street W, Edmonds, said he signed the petition in favor of the LID but learned his lot is large enough that he will be assessed twice. He discussed with the City that it was not cost effective for him to subdivide his lot and the reason his lot is so large is it has an underground storm drain. He requested staff research this further before assessing him twice. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 4 Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, preferred the City return to the LID process used in the past when staff discussed the issue with proper owners individually. He said state law does not require property owners to hook -up to sewer. Anne Cottle, 7415 181" Place SW, Edmonds, asked how the estimated cost of the LID was determined. She asked the monthly fee and whether a property owner must pay the fee if not hooked up to sewer and if so, why. She inquired about the property tax increase as a result of the sanitary sewer. She questioned the apportionment of the payments over ten years and the interest rate. Terry Gross, 18105 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, said when he wanted to be included in the first LID, he was planning to hook -up through a neighbor's yard. He still wanted to do that and asked if he could hook -up to the first LID sewer line, as it would be cheaper for him to do that. If so, he asked whether he would still be assessed $12,000 rather than $10,000. He said this entire area should have been sewered via one LID, not two. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Walker addressed the question regarding the diff�renoe in the cost in this LID versus the first LID, explaining there were several areas where the sewer served only one side of the street or extensions were needed outside the area, resulting in more feet of sewer main per connection in the second LID compared to the first LID. He observed no property owners on Olympic View Drive spoke regarding the LID and said that area represents a higher cost per unit. If the Council.elects to remove that area, the cost could be reduced. Hydraulic Engineer Don Fiene explained the reason the previous LID was not reformed was to prevent losing the residents in the LID that had already formed and increasing the cost. The entire area was not included in the first LID because only four property owners in this area signed the LID petition. He said several letters were sent to residents informing them of the LID as well as public meetings held to describe the LID. Once the first LID was formed, residents were given another opportunity to circulate petitions but this area was not petitioned. Due to the response at the previous LID hearing from residents wanting to be included, petitions have been circulated and 37 signatures obtained. He displayed the LID 216 cost estimate and explained the estimated cons ruction cost.was developed using the amount of sewer main installed in LID 213 in 1992, dividing the second lowest bid by the amount of linear foot of sewer main to develop a cost per linear foot of sewer pipe. This was adjusted for inflation and 15 percent contingency added due to the expectation this wi�i require a deeper installation. The estimated construction cost was divided by the lots to be assessed to determine each property owners' assessment ($12,400). He said $11,000 is the cost of construction, the remaining $1,400 is administration and engineering costs. Council President Haakenson asked if removing the two easterly sections on Olympic View Drive reduced the cost significantly. Mr. Fiene answered the cost would be reduced to $11,900 per lot. Mayor Fahey referred to the area where staff indicated the sewer main would serve only one side of the street, and said there appeared to be lots on both sides of the street. She asked what provisions were made for sewering those lots in the future. Mr. Fiene answered along Olympic View Drive, the other side of the street is Lynnwood and are already on sewer. The houses on the other side of the street in one area of 72nd Avenue are also already sewered. Mayor Fahey referred to the houses on 72nd where i Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 5 LJ properties are sewered on the other side of the street and asked if those houses could utilize that sewer line. Mr. Fiene answered those properties have feeder systems from other properties on 1791.. Mayor Fahey clarified there is no way for them to hook into existing sewer lines in the area. Mr. Fiene noted there are two properties on the northern end of Olympic View Drive which are not on sewer although they have been in the City for ovex 30 years. He discussed the LID with these property owners but they did not indicate a definite preference. Staff wanted to include those properties as they are in the area and are currently not sewered. Mr. Walker said staff was not aware of the parcel that appears to be land locked until recently and have not been able to verify whether there is any City right -of -way in the area. Typically, the sewer stub extension would terminate at the right -of -way. Mr. Fiene said the legal and plat maps do not indicate there is any right -of -way or access to that• property nor is there any access shown in the owner's title. City Attorney Scott Snyder said a property owner is generally responsible for the side sewer line and obtaining the easement for conveying to the City's sewer main. Mr. Walker advised the property owners could elect to include sidewalks and/or other improvements and pay for them as part of the LID. The City Council could make a decision to include those improvements and utilize. City funds to provide sidewalks or additional stormwater drainage. He said staff was not aware of stormwater drainage problems in the area but will research it. If stormwater problems exist, it is likely those would be corrected at the same time the LID occurs. He recommended the City install the stormwater drainage if it is deemed to be necessary. He pointed out a great deal of the City does not have sidewalks and many would have greater priority due to safety considerations such as students walking to nearby schools, etc. Mr. Fiene said he only learned of this problem recently but said the soil in the area is not well drained, which is one of the reasons the septic systems in the area are failing. Mr. Walker .responded to the question regarding the sewer fee, explaining there is a connected and unconnected charge. He said all property owners pay a fee for the public. benefit of providing the treatment plant. Mr. Snyder said the bi- monthly connected charge is $43.94 for a single family residence and $7.08 for an unconnected property. Council President Haakenson asked staff to review payment options. Mr. Walker recalled one citizen also inquired about notifying prospective purchasers and said it would be prudent to advise the real estate agent and have him /her make the decision. He said once the preliminary assessment role is recorded, the plans for the LID will be public record. He .said the property owner is also responsible for the cost of extending the side sewer on their own property and restoring the property. A year after the LID is completed, a property owner can pay the entire assessment or join the pool that will be financed. The City will issue bonds with approximately 5 -6 percent interest rate and property owners will be responsible for the monthly payment including interest. He said there are also deferments available for low- income seniors in which the assessment is paid by the State Department of Revenue and a lien placed on the property with funds recovered when the property is sold. Mr. Snyder explained the interest rate is unknown until the LID bonds are actually sold. Mayor Fahey, asked for clarification of what would be provided in the proposed LID project for the cost. estimate provided. Mr. Walker answered this LID will include only the sanitary sewer and restoration of the street to the original condition. Mayor. Fahey asked if there were plans for any stormwater improvements. Mr. Walker answered that was not included in the LID. If the City determines there is a need for stormwater facilities, typically the City would fund those from utility fund revenues but may include the installation at the same time the sanitary sewer is installed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 6 i i Mayor Fahey asked the timeline if the LID is approv d. Mr. Walker answered the assessment will not be due until a year -after the project is completed. The final assessment hearing will be held several months after the project is completed. Property owners will (then have a period of time to make payment in full. Mayor Fahey asked how long the project would take. Mr. Walker answered last week the City Council approved the contract for the design of the first LID. He expected this project could be added to'the contractor's work with the hope construction could be done this summer. He was uncertain when the project would be completed. Mr. Snyder explained the Council's legislative decision tonight is to determine the boundaries of the LID and approve the assessment method. He explained when the LID closes, the City Council will hold another public hearing to determine the final assessment role. Individuals who believe the amount being assessed is not commensurate with their benefit will have an opportunity to raise those issues at that time. The City must prove the benefit the property eceives is equal to or greater than the assessment. Staffs proposal to use equivalent residential units in this LID is. the most efficient and effective way of determining the benefit a property receives. The City could use a special benefit method, which requires an appraisal of each property to determine the amount of benefit each receives based on the square footage and developability of the property. This is la fairly intensive