01/14/1992 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT
TO JANUARY 21 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
January 14,1992
The meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Laura Hall at the Library
Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. All present joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT
STAFF
Laura M. Hall, Mayor
Art Housler, Admin. Serv. Director
Jeff Palmer, Council President
Buzz Buzalsky, Fire Chief
Steve Dwyer, Councilmember
Brent Hunter, Personnel Director
Bill Kasper, Councilmember
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Earling, Councilmember
Peter Hahn, Comm. Serv. Director
Michael W. Hall, Councilmember
Dan Prinz, Police Chief
John Nordquist, Councilmember
Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor
Jack Wilson, Councilmember
Rhonda March, City Clerk
Brett Shirley, Student Representative
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Barb Mehlert, Recorder
Councilmember. Dwyer arrived at 8:20 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM (B) WAS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. The approved item on the Consent Agenda included
the following:
(A) ROLL CALL
Mayor Hall and the Council recessed for a brief Executive Session to discuss a property matter and reconvened
at 7:20 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 1992 (Item (B) on the Consent Agenda)
Council President Palmer referenced a memorandum in the Council packets from City Clerk Rhonda March.
Council President Palmer requested the following changes to the January 7, 1992 Council Minutes: In the first
paragraph, it should be amended to read that Mayor Pro Tem Jack Wilson called the meeting to order. The
minutes currently read that Mayor Laura Hall called the meeting to order. Also, Item (D), which was pulled from
the Consent Agenda for discussion, the passage of the motion for the following item should reflect that new
Councilmembers Earling and Hall did not vote on the motion for ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PROPOSED 5-LOT PRD/SUBDIVISION AT 18208 - 18218 76TH AVE. W. (APPELLANT: WILLIAM
AND PAMELA HAROLD, ET AL; APPLICANT: THOMAS BELT - FILE NOS. AP-24-90/PRD2-90/P-2-90).
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 1992 WITH THOSE CORRECTIONS NOTED. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO ADD ITEM #5
S TO THE REGULAR AGENDA: REVISION ON EMS LEVY ORDINANCE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY COUNCIL ON
JANUARY 7, 1992. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Hall recognized and welcomed in the audience, Boy Scout Troop 300 from St. Albany's Church in
Edmonds.
WATERFRONT CONSULTANT SELECTION - TWO FIRMS INTERVIEWED
Peter Hahn, Community Services Director, noted the Council previously interviewed three firms several months
ago with regards to the Waterfront Study Consultant Selection. Mr. Hahn noted all Councilmembers were not
present at that time, and since then, have requested the principles from the firms _address the Council and make
a brief presentation. Mr. Hahn noted two of the firms are present at this time, and the third firm will make a
presentation prior to the January 21, 1992 Council Meeting, as they had a prior commitment this evening. Mr.
Hahn said the two firms tonight were Hewitt-Isley and TRA. For the benefit of the audience and the newly elected
officials, Mr. Hahn explained the Waterfront Study is a planning study for the waterfront and the downtown area,
as defined by 6th Ave. Mr. Hahn explained the reason the downtown end of the waterfront was part of the study
is because of the strong linkage between the two.
Presentation by Hewitt-Isley
Bill Isley, from Hewitt and Isley, distributed an outline of the presentation to the Mayor and Councilmembers. Mr.
Isley stated his firm has a very strong interest in the Waterfront Study, as they have been working on the ferry
relocation study for approximately a year and a half. Mr. Isley stated the ferry relocation study provides an
exciting opportunity for the City, and believes the City needs to continue to pursue this opportunity.
Mr. Isley proceeded to outline the process his firm would use if selected as Consultants to the City. Mr. Isley
noted the team that his firm would put together is the same team that is currently working on the ferry relocation
study with the exception that his firm would become the prime contractor and Reid -Middleton would become a
sub -consultant. Mr. Isley stated there was a new addition to his firm, Ms. Susan Hall, which was noted, is no
relation to Mayor Laura Hall or Councilmember Hall. Mr. Isley said Ms. Hall would work with the community to
make sure they are involved with the process.
Mr. Isley stated the economy of the benefit is his firm has an existing planning team in place. Mr. Isley said his
firm would spend time developing probable futures in way of waterfront development, and let the public see
various ways in which the waterfront could be developed. Mr. Isley said once those ideas are put before the
public, they could develop strong alternatives, and once a consensus is placed on one or two of those
alternatives, they could narrow it down and refine it to a final plan. Mr. Isley stated community involvement was
very important in this process. Mr. Isley feels Edmonds has been cutoff from it's waterfront since the very
beginning, and feels strongly that the ferry is a major obstruction to the development of the waterfront. Mr. Isley
stated he sees his job as connecting all of Edmonds resources to the waterfront, so the City ends up with a park
system that is connected back into the City.
