Loading...
19660913 City Council MinutesHarrison, Slye and Bevan voting in favor; Olds, Tuson, and Kincaid against. The Mayor then cast:.his vote in favor, breaking the tie, and the motion carried. • NW CORNER OF 9m & CASPER Councilman Olds suggested that the northwest corner of 90 and.Casper perhaps.should be looked into for a proper type of zoning; that this property has been unused for some time because the corner does not lend itself to residential building. He -felt that a zoningallowing a professional type building suchas a small clinic would be able to•use the property to best.advantage. No action was taken. There was no further business, and the meeting was adjourned. September 13, 1966 Hearing on the preliminary assessment roll for Resolution of Intetion #2049 proposed Unit 4 sewers, was held on September 13, 1966 in the auditorium of the Edmonds Junior High School. Mayor Maxwell .called the hearing to order, with all councilmen present except McGinness and Kincaid. Mayor Maxwell introduced members of the City staff and the Council to the audience. He then read Resolution of Intention #204 and explained that it had been decided to proceed with this sewer unit under the comprehensive sewer plan because of petitions received for part of the area involved. Engineer Larson then gave the boundaries of Unit 4. Engineer Wayne Jones explained the scope and cost of the project and the zone and termini method of assessment. Mayor Maxwell gave comparison prices on LID's from 1948 to the present, showing the rise in LID costs over the years. Attorney Murphy explained the method of payment of assessments and the manner in which bids for construction and sale of warrants and bonds are received and awarded. Hearing was then opened. Mr. Jones, 60 P1. W., asked if storm sewers were to be included and whether bids are rejected if the cost is in excess of the engineer's estimate. In answer to his second question, the Attorney explained the lOf limitation which had been the law for cities of the Third Class, but that it had changed and the city can now exceed this 10% figure; but he was assured that the council would reject any bids that were unusually high. A lady asked if the sewer would go through private property and if the people on the higher ground would have to cross the lower property to connect. Mr. Chittenden, Olympic View Drive, inquired as to costs beyond the $9.48 per zone front foot and also if the costs of side sewer would be individual. He was told a pumping situation, if individually needed for a piece of property, would be an individual cost; that $10.00 inspection permit and $25.00 for trunk charge were made at the time of installation of the side sewer. Capt. Shields inquired if the side sewer may be installed by the property owner, and was told yes, or by a licensed side sewer operator. A gentleman re- marked that with the removal of the 10% limit, a city.can in effect accept almost any bid at any price. He was told yes, but that the City of Edmonds certainly wouldn't. A gentleman asked how the city computes the price on unbuildable property, and was told that it could be evaluated individually by the city council. Another gentleman asked if certain people could be excluded for certain reasons. He was told a revision of the plan to eliminate extra costs such as individual pumping situations, etc. might eliminate some properties. Mrs. Gould asked if 40% of the sewer line must go on private property necessitating easements, and if these individuals did not allow the city to have the easement, then what would happen? The Attorney answered this question with the statement that the city has condemnation powers. Another woman asked about the city sewer service charge which was added to her water bill when she was annexed to the city. She wondered if she would have to pay this as well as an additional charge for sewer service when her sewers are installed. This was answered by the fact that the sewer service charge on the water billing is charged everyone inside city limits for pay- ment of the bonds on the sewer treatment plant, and the only other payment after the sewer is in will be her yearly assessment. A gentleman noted that some areas would break down to a cost'of less than the $9.48 per zone front foot if the higher priced areas needing extra work were excluded, and why then was everyone penalized for this? He was answered that the law does not allow separating areas within the same assessment roll and $9.48 was an average amount for all to be charged to take care of the overage for some areas. It was then noted that the Seaview School area -north of 1961� can be served by the Seaview School line and properties adjacent must connect to the sewer within 60 days, with a zone front foot cost of $5'.50. A gentleman asked how many property owners really want this sewer, and it was brought out that several petitions had been received. This same gentleman added.that in June of 1965 he got a building permit for a septic tankand was told that this area would not be sewered for some time. The comprehensive sewer plan was dated July 1965 and adopted by council. at tha.t.time, and on the basis of petitions received, the sewer district for Unit 4 was started with the recommendation of the engineer that the entire area as described under Unit 4 on the compre- hensive sewer plan be sewered in its entirety because of health hazard and effluent in -the streets in scattered sections throughout the area. A gentleman asked if the city would go a more feasible route rather than use condemnation methods, and was told that they were always open to suggestions. A gentleman asked how do you arrive at the cost per zone front foot.' This was explained. Another man asked, about the completion .date for this project and was advised that it would probably be the fall