and expensive process and could add as much as $1,000 or $1,500 to each assessment: Staffs proposal to use equivalent residential units reduces the expense of the LID. At the time the LID is complete, a property owner with specific concerns may challenge the amount of their assessment and the City could then appraise only those properties. He stressed although the City Council was making a determination regarding the assessment method tonight, they are not determining the final lassessment amount. He pointed out if a property owner establishes that their assessment is too high and. the City Council, agrees to lower it, the other parcels in the LID may be required to pay a .portion of that amount. If the City waited until- an emergency existed (Snohomish County Board of Health determines septic systems are failing), typically this is far more expensive and property owners have less opportunity to be heard regarding assessment and value. Mayor Fahey inquired about the process if an easement is needed and does not exist. Mr. Snyder explained the City provides the main line and a hook -up point in the public, right-of-way. It is the property owner's responsibility to provide the side' sewer to the main line. A property owner can negotiate with a neighbor for an easement or privately condemn an easement if a neighbor refuses to talk with them. He said the cost of that process is an issue that can be raised at the final assessment role hearing (i.e., the property owner does not receive the full benefit because they face additional costs to connect). Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for del'beration. Councilmember Miller said he was sensitive to the concerns raised regarding costs but was aware there were not sufficient signatures from this area at the time the previous LID petition was circulated. He expressed concern there had not been a response from property owners on Olympic View Drive but supported approving LID 216 less the Olympic View'brive portion. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO APPROVE LID 216 MINUS THE OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE PORTION. i Council President Haakenson. complimented the Engineering Department for pursuing another LID for those residents who spoke at the public hearing on LID 215 and informing them of the LID opportunity Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 7 1 via a public meeting on January 4 as well. as mailed and hand- delivered letters. He supported Councilmember Miller's motion, commenting that excluding the areas on Olympic View Drive, there was 60 percent support for the LID. Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked staff to clarify the difference between the. initial assessment estimate and the assessment without the Olympic View Drive properties. Mr. Fiene said the assessment would be reduced from .$12,400 to $11,900, a difference of $500. Mr. Snyder stressed this is an estimate, the actual assessment will not be determined until the final assessment role. Councilmember White referred to a parcel without an address on Olympic View Drive. Mr. Fiene answered that is a vacant property owned by Mr. Bottin; zoning would allow subdivision into three lots. Councilmember White asked if those property owners had indicated their preference regarding an LID. Mr. Fiene said Mr. Bottin is in attendance at this public hearing ,but has not indicated his preference regarding the LID. One property owner in that area has signed the petition. Councilmember White expressed concern that one property owner has indicated they are in favor of the . . LID but the others have not voiced a preference. He asked if consideration was given to extending the sewer line for that one lot. Mr. Walker answered that could be done although the participants in the LID will pay some additional cost to extend past property where no sewer service is required. Further, the sewer line would provide :some benefit to the other property owners in that area but they will not be charged for it: Councilmember Nordquist, a member of the engineering selection team, along with Councilmember Miller, said he had a great deal of confidence in the engineering firm that was selected and believed the cost could be reduced due to engineering suggestions the firm had. Mr. Snyder clarified the motion is to approve the LID in concept.with a change in boundary and direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for approval on the Council's next Consent Agenda. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey declared a brief recess. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE "FEE -IN -LIEU OF PARKING" RATES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND CONVERSION OF EXISTING USE AS PROVIDED FOR IN ECDC SECTION 17.50.070.A Fee -in -Lieu Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson advised the Community Services/Development Services and Finance of Parking Committees reviewed the proposal to increase the City's fee -in -lieu of parking rates in the BC and Rate Increase Commercial Waterfront (CW) areas. . After review by both committees, the Community Services/Development Services Committee recommended the Council consider increasing the fee -in -lieu of parking rates from the current rate of $4200 for new construction to $8000 and the conversion rate from $2100 to $3000. It was also recommended these rates be evaluated on an annual basis to ensure they accurately reflect the cost of developing parking spaces. Mr. Wilson explained the City first implemented the fee -in -lieu of parking rates in the early 1980s.' The . $4200 fee for new construction and $2100 fee for conversion were the rates established at the initial adoption of the fee -in -lieu of parking rates and have not been reviewed or amended since the initial adoption. A review of the true cost to provide these spaces, either in a surface lot or a structured parking Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 8 facility, concluded the cost is higher than the. fee -i -lieu of parking rates. The $4200 rate for new . construction (a vacant site or underdeveloped site) is imposed when a new development seeks to meet part of their parking obligations by paying into the fjee -in -lieu of parking fund. The $2100 conversion rate is imposed . when an existing business cone, s the use to something with a higher parking .requirement; the lower fee -in -lieu of parking rate is charged because no further parking can be provided on the site because it is already developed. Mr. Wilson said over the past five years, less than to i in- lieu -of parking spaces have been acquired for new construction and less than ten for conversion. lie said there has been some discussion whether the . cost of the spaces would be adequate when/if the City, acquires property and constructs a parking facility for the downtown area. The staff recommendation is to direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to raise the fee -in -lieu of parking rates, providing that new development pay into the .fee -in -lieu of parking fund at the rate of $8000 per space and renovation/conversion projects would pay at the rate of $3000 per parking space. An annual review would also be included to ensure the fee -in -lieu of parking rate is sufficient to cover the cost of constructing parking spaces. Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked the rational for the $3000 fee -in -lieu of parking rate for conversion, noting it is no longer "half of the new construction rate as it was previously. Community Services Director Paul Mar answered the proposal came from the Downtown Parking Committee. It was recognized there are a number of small parcels in the downtown area that will be redeveloped and would be penalized the most by the increase in the fee -inn -lieu of parking rate. The Downtown Parking Committee discussed this and concluded a nominal increase in the fee -in -lieu of 'parking rate for :redevelopment projects was an appropriate incentive for redevelopment in the downtown area. Councilmember Earling asked if the Community �ervices Committee was shown any information regarding the true cost of developing parking spaces Mr. Mar answered a packet was provided to the Community Services Committee at their January meeting indicating the true cost, based on updated construction cost information, is approximately $3,000 to build one parking space on a surface lot, including all access, landscaping, and storm drainage requirements. The true cost of constructing one parking space in a structured parking facility is $10,000 - $15,000. These costs do not include the cost of land acquisition. Councilmember Earling observed there did not appear to be a great deal of public to testify at the hearing. He asked if any effort was made to contact the building community or the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Mar said the Chamber of Commerce was informed when the Community Services Committee reviewed this issue at their January meeting and they were informed of this hearing., The Property Owners Committee was also informed. Councilmember Earling asked how the Chamber was notified. Mr. Mar answered it was announced at their Board of Directors meeting. City Attorney Scott Snyder said he too was curious about the equal protection rationale regarding the differential between the new construction fee -in -lieu, of parking rate and the conversion rate. He said new development has a design decision to make; theylcan provide parking on site, can include a structure in their building design, or make an informed business decision regarding payment of the fee -in -lieu of parking. A property that was developed in the past does not have that same option. With only a fixed amount of space on the property and the City's Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving the existing downtown character and promoting infill and