Mr. Isley believes the real issue is whether the ferry is relocated to Point Edwards. Mr. Isley said his firm has
looked at several possible relocation sites for the ferry, and it is Mr. Isley's opinion that the ferry needs to be
relocated and a partnership needs to be developed between Unocal and the City to work out a long-term plan
for that relocation. Mr. Isley stated that Edmonds lacks a strong park connection to the waterfront, and Mr. Isley
feels that opportunity belongs at the end of Main Street.
Mr. Isley further stated it is his feeling that Unocal is in a position where they are inclined to clean up the present
site in terms of pollution and inclined to work with the City in terms of easements or some kind of relationship that
would allow the relocation of Highway 104. Mr. Isley said the State is presently uneasy because they feel the
cost estimates for relocation are high. Mr. Isley said it is his recommendation that the City has a long-term
Master Plan showing a long-term solution of relocating the ferry, and the surplus property developed into a
comprehensive park at the end of Main Street. Mr. Isley said the City could also present the State with a short
term plan showing the ferry presently remaining for approximately four to five years, and at that time, the long-
term plan could be put into effect. Mr. Isley said the long-term vision is extremely important because if it is not
included, the State could make all the improvements to the existing ferry dock that they previously proposed,
which would be a 50 year investment, and the ferry would remain there permanently.
Mr. Isley proceeded to discuss with the Council, various scenarios if the State decided to relocate the ferry and
referenced the current railroad, noting it was a problem; however, Mr. Isley said there is enough grade between
the Main Street uptown and the waterfront, where there could be a grade -separated park where the railroad
could be located below that grade.
Mr. Isley said the two key aspects for the City to hire Hewitt-Isley is that they are already in place, and they have
all the knowledge of the last year and a half in working with the City and the State. Mr. Isley said his firm is also
currently working with the State on the Kingston Ferry Terminal. Mr. Isley said Hewitt-Isley is in a position to help
the City negotiate a relocation of the ferry system with the State.
Student Representative Brett Shirley inquired on the cost of such a project that Mr. Isley is suggesting. Mr. Isley
said that is the key issue at present, as it is projected to be fairly high. Mr. Isley said, however, the cost was
initially expected to be higher because the it was thought that the City needed to purchase the Unocal property.
It is Mr. Isley's opinion the City need not purchase it. Mr. Isley explained the highway relocation would actually
be elevated over the Unocal property, which could come out of the Highway Budget instead of the Ferry Budget.
Mr. Isley said the dock itself is not unlike the dock the State would have to build in the existing location, so Mr.
Isley said in many ways, you are talking about the same money, but it is a highway relocation issue, and stated
the Highway Department has a strong budget. Mr. Isley feels it is a question of will and commitment at this point.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 January14, 1992
Council President Palmer inquired on the planning process Mr. Isley outlined, and asked to what degree Hewitt-
Isley's study would include in the aspect of the existing financial conditions and/or the effects of such a plan.
Council President Palmer said he is particularly interested in the upper land business district. Mr. Isley said his
firm includes property counselors, which would research this. Mr. Isley said the initial discussions with these
property counselors have concluded that; for example, in Kingston's situation, the ferry has been a detriment tc
most of the businesses with the exception of the fast food restaurants adjacent to the ferry dock. Mr. Isley said it
is his feeling with regards to Edmonds, that the plan would make Edmonds a downtown destination even more
so than it is today. Mr. Isley said Hewitt-Isley would look at the different impacts, and Mr. Isley stated following
the ferry relocation study, the study would go into an EIS phase, which would give it a very definitive evaluation
process. Mr. Isley said the study Hewitt-Isley is proposing is really more of a planning and design issue. Mr.
Isley said he believes the issues of impacts would be performed almost concurrently as the project continues.
Peter Hahn, Community Services Director, stated the EIS process has not been decided. Mr. Hahn said the costs
range in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr. Isley recommended that analysis be included in the planning
phase.
Mr. Isley thanked the Mayor and Council for their time.
Presentation by TRA, Dennis Haskel, Principle.
Dennis Haskel, Principal and Planning Director for TRA, expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to make
his presentation to the Mayor and Council.
Mr. Haskel mentioned if his firm was chosen to perform the Waterfront Study for the City, he would act as the
Project Director. Mr. Haskel stated three basic points which made up the majority of his presentation: Mr.
Haskel stated TRA possesses a fully integrated team consisting of specialists in urban design, transportation,
and economics. Mr. Haskel stated these three components were extremely important in developing a total
waterfront plan, as Mr. Haskel stated these aspects would come into play during the course of the study.