of 1967. A woman asked why the city couldn't have two LID'.si.instead of the one and put all the side hills in one LID since they are re- sponsible for the high cost. A man on 92nd inquired as to what percentage of property must sign a petition to start a project. He also asked about street maintenance. He was told the council can pass a Resolution of Intention without any signatures, but that in this case, .several petitions with several signatures had been received, as well as a letter from the 1 • 1 • 1 I • a 1 • 0 Health Officer regarding accumulation of effluent. This letter from the Health Officer was then read. A woman on 884 asked a question on price of a pumping station, and it further developed that she had the information on the Railroad Ave. LID confused with this one. A man asked if the LID was being .formed against the {0ajority of the property owners, 'and was .told that the council would find that out by written protests. Mr. Taylor asked who deter- mines a health hazard and is it widespread. A woman inquired if it was too late for re- consideration on this LID. Another woman on 9M N. stated that she felt there is a definite need for sewers in the area, and that she for one had signed a petition in favor. Several other people in the audience.also stated that they had signed one of the petitionst and Capt. Shields noted that he had carried one door to door himself# and that in his block alone, he knew of 7 properties that have effluent from their septic tanks on the surface and they are all homes on top of the hill. He then asked.who individual property owners can appeal to, and was told the Engineer. Mrs. Hunter stated that she felt the people were not against the sewers going in, but against the cost, and how come the city picks up the excess cost on one LID, but not the other. (She was referring to the city's plan to pay for the costly pumping station on the Railroad Ave. LID.) A man asked about restoration of streets following installation of the sewer, and was told the final assessment roll hearing was for the purpose of complaining if the property is not restored to its original condition. A man asked the timetable of the LID as to the passage of the ordinance, etc. He was also advised of the 30 day protest period following passage of the ordinance. A man asked for information concerning the plans for construction; maps, etc. Another man wanted to know if the LID could be added to and the cost reduced as.a result. The Mayor advised him if he wished to delete a certain area, it should be presented to the council at its next regular meeting on Tuesday, September 20.. Mrs. Gould stated that some LID's are voted upon, and yet would the people who were.going to pay the bill actually be the ones who would have the vote. The answer to her question was that cities have no voting procedures such as this available to them by law; that this was done by sewer districts, etc. There was no one else in the audience who wished to be heard, and the hearing was closed. September 20, 1966 ROLL CALL Regular meeting was called to order by Mayor Maxwell with all councilmen present except Kincaid. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the meeting of September 6M had been posted and mailed, and there being no omissions nor corrections, they stood approved as presented. HEARING: PROPOSED ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Hearing was opened on the proposed adoption of the comprehensive sewer plan, according to the recommendation in Planning Commission Resolution #182. It was explained that the.plan had been prepared and completed in July 19651 and approved by council at that time. There was no one in'the audience who wished to be heard on this subject, and the hearing was de- clared closed. It was moved by Councilman McGinne.ss, seconded by Councilman Tuson that proposed Ordinance #1227 be passed, adopting the comprehensive sewer plan. Motion carried unanimously. REPORT ON BIDS LID #152 - FRUITDALE-ON-THE-SOUND WATERMAINS Bids.had been opened on Monday, September 19 at 2:00 P.M. in the Court Chambers for the construction of watermains on LID #152. Present were the City Supervisor,: City Clerk, City Engineer, Consulting Engineer and several representatives from companies submitting bids. The bids were: Taylor Utilities Construction Co. $11746.00 $lead's Septic Tank §ystems 9:959.00 (which was later checked and found to be incorrectly figured, so their bid was actually 11,833.00 Eerkes Contracting, Inc. 169679.50 Hammond Construction Co. 119186.00 Shoreline Construction Co. 139776.90 Lynnwood Construction Co. 129665.50 It was recommended that the low bid be accepted, and a motion was made by Councilman Harrison, seconded by Councilman Tuson that the bid for LID #152 be awarded to Hammond Construction Co. as low bidder for $119186.00. Motion carried. PROPOSED ORDINANCE GRANTING REZONE As directed at the last council meeting, Attorney Murphy presented a proposed ordinance to rezone the property located on 5k S.E. on the corner.immediately west.of the Edmonds Senior High School from RML to RMH following the hearing on the appeal from Planning Commission. Resolution #181. It was moved by Councilman Olds, seconded by Councilman Slye that proposed Ordinance #1228 be passed, and a roll call vote showed 5 councilmen in favor; Tuson against, and the motion carried. MATUSKA DAMAGE CLAIM A claim had been filed against the city by George Matusks because of the backup of sewer in one of his apartments at Beach Place on August 110 1966. The claim had been filed with the city's insurance carrier, and an investigation by the insurance company disclosed that the city had not been negligent; therefore the claim had been disallowed. Mr. Matuska's claim was read to council and the City Attorney then gave the state statutes on filing of claims.