mixed development, a differential fee recognized the existing patterns in the City and the limited options in a conversion project. He was interested in any other rationale the Downtown Parking Committee might provide. i Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1.999 Page 9 Mr. Wilson said other jurisdictions also have a differential between the fee -in -lieu of parking rate for new construction and conversion projects. He agreed new construction had numerous options for developing/designing the site but there are usually no options with a conversion. Council President Haakenson observed the fee -in -lieu of parking fund is talked about far more than it is actually used. He asked the exact number of times the fee -in -lieu of parking fund has been used. Mr. Wilson said fee- in-lieu of parking has been paid for eight or nine new construction spaces, the majority for one project. He recalled fee -in -lieu' of parking has been paid for six or seven conversion spaces. Council President Haakenson observed the fee -in -lieu of parking had been used less than three times per year over the past five years combined. Mr. Wilson agreed. Councilmember White asked the Council to consider taking legislative notice of a prior hearing in which Mr. Mar gave the details on the cost of substituting parking and the rationale for developing. these figures. Councihnembers agreed. Mr. Snyder explained legislative notice is away for the Council to incorporate into the record of this public hearing the information Mr. Mar presented on at least two occasions regarding the cost of providing parking with and without land, particularly with respect to the proposed parking structure. Staff will incorporate Mr. Mar's previous written report intotonight'.s record. He explained this provides a legislative record as it determines the appropriate level to set this fee. The fee, cannot exceed the cost of the parking space and $8000 and $3000 is less than the $12,000 estimate for constructing a parking space. Mr. Wilson advised that information was in the Council packet as an attachment to Exhibit 2 of the Finance Committee's packet. Mr. Snyder clarified the Council's record would be supplemented with the attachments in Exhibit 2. ( *The attachments are included at the end of these minutes) Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Karen Wiggins, 152 3rd Avenue S, Edmonds, Chair of the Downtown Edmonds Parking Committee, requested the Council approve the change in the ordinance as it was important to bring the fee -in -lieu of parking rate closer to the actual cost of constructing a parking space to allow the City to eventually provide parking. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the parking garage, pointing out the need for parking for events in the City.. He felt the fee -in -lieu of parking rate was very reasonable and said Seattle recently upgraded four of their parking garages at a cost higher than, is being proposed. He also recommended the City charge for parking in the garage. Mr. Snyder advised this is not a decision regarding the parking garage, it was only a proposal to increase the fee -in -lieu of parking rates. Mr. Rutledge said the City of Seattle's figures were $35,000- $80,000 per stall. Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, requested a clarification between new construction and conversion. He felt the $8,000 fee -in- lieu.of parking.rate for new construction was unfair compared to . $3,000 for conversion. He questioned whether this encouraged new projects, improvements, or economic development in the community. He suggested $5,500 for conversion and $6,500 for new construction. He said the differential might cause a property owner to remodel rather than replace an old structure. Consequently, the resulting structure would not be as nice nor as much property tax collected. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 10 He preferred the fee -in -lieu of parking rate be established to make it more advantageous for new construction. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. In response to. Mr. Demeroutis' question, Mr. Snyder said the City's off - street parking regulations are contained in Chapter 17.50. He said differentiation between new construction and conversion in the Code required new uses or structures to provide the complete parking requirement. Conversion in existing uses or structures which complied with the Code on the date constructed may take advantage of the reduced rate. He clarified one of the rationales is that properties in the downtown area that complied with the Code and provided the necessary parking at,, the time they developed may have fully utilized the available land on the site. The City's Comprehensive Plan encourages the, preservation of existing structures and the quality of life in the downtown area (the ambiance). One way to preserve that and comply with the Code is to "give a break" for reuse or remodel of existing buildings in the downtown area. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. I Councilmember ,Van Hollebeke said this issue) has been reviewed by both the Community Services/Development Services and Finance Committees and testimony has been solicited from the public. He appreciated the concern with the differential but said it represented a strong consensus among most major property owners in the downtown areal who have expressed interest in redeveloping their properties, some with new construction and some with remodeling. He agreed there. was a large differential but felt the rationale had been well exnlained.- COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE I MOVED,. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION FOR COUNCIL TO AMEND THE IN-LIEU PARKING FEES AS FOLLOWS: 1) NEW DEVELOPMENT $8,000/PARKING SPACE, 2) RENOVATION PROJECTS- $3,000/PARKING SPACE, AND 3) ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE FEE IN LIEU RATES WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR INCREMENTAL INCREASES. REASES. ,MOTION CARRIED. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds j referred to the Edmonds Aquatic Center and said he quatic attended numerous meetings last ear. He felt the City's residents should be even an opportunity to Center g y 13'. g� PP h' decide whether to,fund this facility. ire con - Roger, Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to fire consolidation and said this has been olidation considered for a number of years as a practical way to provide good fire service for South County via better utilization of facilities, equipment, and personnel. He observed for many years there was little turnover in fire chiefs and each district was fairly stable, which resulted in little motivation to. consolidate. The time -is now right for consolidation in all the cities in South County. He urged the Council not to be deterred by election fears and encouraged the Council to pursue consolidation. Garage Regarding the underground garage, he said Co ncilmember Miller's motion was premature and ar g Councilmember White was accurate that everything possible should be done before any money is spent. He felt the Council's action was a charade, a cover -up in an attempt to show the few people that support the parking garage their intent. Yet, the Council is not in favor of the garage as it is not a good thing for the City. He observed the Mayor has publicly declared she was against the garage. He thanked Council Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 11 [1 President Haakenson for the copy of City Attorney Scott Snyder's memo regarding violations of the Open Meeting Act. He urged the Council to pay special attention to the final paragraph, which addresses meetings of less than four people. n Public Rich Derneroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, referred to the Open Meeting Act, and said the resolution eet;ngs the Council agreed to at the meeting in question supported the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development's use of part of the City's contribution (for the visioning process) and therefore was an action regarding expenditure of City funds. He requested answers to the following questions prior to the public hearing regarding the parking garage: 1) what alternate parking configurations could be constructed- on and around the new Public Safety complex to retain an area that may be needed for arking expansion in the future, 2) where is the funding for Edmonds' share of the 800 MHz- communication fiarage . system coming from (a cost of $2,372,443), and 3) where funding for street improvements referred to in a memo from Mayor Fahey was coming from. He referred to Mayor Fahey's memo regarding the Council's discussion about establishing funding for major repairs for new City buildings and asked that the Cowicil identify funding for those projects. He said Mayor Fahey's memo also mentioned this may be a reason for the Council to reconsider its position on transport fees. He requested the Council and Mayor respond regarding their opinion of reinstituting transport fees including their rationale. 