Secondly, Mr. Haskel stated public participation would be a very important part of the process, and would be
vital that this input was received in order to build a consensus, and thirdly, Mr. Haskel stated TRA has a depth of
experience in developing plans for downtown areas and waterfronts. Mr. Haskel stated TRA has developed a
similar plan for the City of Juneau, Alaska, and mentioned that city has many of the same problems and — -
similarities as the City of Edmonds possesses.
The City Clerk distributed informational materials to the Mayor and Council on behalf of Mr. Haskel. Mr. Haskel
proceeded to give examples of previous work TRA has performed which contained a wide variety of projects and
issues. It was noted by Mr. Haskel that TRA recently completed a Master Plan for Seattle Center and said that it
was the first plan in 30 years that has been accepted. Mr. Haskel explained the reason their Master Plan was
accepted was because it addressed all of the needs, instead of addressing special interest groups.
Mr. Haskel thanked the Mayor and Council for their time and offered to answer any questions the Council or
Mayor might have.
Mayor Hall thanked Mr. Haskel for his presentation.
FORMATION AND SELECTION OF TASK FORCE REGARDING NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE SALARY
ito STUDY
Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager, stated the City Council passed a motion on December 17, 1991, to appoint a
Task Force to study the Non -Represented Employees Salary Plan and present their recommendation back to the
Council at the annual retreat on February 14 and 15, 1992.
Council President Palmer noted this study would include various issues including a review of the salary ranges,
CPI, and market place comparisons.
Councilmember Kasper stated the City has to come to a conclusion as to how much they are willing to spend on
salaries and merit pay, and what the basis is for receiving merit pay. Councilmember Kasper feels it is important
that this salary study be conducted because he feels the non -represented employee contracts have followed too
closely, the union contracts.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPOINT THE
FOLLOWING FIVE INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE AS TASK FORCE MEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST,
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, PERSONNEL MANAGER BRENT HUNTER AND
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR ART HOUSLER. FURTHER, THE TASK FORCE WOULD REPORT
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 January 14, 1992
THEIR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE COUNCIL/STAFF RETREAT FEBRUARY 14 AND 15, 1992.
MOTION CARRIED.
UPDATE ON NORMA BEACH/PICNIC POINT ANNEXATION STUDY
Rob Chave, Planning Manager, stated on November 19, 1991, the City Council held a public hearing and
oyOP discussion on the merits of considering an annexation in the Norma Beach/Picnic Point area. Mr. Chave said the
hearing was in response to a request from the residents of the area to annex to Edmonds. Because of the failed
Lynnwood annexation election, the area to be included was the entire area east to Highway 99. More than 100
area residents attended the hearing and expressed strong support for the annexation.
Mr. Chave said the results of the November 19 meeting were inconclusive; both motions proposed at the
meeting were defeated by four to three votes (one motion was to reject the request for annexation, the second
motion was to forward the annexation request to the Boundary Review Board).
Since the November 19 hearing, Mayor Hall and newly elected Councilmembers have expressed interest in this
matter and the residents have continued to research some of the outstanding issues. Further, Mr. Chave stated
representatives of the area have met with some Councilmembers and have requested that the issues be
reviewed in depth by them, staff, and the Council at a Council work meeting.
Mr. Chave said Councilmember Hall has expressed his view that it is desirable to try to reach a definitive answer
on the annexation question. Mr. Chave said there are three options the Council could adopt: 1. Reject the
annexation request and end the issue without further research; 2) Do background research and keep the issue
on hold, understanding that other annexations could proceed while we are studying the issue that would remove
or reduce the viability of annexing the area into Edmonds; and 3) Do background research and pass a resolution
forwarding the request for an annexation election to the Boundary Review Board, understanding that this would
keep the process moving.
Councilmember Hall asked Mr. Chave if the Council requests an annexation election from the Boundary Review
Board at some time in the future, does the Council have the authority to decide against the annexation if they
choose to do so all the way up until the time the election is held, and Mr. Chave replied the City has up until the
adoption of the final ordinance in order to back out.
Councilmember Nordquist stated he doesn't particularly like the approach of just doing background work.
Councilmember Nordquist feels the City is being offered an opportunity to study an issue, and feels the City
needs to step in and take charge. Councilmember Nordquist feels a visual tour of the area is in order, and after
that visual tour is completed, a work meeting should take place which would entail meeting with the public.