7. PRESENTATION ON FIRE CONSOLIDATION ;re Con- Mayor Fahey acknowledged - Lynnwood Councilmembers ' Don Geoff and Ned Daniels, Lynnwood olidation Assistant Fire Chief Olsen, and many Edmonds firefighters and paramedics in the audience. She explained the issue of fire consolidation has been under consideration for a longer period of time than had been originally anticipated because it has been a challenge to compile the information and develop a rational proposal on consolidating potentially three fire services (Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and District 111). Mayor Fahey introduced Randy Young, Henderson Young and Company, the consulting firm that was hired to conduct the study and who will present the information developed as a result of Phase 2 of the study. Mr. Young explained in September 1997, the.Council acted on the option to begin the fire consolidation study with Mountlake Terrace and Fire District 1"11. At that time Lynnwood was invited to join the study and throughout Phase 1 of the study (September 1997 - May 1998), repeated invitations were offered to Lynnwood but they continually chose to observe the study but not participate. He said Phase 1 of the study, conducted for the Task Force, was completed in April 1998. The Phase 1 study looked at . the various organizational options that could be considered as a basis for consolidating fire services. The . study identified several options and recommended one option, as well as provided additional information for_ the Task Force's consideration. At the end of Phase 1, the Task Force agreed there was sufficient information in the Phase 1 report to justify consideration of a particular mechanism for consolidation and authorized Phase 2, a more detailed study of one of the options. He explained Edmonds is represented on the Task Force as equal partners with Mountlake Terrace and Fire District 111. Councilmembers White and Miller have been active participants on the Task Force and Mayor Fahey has been a member of the Task Force as well as a member of the Steering Committee (comprised of the Chief Executives of the three agencies). Mr. Young distributed and described the advantages and disadvantages of consolidation as determined . during Phase L. The advantages included 1) formalize and ensure continuation of benefits of existing operational integration by replacing current "handshake" arrangements with. a reliable mechanism and written terms and conditions; 2) potential increase in levels of service, 3) potential for consistent staffing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 12 levels, 4) improve staffing, deployment and capital investment in aerial apparatus, 5) more equitable distribution of call .responses, 6) improve allocation of apparatus and staff based on call load and response time, 7) integrate location of fire stations, 8) integrate and eliminate duplication of support facilities (i.e., training, apparatus maintenance, administration), 9) reduced need for reserve apparatus, 10) reduce management and administration costs, (11) improve career opportunities for employees (lateral and/or promotion), 12) potential increase in compensation for employees because bigger fire agency would be compared to other bigger agenciesi (which tend to pay more), 13) improve recruiting because of better stability, career opportunities, etc., 14) improve availability of chief officers on duty, and 15) consistent fire fighting procedures, strategies, tactics. Disadvantages included 1) loss of "control" over-"our own" fire department, 2) costs may increase because a bigger fire agency would be compared to other bigger fire agencies (which tend to pay more), and 3) potential relocation or closure of a station will be perceived as a "loss" or reduction in service by property owners in the immediate vicinity of a station being relocated or closed. i Mr. Young explained there are four statements of lintent (core values) in the study. These include A) each participating entity will be a full and equitable partner in governing the consolidated entity, B) the consolidated entity will be under the command. of a single Fire Chief, C) the standards for level of service will be equal to the highest actual performance of all the entities that create the consolidated fire service (the minimum level of service will be equal to the best level of service any of the entities now provide), and D) the full consolidation of the fire and emergency medical. service functions will be completed in phases by December 31, 2004, subject to successful bargaining under Washington law. Mr. Young reviewed the phases of implementing consolidation. Phase 1 will include an organization meeting of the Joint Board and approval of a search organization to assist in the selection of a Fire Chief. The Joint Board would hire the Fire Chief and for the balance of this calendar year, Phase 1 would include allowing the new Fire Chief to begin the detailed planning for the future. Phase 2 is the integration of everything except the bargaining units (consolidating administrative functions, provision of advanced life support (ALS). He said the Task Force's recommendation regarding ALS is the consolidated entity would remain in Medic 7 for one more full year (2000) to allow the new organization and chief to address all details and by January 20,01, the consolidated entity would take over ALS provision. He referred to hiring options for paramedic- firefighters contained in the Phase 2 Report, noting these could be addressed at a later date. During the period of time leading up to 2004, the entity will continue to be in Phase 2, phasing in the integrated fire service of everything except the bargaining units and, during that time, formulate recommendations to the bargaining units, offer them to the bargaining units, and begin the bargaining process. The goal is the entity and bargaining units will have successfully completed these negotiations by December 31, 2004. He said this is a target, it may take more time or less time. Mr. Young described Phase 3, full consolidation of all fire service activities including bargain units, which is hoped will occur by January 1, 2005. During the interim period, between now and successful integration of the bargaining units, the bargaining units will remain as they are. The employees of the Edmonds Fire Department will continue as employee's of the Edmonds Fire Department, reporting to the new joint Fire Chief, and the City will honor its existing bargaining agreement; if the bargaining agreement expires during this time, bargaining will take place with Edmonds. The new Fire Chief will be in charge of these employees including hiring,) firing, discipline, etc., but subject to the City's bargaining agreement. The same would be true for Mountlake Terrace and Fire District 111. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Young reviewed sample organizational charts in the Final Consolidation Report, noting it will be up to the Joint Board and the new Fire Chief to develop organization charts. He described'the six member Joint Board, comprised of two representatives from each entity (Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and Fire District 111), the Chief Executive and a Councilmember from Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace, and two Fire Commissioners from Fire District 111. A. full majority (four of the six members) will be required to do any business. This will require faithful attendance and reaching consensus about issues to obtain a majority vote. Five votes are required to approve the budget. He reviewed the powers and duties of the Joint Board, which include setting levels of service, hiring the Fire Chief, setting the budget, setting fee structures, creation of positions, and recommending station location. If the Joint Board approves a fee and the City Council does not, that city has the right not to participate in that fee structure as long as any moneys from that fee structure are made up by that entity via other sources of revenue. Mr. Young explained the Fire Chief will be similar to the previous Fire Chiefs the City has had, a strong executive running the entire operation, making operational decisions,. strategic and tactical decisions, having the authority to hire, train, supervise, discipline, and dismiss all fire service personnel, recommending bargaining positions, etc. Until the bargaining units are integrated under the fully consolidated entity, the new Fire Chief must honor the bargaining agreements reached with each entity's employees. Mr. Young said the purpose of consolidation was to protect levels of service, improve levels of service if possible, and avoid increases :in future costs but the goal of the study was never to save money. He said the statement to' employees on page 11 of the Final Report assures there will not be layoffs or involuntary job loss as a result of consolidation. Mr. Young reviewed services to be provided by the consolidated entity including, as of January 1, 2001, Advanced Life Support. He said the dispatch function would not be changed. He explained the services to be provided would be written into the contract so that the Joint Board does not have the ability to change them. The new entity can enter into a new business to respond to changes in technology or state law but a contract amendment would be required to delete any service. He stressed there will be no reduction in level of service; the lowest level of service is the best that currently exists in the three entities. Mr. Young reviewed funding formulas, explaining each entity would continue to have entity costs until full consolidation is reached. Once full consolidation is reached, these costs become shared costs. In Phase 1 the only shared cost is the Fire Chief, approximately $150,000 per year for salary, benefits, travel costs, and uniform allowance. He reviewed how the funding formula would apply to this $150,000 expense ('h by assessed value and '/2 by population). He said in Phase 2 no attempt was made to identify the total budget, as this will be determined by the new Fire Chief. The most significant change in Phase 2 is when the entity enters into the provision of ALS. He summarized the table illustrating ALS support costs /savings, which results in a $152,952 savings. He explained in addition to cost savings of $152,952, the City would have full control'over the costs under the Joint Board rather than the Medic 7 Board. Further, the City will enjoy the direct employment of nine more paramedic- firefighters. He said this represents nine more employees to address the 2 in/2 out standard. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ISSUE FOR 40 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Young reviewed the consolidation duration, withdrawal or termination, explaining one of the criticisms . of a contractual system (i.e. Medic 7) is that it is a yearly arrangement and could be eliminated in a year. The recommendation is that entities agree to participate for five years, during which time no Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 14 one can withdraw. The only exception would be if a unanimous agreement was reached by all entities to dissolve. Negotiations with the bargaining units will occur during that five -year period to achieve full integration. Once that is successful, a second five -ye r, no withdrawal contract is entered .into. If during the.first five years an agreement is not reached with the bargaining units, an automatic five -year renewal is included but an entity could escape from the renewal period upon a two -year notice. Mr. Young addressed annexations of Fire District territory by a non - participating city, explaining there is no change if Edmonds or Mountlake Terrace annexes Fire District 111 property. The Report indicates the City will follow Washington State law and Fire' District 111 has developed specific language that states in the event of annexation, any reduction in staff or loss of equipment or staff comes from their portion of the entity. The. Final .Report suggests that for the duration of Woodway, and Esperance) be maintained. In Phase relationship or have 'them contract with the Joint I schedule, explaining the Task Force 'met on Febru consideration. The process is currently in Step P Mountlake Terrace City Council and will meet next before the Councils and the Fire District Board is not is enough positive information to take the last stet Edmonds' Council agrees (Mountlake Terrace's Cou will be prepared to advise the community and emp Council approval. If the Councils approve the contr begin on April 15. Phases 1 and 2, the service area contracts (Brier, 3, the City may choose to continue the contractual Board. He reviewed the decision - making process ary 10 and recommended the report for Council of the decision- making; he met last week with week with Fire District I l l's Board. The question formal approval of consolidation but whether there (drafting of a contract outlining the details). If ncil agreed on February 25) communication plans oyees and the formal contract will be drafted for ict as indicated on the schedule, consolidation will Mayor Fahey explained the City chose its Acting Fire Chief for his knowledge as a Fire Chief and his expertise in many areas including consolidation. She asked Chief Haworth to respond to the report. Chief Haworth explained he has tried to keep the Council and Committees informed of the consolidation study and this issue was'discussed in great length at the Council retreat, particularly how it could benefit the community with regard to the 2 in /2 out rule. He explained this would require two firefighters to'be on the exterior of a building to afford rescue of firefighters on the interior of a building. He said this could be accomplished via consolidation without additional cost to the City. He said the consolidations /mergers he has been involved with in'the past have been successful and he could see no reason why consolidation of fire services in this area',would not also benefit employees but also citizens. He encouraged the Council to give a great deal of consideration to this issue. Council President Haakenson asked Chief Haworth to describe the fire consolidations he had participated in. Chief Haworth said the first consolidation was in 1964 with the City of Selah and Yakima County Fire District 2. He was involved in 1974 with the consolidation of Redmond and King County Fire District 34, and the most recent consolidation was King County Fire District 10 with Carnation and King County Fire District 35. They were also able to negotiate a consolidation agreement with the City of North Bend, City 'of Snoqualmie and King County Fire District 38. That contract is now five years old, and in January 1999, the City of North Bend and Fire District 38 remained in the agreement with Fire District 10; the City of Snoqualmie chose to withdraw and form their own fire department. They have been successful since that time in including the City of Issaquah in their consolidated entity. Mayor Fahey asked if any of the consolidations involved a combined governance board or if all had one entity in control. Chief Haworth answered in all instances there was a lead agency. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes I March 2, 1999 I Page 15 I I 1 Councihnember Van Hollebeke commended Mr. Young and the Task Force for their efforts on this complex issue. He complimented Mr. Young on his concise and clear. presentation. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said that the concept appears very sound and everyone benefits. The residents would benefit by at least as good or better service, there would be some efficiency in apparatus, etc., and employees could benefit from promotional opportunities. He expressed concern that in all the other consolidations Chief Haworth has participated in; there was one lead agency rather than a governance board. He said the governance board seems to be a problematic issue, particularly for employees. He said the City of Lynnwood represents "a gaping hole" in this plan and hoped Lynnwood Council's representation in the audience was an indication of their interest in participating. He asked if it was too late for Lynnwood to participate. Mr. Young answered admittedly the Joint Board was an unusual approach compared to Chief Haworth's experience as well as to Henderson, Young & Company's experience. He said several lead agency structures were considered. As part of the study, he was asked to consider not only technical information but appreciate what would be realistic and feasible in South County. Based on a substantial number of interviews with fire professionals, mayors, City Managers, and Councilmembers, it was his estimate the history of getting close to consolidation but not succeeding (in the previous five studies) was a result of Councils' perceived inequalities. There was never the trust that the entities that were not the lead agency would feel fully served and adequately protected. Even though there is not a great track record in the state of Washington and neither he nor Fire Chief Haworth was experienced with this model, he believed it was the only model that would work and the other alternatives would produce the same result as the previous five studies. If the Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace Council and Boardmembers in Fire District 111 could agree on a lead agency, he did not object to the concept of a lead agency. He said the issue of employment is a difficult and challenging issue and . it is their understanding and position that employees will not necessarily be employees of the Joint Board in the final consolidated structure. That is an option for the Joint Board and bargaining units to consider. Regarding Lynnwood's participation, Mr. Young explained the Task Force quite regularly reached out to Lynnwood with formal requests and the Task Force requested he include as much information as possible in Phase 1 about the Lynnwood fire service. It was agreed at the end of Phase l a firm decision from Lynnwood was necessary and May 15, 1998 was established as a cut off date. Again the invitation to participate was. not accepted by Lynnwood. He said it is never too late to include a neighboring agency that could. be a successful partner. He said conceivably a larger integrated function could take place in Snohomish County, possibly including Mukilteo and/or Everett. He said the consolidation agreement could be crafted to allow other entities to join; however, this has .not been addressed in the study. He said it was likely too late to meet the April 15 approval of this group and to hire a Fire Chief this year. He said the timeline is not arbitrary in that Edmonds has had an interim Fire Chief for a period of time and Fire District I l 1's Chief has announced his retirement at the end of 1999. Not to take advantage of these employment opportunities is missing an interesting opportunity. Councilmember Earling said he believed the City has the best firefighters, the best service, the best geographic coverage, and the best equipment. He observed Edmonds has a lot of tangible assets and asked if the City would get credit for equipment, station locations, real estate, etc. He asked if consideration had been given,to what would happen if a decision was made to move a fire station and sell the property. Mr. Young said there were discussions at the end .of Phase 1 when the concept was to do full consolidation as .quickly as possible during which issues such as asset ownership were discussed in terms of orderly transfer, what value would be established, what credits would be given, what would be returned to each entity if the City withdrew, etc. He said those questions would be answered in Phase 3 (five years from now) but the intent is for each entity not to give up ownership or control of any physical Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 16 asset. These physical assets would be under the control of the Chief but just as the City's employees would not be assigned to a station in another city, the apparatus would not be assigned to another station. At the time of full consolidation, everything could be put into joint ownership (and he would expect since Edmonds has some of the newest equipment arid station investment, there would be value received and a clear statement regarding, what took place if consolidation was not completed). Another alternative would be to achieve final consolidation without the City ever giving up its