Councilmember Nordquist feels after this meeting takes place, the Mayor could appoint someone to orchestrate
the findings of information from that point that will focus it down to whether the City can afford it; whether the City
wants it; and whether the citizens living in the area want the City. Councilmember Nordquist stated he would like
to see all these steps completed before proceeding with any action.
Councilmember Hall agreed with Councilmember Nordquist, however, Councilmember Hall expressed his
concern that if the City does not pass a resolution forwarding the request for an annexation election to the
Boundary Review Board, the City will lose the opportunity altogether. Councilmember Hall said the Growth
Management Act will sooner or later mandate that the City take over some of the areas up north, and that could
mean the City could possibly end up acquiring an area that is non -revenue producing. Councilmember Hall
feels it is important tht the City retain an option on annexation at this time, so this does not happen.
Councilmember Earling asked Staff on the status of current annexation attempts regarding the subject areas,
and Mr. Chave responded at this particular time, there is nothing officially before the Boundary Review Board,
however, Mr. Chave said that could change at any time.
Mayor Hall stated she would be meeting with Mayor Hrdlicka in the near future concerning this subject as the
City of Lynnwood is definitely interested in pursuing annexation.
Mr. Chave said it is his understanding the City of Lynnwood is still interested, however, they have lessened their
interest in annexing many of the residential areas, and focused their interests in the commercial areas in a
particular area, and Mayor Hall said she would find out this information when she meets with Mayor Hrdlicka.
Council President Palmer stated that while the Boundary Review Board may show that the City of Lynnwood has
taken no steps, the minutes tell otherwise. Council President Palmer said it is his understanding the City of
Lynnwood has taken a vote on a Council resolution showing interest in proceeding. Mr. Chave said it is his
understanding that the City of Lynnwood sent a request to the Boundary Review Board to hold an annexation
election, however, it was out of order because the final results from the last election hadn't been validated yet.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 January 14, 1992
Councilmember Dwyer arrived at 8:20 p.m.
Council President Palmer said it was his understanding that there was to be new information revealed this
evening that showed higher revenues in the proposed annexation areas that the Council had previously been
unaware of, and Council President Palmer said what he is hearing instead is that the total value may be lower
than anticipated. Council President Palmer said this information makes him reluctant to take the steps thal
Councilmember Hall is suggesting, which is asking the Boundary Review Board for an election regarding this
matter. Council President Palmer agrees with Councilmember Nordquist's suggestions and said he would like tc
see those steps taken before any action is adopted. Council President Palmer feels an outside entity should
duplicate some of the same research that Staff is currently performing, such as the Association of Washington
Cities Municipal Research. Council President Palmer feels they could take on this task on a contract basis and
perform parallel research so the City has confirmation on the figures the Council is receiving from Staff. Council
President Palmer stated Staff may look for every expenditure and revenue source, but it doesn't mean they are
going to find them all. Council President Palmer said that doesn't mean Municipal Research would find them all;
also, Councilmember Palmer feels the end result would be better information in which to base the Council's
decision.
Mayor Hall said she supports City Staff, and feels the City has the kind of Staff that will probably work faster and
harder than anyone if the City decided to annex these areas. Mayor Hall said she looks to annexing the north as
the City's last chance to have some semblance of acquiring Edmonds type of living, and said the areas contain
many passive areas which would benefit the City. Mayor Hall feels there are many positive reasons for annexing,
and feels a visual drive of the area would substantiate those reasons. Mayor Hall feels if the City does not take
advantage of acquiring at least an option of annexation, it will be regretful in years to come.
Council President Palmer asked Mayor Hall what her recommendation was on this subject, and Mayor Hall
replied she did not have a recommendation, however, she said she is trying to build a consensus.
Council President Palmer stated he is not suggesting that he is distrusting Staff, however, he would like to get
independent confirmation of what Staff is providing and feels it is well within reason at minimum cost compared
to what potential risk might exist.
Councilmember Hall agreed with Council President Palmer as far as getting the actual costs and figures; - -
however, he expressed his view that the City still needs to preserve an option to go forward with the procedure
or the opportunity might be lost for good.
Councilmember Wilson stated that any study group that is developed with regards to whether or not the
proposed areas should be annexed, should include citizens from Edmonds, and Councilmember Wilson feels
the citizens should be polled to see if it is their desire to see the proposed areas annexed. Councilmember
Wilson cautioned the Council that the 1992 Budget year is going to be even tougher than the last Budget, so if
the City is dealing with a a marginal project, the City is going to have to be very careful. Councilmember Wilson
said the City also has to look at the philosophy of Edmonds and he stated that currently, the City of Edmonds
contains everything that every City in the country wants, and the City of Edmonds has to be careful that it doesn't
lose it by making the character of the City substantially different than it is today.