physical assets that he did not feel would undermine the collaborative nature. Councilmember Earling assumed the equipment would depreciate and therefore the City's assets would have less value in five years. Mr. Young said he would expect the.Fire Chief to recommend to the Joint Bloard regarding having a funded equipment reserve fund to pay for depreciation or continue to operate on a cash basis. Council President Haakenson said a memo from "F levels of service without increase in costs is an adv, indicated there was .never an expressed purpose t, principle goal to reduce costs. It was hoped cost it possibly non - existent. He agreed it was never the in Council President Haakenson asked if the lev, consolidation. Mr. Young answered yes, as a resu . use of nine employees (shared with Mountlake Tel protection. He said it was not envisioned that these converted to firefighters but would continue to be calls.. However, because these individuals are cross regulation. He said without consolidation, this w station or by increasing personnel. Council President Haakenson said he preferred not t was germane to this discussion and consideratior paramedics to fight fires. He observed there wa Phase 2. The cost saving to Edmonds in Phase 1 is service represented the time frame for firefighters of see an increase in level of service via consolidation Phase 2, if the consolidated entity provided fire -base Council President Haakenson commented that the Fire Chief. He pointed out Edmonds could provi possibly save more money. dated May 1998 states potential increase in of consolidation. He recalled Mr. Young also save money. Mr. Young answered it was not a eases to keep up with growth would be smaller or tit to reduce costs. of service to Edmonds is improved through of providing ALS, the City is provided the shared Ice) who are cross - trained and available to do fire idividuals would be taken off paramedic duties and ated paramedics responding to medical service .ed, they could be used to address the 2 in /2 out have to be done via firefighters from another discuss the 2 in /2 out issue, as he did not believe it was also being given to cross - training Medic 7 the possibility that Phase 1 could occur without sharing the cost of the Fire Chief. He said level of paramedics to reach the scene; therefore, he did not He observed the biggest cost savings would be in i ALS. Mr. Young agreed. ;t to Edmonds in Phase 1 is sharing the cost of the its own fire -based ALS without consolidation and Councilmember Nordquist asked if them would be a greater opportunity for personnel to apply for a position in one of the other entities via consolidation. Mr. Young said the opportunity to apply for a position in a broader organization will only occur as the organization broadens; during Phase I there would be no greater opportunity. In Phase 3, full consolidation, all positions are open to all employees and there would no longer be Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and Fire District 111 firefighters. In between Phase 1 and full consolidation is the transitional phase when the Fire Chief would bring more of the command staff under consolidation and, as each such position is created, .employees would find a broadened opportunity. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 17 Councilmember Plunkett referred to the verbiage under annexation of Fire District Territory by non- participating city which states, "in the event of annexation..." and said it would be more reasonable to state "when annexation occurs..." Mr. Young agreed GMA encourages annexations and agreed there was a predictable trend toward annexations. Councilmember Plunkett said, therefore, there would be a reduction in fire personnel and facilities in Fire District 111 and the logical conclusion would be that Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace would not have the benefit of Fire District Ill in the future. Mr. Young answered this would assume the annexation was done by Lynnwood or another city, not if Mountlake Terrace or Edmonds was the annexing entity. Councilmember Plunkett said other cities such as Mukilteo, Everett, and Mill Creek would be annexing areas in Fire District 111 and, when they do, Fire District 111 will eventually cease to be a benefit to Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace. Mr. Young said annexation in this area and throughout the state of Washington, even with the pressure of GMA, has been at a "glacial pace" and it would likely be 20 -50 years before annexations would occur, if at all, that would put the City back to its current situation. He said there are portions of Fire District 111. that no city wants to annex due to disadvantages for cities to annex areas that are low tax producers and high service consumers. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the study anticipated how the ALS vehicle would be provided. He said when /if Edmonds leaves Medic 7, it foregoes rights to all Medic 7 property. Mr. Young was not aware of this nor was Council President Haakenson. Mr. Young said if that was the case, the additional medical apparatus and supplies could be added to an existing aid unit at an extremely modest cost to create an ALS unit. He noted there are three reserve aid cars in. the existing entities in addition to the three aid cars that are currently being operated. Councilmember Plunkett asked if there were any representatives from the bargaining units on the Task Force. Mr. Young answered the Task Force was structured as a representative body of the legislative and executive bodies of the entities. At the completion of Phase 1, a specific, formal invitation was made to the bargaining units to participate in a series of meetings to discuss the Phase 1 results and progress in Phase 2 but an invitation to join the Task Force as members or participants.was not made. Councilmember Plunkett asked if it was common for the bargaining units not to be invited to be full participants and why would they not be invited. Mr. Young answered this is the first study of the six since 1964 in which the employees were approached at all. He was uncertain why South County has not had a history of inviting employees. With his enthusiastic endorsement and support, this Task Force asked him to meet with employees during Phase 1. Councilmember Plunkett asked if consolidation envisioned any mutual aid from Lynnwood.. Mr. Young answered the joint activities that Edmonds currently enjoys with Mountlake Terrace, Fire District 111; Lynnwood and others represents a collaboration of response that is much better than mutual aid and is actually automatic aid in which the closest unit responds. That arrangement is on a "handshake" and not a written basis. He assumed in the study that the same working relationship that has existed in the past with Lynnwood would continue as a joint group. He assumed automatic aid would continue and if for some reason that was not desirable, it would be reduced to mutual aid. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 45 MINUTES AND DISCUSSION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 18 Councilmember Plunkett clarified the study envisioned mutual aid from Lynnwood. Mr. Young answered the study envisioned :automatic aid from I Lynnwood, which is better for Lynnwood and the City. Councilmember Plunkett .asked if this has been discussed with Lynnwood. Mr. Young reiterated they attempted to do this during Phase 1 and 2 and NIvere rebuffed. Their opinion was this system would work even if automatic aid with Lynnwood reverted to mutual aid or the players refuse to serve each other unless the other entity is fully in service. He noted the data in Phase 1 indicated the principle consumer of mutual /automatic aid calls is Lynnwood and the.principle donors are the entities who are a party to this joint study. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the ALS provision outlined in the study and asked Mr. Young if he was familiar with the Medic 7 Personnel Committee Report in which the paramedics concluded making paramedics firefighters would not solve the, 2 in /2 0 l t standard. Mr. Young said he relied heavily on the judgment of the Fire Chiefs who participated in the study who have indicated cross - training paramedics as firefighters will solve that issue. Council President. Haakenson clarified the rel recommendation made by the Medic 7 Personnel C standard could be solved by cross - training paramed the Personnel Committee concluded it would not 1 He said that particular question has, been put off for Council President Haakenson asked if a decision v an interlocal agreement in the future, whether or ni initial contract could be drafted as a commitment and intent as a result of discussions with the Task stressed tonight's action did not lock the City into date. : Council President Haakenson asked how long the County has been in place. Mr. Young said .there has been focused on is the automatic aid agreemel other "handshake" agreements mentioned in the sti least two years old. Council President Haakenson asked if there was Councilmember Plunkett referred to was a mittee; paramedics were not asked if the 2 in /2 out as firefighters. Council President Haakenson said percent solve the 2 in/2 out issue but would help. s year but will be discussed next year. s made to move forward with Phase 1 and agrees to the City is agreeing to Phase 2. Mr. Young said the Phase 2 or leave Phase 2 open. His understanding orce was that it was a .commitment to Phase 2. He e contract; that decision would be made on a future Handshake" agreement with other agencies in South a number of "handshake" agreements; the one that which has existed for years. There were also eight none have occurred during the study and are all at to believe the automatic aid .agreement would disappear if consolidation did not occur. Mr. Young answered no, his' experience has been if relationships deteriorate (although he did not see that had occurred), one of the first things that happens is automatic aid no longer exists., He said Edmonds continues to be remarkably collegial and collaborative with Mountlake Terrace and District 111 and have shown good faith with Lynnwood. Council President Haakenson asked what Fire District 1 ],1's stance was on Phase 2 and what would occur if Edmonds decided to move forward with Phase 1, but not Phase 2. Mr. Young answered it was his sense of Fire District 111 and Mountlake Terrace and several of Edmonds' task force members that the intent was to commit to Phase 2. i Councilmember Miller said he has been involved with the Task Force for the past year and has the utmost respect for Mr. Young. However, he is unsupportive of this concept. He said what has been presented is that consolidation "is a risinglide that lifts all ships." In reality, consolidation is a zero sum i Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 19 1 game that benefits other participants at the detriment of Edmonds. For example, the City of Edmonds would realize a salary savings of half the Fire Chiefs salary but only have a Fire Chief one third of the time due to sharing him with Fire District'111 and Mountlake Terrace. Another concern is in the five- year period of Phase 2 when the support of the bargaining units is to be attained; however, the City has been unable to gain the support of its fire service employees during the past 18 months. If consolidation did occur, labor costs would increase because firefighters salaries throughout the county are higher than in Edmonds. Also proposed in Phase 2 is the provision of ALS service and utilization of the paramedics to solve the 2 in/2 out problem. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO WITHDRAW FROM ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS OF CONSOLIDATION, PAY THE CURRENT BILLS TO MR. YOUNG AND THE OTHER CITIES INVOLVED IN THE . CONSOLIDATION PROCESS FROM UNANTICIPATED REVENUE, AND MOVE FORWARD WITH HIRING A NEW FIRE CHIEF FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS. Council President Haakenson said he has tried to see the benefit to Edmonds but cannot see enough benefit to outweigh the negatives. He agreed the City needed to hire a Fire Chief and move on. He said the greatest savings from consolidation is a result of fire -based ALS, which may need to be considered for the City. Councilmember White said over the past year Mr. Young has presented outstanding data and he appreciated his always outstanding presentations. Councilmember White said consolidation would be . advantageous to the City and there were at. least 15 reasons identified and the. disadvantages were few. The problem is meshing the structure of the Fire District and the structure of cities as well as creating a governance entity to oversee those different structures rather than having one lead agency. He recommended the City explore the potential advantages and disadvantages of consolidation with local cities (Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace) which would result in the same advantages without the cumbersome intermeshing of city and district structures. He agreed the City needed to hire a new Fire Chief but at the same time move forward with exploration of consolidation among the cities. He volunteered to participate in this process.' Councilmember Nordquist said it was disappointing to receive the information so late and preferred it had been reviewed at the Council retreat. He had looked forward to the training feature and facilities that the Fire Chief felt could be possible with consolidation. Although he was disappointed, he- commended the Task Force for the time they spent reviewing the issue. Councilmember Plunkett said in the future the South County Council representatives should work together toward cooperation and integration on a number of issues including perhaps fire consolidation in the future. He said if the cities found a way to meet the 2 in/2 out requirements together, it could be the first step toward cooperation and integrating and hopefully lead to consolidation. Mayor Fahey explained the amount listed in the Council packet is not the full amount due for the completion of the Phase 2 study. That amount represents services as of December 31; 1998 and a small amount is owing for the work done since January 1, 1999, including the cost of Mr. Young making presentations to Councils the Fire District 111 Board. Councilmember Miller said that was included in his motion. The motion was restated as follows: TO WITHDRAW FROM THIS CONSOLIDATION EFFORT, TO PAY THE BILLS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS STUDY THAT ARE DUE AND PAYABLE AND Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 20 I i TO MOVE FORWARD WITH HIRING A NEW FIRE CHIEF FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE OPPOSED. Councilmember Earling supported the Councilmembers who have worked very hard on this issue and complimented Mr. Young for his efforts. Councilmember Earling reiterated the City bad the best firefighters, the best service, the best locations, the best coverage, and the best equipment.. For that reason, it was a challenge for Edmonds to collaborate. He felt the City must consider the quality of service it provides in any future discussions. Mayor Fahey thanked Mr. Young for his efforts, recognizing his incredible knowledge and ability to .work through issues and bring about collaborative !effort. She said the City was well served by the process and the information compiled gave the City the opportunity to make a decision regarding what is in the best interest of the citizens of Edmonds. Mr. Young agreed the City is best served with objective information that assists the Council in making the best decision. 8. MAYOR'S REPORT ay Inslee Mayor Fahey announced that Congressman Jay Inslee will visit the Senior Center and tour the Edmonds Visit multimodal transportation center on Friday, March 5. He will be at the Senior Center at approximately 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. for a discussion and question /answer on Social Security and Medicare and will tour the proposed site of the multimodal transportation center at approximately 12:30 p.m. She was delighted Congressman Inslee was providing information to seniors and that he was making an effort to become more knowledgeable about the multimodal center. Mayor Fahey announced the new pedestrian loading terminal began operation on Monday, March 1. A Pea trian ribbon.cutting ceremony has been tentatively planned for Saturday afternoon, March 13. Washington erminal I State Ferries will be providing more information in the next few days. MC Mayor Fahey advised she will leave Friday morning to attend the National League of Cities meeting in eeting Washington DC and return late Tuesday evening. Council President Haakenson will be Mayor Pro Tern and Mr. Mar will oversee administration. She anticipated continuing to work to amend the Fair Housing Act as well as participating in other committee! work including the- Community and Economic Development Committee and lobby Congressmen for the restoration of local control and.other issues that are posing problems for the City. 9. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Miller advised he belonged to a Rotary Club that has a four -way test of honesty, truthfulness, goodwill and building beneficial relationships, and any violations require payment of a fine that goes to charity. He observed Mr. Hertrich had spoke regarding many issues that have legitimate public interest but has also accused Councilmembers of a lack of integrity or ethics. Councilmember Miller asked Mr. Hertrich whether he would be willing to pay a fine to a charity the next time he did this rather than speak to an issue. Mr. Hertrich said he would pay a fine if he was wrong. ransporta- Councilmember Earling said he keeps getting complaints about the parking space in front of the 'on Issues bookstore and asked for an update. Councilmember Earling said he attended Vice President Gore's meeting on Sunday and said the Vice President and the local congressional delegation are in tune with transportation issues in the region as well as basic livability issues here in the Puget Sound basin. He was impressed with the dialogue and looked forward to having good leadership from the congressional Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 21 delegation as they try to obtain more transportation funds for this area. He advised he would be out of town for the next couple of weeks on a'trip to Sydney, Australia as part of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce delegation. Following that, he will be in Washington DC lobbying for transit issues. 2K Update Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked staff to present an update on the Y2K issue as it pertains to the City with emphasis on public safety issues. He requested this be added to the Council agenda at the earliest possible date. Mayor Fahey said staff would be happy to present that information. She said there is a great deal of information available on the City's web page as well as a link to the state web page. She recently drafted a letter that is being sent to citizens' inquiries about Y2K. WC Councilmember Nordquist commented that the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Legislative onference Conference in Olympia was very successful 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey recessed the Council to Executive Session at 10:36 p.m. for approximately 30 minutes to discuss labor negotiations and a legal matter. No action was anticipated to be taken following the Executive Session and the Council would adjourn immediately following the Executive Session. BARBARA S. 4 *OR;X----, 'SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 22 Item COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEMO Committee: Finance Committee Meeting Date: February 4, 1999 Subject: Proposed Increase of In- ieu of Parking Fees From: Jeff Wilson Planning Supervisor Mayor: Comments: Attached for discussion is the material provided to the Community Services/Development Services Committee regarding the proposal to amend the City's "in-lieu" parking fees and the minutes of their meeting. c: Paul Mar Ray Miller Rob Chave Attachments: 1. January 12, 1999, memo to the Community Services/Development Services Committee from Paul Mar 2. Minutes of the January 12, 1 99, Community Services/Development Services Committee I i City of Edmonds IN -LIEU PARKING TINANCE COMMMME.DOCWFEB -99 CAFILMPLEPORMCOUNCIL I 1 Item/ t d, COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEMO Committee: Community Services /Development Services Meeting Date: January 12, 1999 Subject: Increase In -Lieu of Parking Fees, From: Paul Mar Mayor: C,25 Comments: Currently, the in -lieu of parking fee is $4,200 for each parking space in a new construction project and $2,100 for each parking space in a renovation project. These,fee levels were established many years ago(sometime in the 1980's) and have never been updated. Based on updated construction cost information, it costs at least $3,000 to build one parking space on a surface lot(including all the access, landscaping and storm drainage requirements) and between $10,000 and $15,000 to build one parking space in a structured parking facility. These costs do not include purchase of land. At its October and November 1998, meetings, the Downtown Parking Committee has requested that the City increase the in -lieu of parking fee for new construction to $8,000. This would cause developers to carefully rethink how they would provide parking for new projects, especially those located in the BC zone, where parking has been perceived to be a problem. At the current rates, developers can easily justify purchasing in -lieu of. parking as economically beneficial. First, they can save in the cost of providing parking. Secondly, they can use the space where parking would go for some other(probably revenue generating) use. Staff concurs with the Committee's request in that it reflects the cost of doing business. Just as staff has, in recent months, explained reasons for increasing permit fees, which are borne by users that would benefit from this service, we believe that the parking fee increase is justified for similar reasoning. City of Edmonds ATTACHMENT 1 MINUTES of Community Service /Development Services Committee Meeting January 12, 1999 Committee Members Present: Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke Staff Present: Arvilla Ohlde, Noel Miller, Ray Miller, Rob Chave, Jim Walker, Jeannine Graf, Cindi Cruz Guests: Mayor Barbara S. Fahey, Meghan Cross, Council Student Representative, Karen Wiggins, Downtown Parking Committee Councilmember Van Hollebeke called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM in the Large Plaza Meeting Room of the Library Building. Councilmember Van Hollebeke and Councilmember Nordquist discussed how to deal with the agendas and the format for the joint Community Services /Development Services Committee meetings. It was decided that the two Councilmembers would co -chair the meetings and Paul Mar, Community Services Director and Ray Miller, ,Development Services Director would compile agendas, with both committee members reviewing the agendas. A. Review of 1998 and Upcoming Issues/Topics for 1999. Mr. Van Hollebeke and Mr. Nordquist discussed the list of 1998 Community Services Accomplishments (Exhibit 1). It was noted that some of the issues had been resolved while others were still waiting further action. Rob Chave stated that the sign ordinance will be going to the Planning Board after another open house, Mr. Van Hollebeke asked that the business license address list be utilized for sending notices. Jim Walker gave an update on the emergency generator for the Treatment Plant, stating that it is fully operational now. Mr. Chave also said that there are still major code amendments to be heard before the Planning Board and City Council. Ray Miller gave an update of the ongoing review of the Architectural Design Board by an outside consultant, this should be wrapped up within the next two months. Councilmember Van Hollebeke gave an update of the Aquatic Center Bond Issue. Arvilla Ohlde and Mr. Walker gave an update of the Brackett's Landing North Bulkhead improvement project, which should be completed in the fall. Mayor Fahey asked that the committee review the draft animal regulation ordinance that was recommended for approval at the Planning Board. Ray Miller said that for Capital Improvement Projects(CIP) he would be increasing it beyond the six -year timeframe. Actions: The Committee directed the staff to bring to the next Committee meeting the draft Animal Regulation Ordinance recommended by the Planning Board. F . Increase In- Lieu -of- Parking Fees. ob Chave discussed the issues regarding the current in -lieu parking fees charged in lationship to the actual cost of constructing a parking space. The $4,200 fee for each 1 ATTACHMENT 2 1 space for new construction projects and the $2;100 fee for each space in a renovation project are substantially less than the actual costs. A recommendation was made to increase the fee for new construction projects to $8,000 and renovation projects to $3,000, with yearly reviews and the potential of incrementally increasing the fees by $1,000. Karen Wiggins, Downtown Parking Committee Chairperson was present to indicate the support of the Downtown Parking Committee. Action: The Committee directed the staff to send a recommendation to City Council to increase the in -lieu parking fees to $8,000 for new construction projects and $3,000 for renovation projects, with a yearly review of the fees for potential increases. C. Perrinville Local Improvement District (LID) Update. Jim Walker discussed what had occurred since the City Council LID formation hearing for the Perrinville sewer project. Letters were sent out and hand delivered to the residents that were not included in the current LID. A public meeting was held on January 4, 1999 to explain the process to be included in a sewer LID. Citizens from three separate areas have now petititoned to be included in a sanitary sewer LID. Staff recommended that all the surrounding properties without current access to sanitary sewer be included in a new LID or in an expansion of the original LID. Areas that have no interest in being part -of a LID could request to be excluded at the hearing. Action:. The Committee directed staff to initiate formation of a Local Improvement District(LID) for properties outside the original LID D. Discussion of New Method and Process for Posting Public Notice Signs. Rob Chave discussed the procedure for contracting out to sign companies to post the public notice signs. It would involve going out for bid to obtain 'a sign company that would manufacture and post the public notice signs for public hearings. The applicant would pay for this process at the time of the application. Councilmember Nordquist asked if we could require a 90 -day trial period to see how the procedure is working. Mr. Chave indicated that in the Request for Proposals a 90 -day cancellation could be included. It was also agreed that sign mock -ups should be required as part of the RFP. Action: The Committee directed staff to prepare a Request for Proposals(RFP) and bring to City Council Consent Agenda for authorization to advertise forbid. Chairperson Van Hollebeke adjourned the meeting at 7:54 PM. Respectfully submitted, By Cindi Cruz for Par, Community Services Director AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. MARCH 2, 1999 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 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 Chainbers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32. 1 (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23,.1999 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #29331 THROUGH #31091 FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 22, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $421,800.30. (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FORDAMAGES FROM ERIC R. HANSEN ($314.11) (E) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999 (F) REPORT ON FINAL COSTS FOR PURCHASE OF THE AUXILIARY GENERATOR FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (G) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AUXILIARY GENERATOR AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (H) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT PUMP GEARBOX FROM SCHWING AMERICA, INC. (1) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FORj TWO INCINERATOR EXPANSION JOINTS 3. (5 Min.) PRESENTATION OF AWARD OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING 4. (60 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING — REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) TO BE KNOWN AS THE NORTH PERRINVILLE SANITARY SEWER LID, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING SEWER MAINS AND SERVICE 5. (30 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING — PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE "FEE -IN -LIEU OF PARKING" RATES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND CONVERSION OF EXISTING USE, AS PROVIDED FOR IN ECDC SECTION 17.50.070.A 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute. Limit Per Person) 7. (30 Min.) PRESENTATION ON FIRE CONSOLIDATION 8. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 9. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORT 10. (30 Min.) EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS 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 Chainbers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32. 1