Councilmember Kasper agreed with Councilmember Wilson as to public input. Councilmember Kasper feels the
public should be asked for their feelings towards this subject. Councilmember Kasper said the ramifications of
what the City could get into are very difficult, and stressed that sound figures are needed so they can be
presented accurately to the public. Councilmember Kasper said he has taken a visual drive of the area and
stated there are many gullies and wetlands in the area; and Councilmember Kasper stated he has not seen any
drainage studies, and feels there is alot of drainage costs existing in the area which would be borne in part by
the City. Councilmember Kasper feels a total analysis of costs needs to be determined before any action is
taken.
Councilmember Hall said he hasn't heard from any Councilmember that they are not interested in the area, and,
therefore, COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION, AND FORWARD A REQUEST FOR
AN ANNEXATION ELECTION TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD TO BE HELD ON APRIL 7, 1992. MOTION
FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND.
Councilmember Kasper said if a motion is adopted to forward a request to the Boundary Review Board to hold
an annexation election, Councilmember Kasper feels the Staff should perform an analysis of various figures that
has been discussed this evening.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 January 14, 1992
Councilmember Nordquist suggested that the Mayor and Staff return to the next full Council meeting with a
proposal on how to study the issue, and what it possibly could cost the City, either using City Staff or outside
sources.
Mayor Hall stated that information could not be compiled before the next meeting, however, Mayor Hall said she
will be meeting with Mayor Hrdlicka and would bring back information from that meeting to the Council. Mayor
Hall said at that time, the Council may be so inclined to proceed with an option to proceed to the Boundary
Review Board.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST TO HAVE THE CITY
COUNCIL TOUR THE SUBJECT AREA IN TWO GROUPS; SATURDAY, JANUARY 25, AT 1:00 AND SATURDAY,
FEBRUARY 1 AT 1:00. FOLLOWING THE VISUAL INSPECTIONS, THE COUNCIL WILL SCHEDULE A WORK
SESSION WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WHO RESIDE IN THE SUBJECT AREAS ON TUESDAY,
FEBRUARY 11TH, THUS ELIMINATING THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR THAT EVENING. MOTION
CARRIED.
It was noted by City Attorney Scott Snyder that if four or more Councilmembers attend any one tour, it would be
considered a Council Meeting, and therefore, would have to be open to the public and press.
Council President Palmer asked Mayor Hall to designate a Staff member to filter all information regarding this
Rem through. Mayor Hall replied affirmatively.
,} City Attorney Scott Snyder referenced a typographical error in the agenda, Item 2C, under the Public Safety
Committee, it stated there would be "Discussion of EMS Levy Promotional Mailing", and City Attorney Scott
Snyder said it should read "Discussion of EMS Levy Informational Mailing" and stated a motion should be
adopted to correct this.
COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO AMEND ITEM 2C UNDER
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE TO READ "EMS LEVY INFORMATIONAL MAILING". MOTION CARRIED.
s REVISION OF EMS LEVY ORDINANCE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 7, 1992
City Attorney Scott Snyder said the City received a letter from the Snohomish County Auditor indicating they had
problems with the inclusion of the word "excess" tax levy instead of "regular" tax levy and the fact that the ballot
measure did not contain a reference to six consecutive years and a starting date, therefore, they suggested it be
amended to contain this information. Mr. Snyder suggested amending the Ordinance as suggested.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER TO ADOPT THE
AMENDMENTS IN ORDINANCE 2862, AS MENTIONED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor
Mayor Hall stated she had a few informational items for the Council. Councilmember Kasper stated the Agenda
did not include time for Mayor or Council portion, as Committee Meetings were to be held this evening. Mayor
Hall stated as a perogative of the chair to bring items up, she will be doing so. Mayor Hall stated the City is
D receiving many phone calls and letters regarding the flower basket program. Mayor Hall asked the Council to
U consider bringing back $18,000 into the budget for this purpose. Mayor Hall said Administrative Services
Director Art Housler has said there are monies that could be utilized for this expenditure; $8,000 in the Park
Acquisition Improvement Fund, which are monies left over when the Centennial Fund was closed out; and
$10,310 in the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund. Mayor Hall said if the City has to institute a volunteer program, the City
needs to notify the various clubs who have offered to volunteer immediately, as the majority of the clubs meet
only once a month.
Councilmember Kasper stated everyone would like to see the flower basket program return, however, as of this
evening, the City has an additional $100,000 deficit brought to light by Administrative Services Director Art
Housler. Councilmember Kasper stated when the Council adopted the budget process, they said they would
make a decision on the flower baskets, amongst other things, after first quarter figures were received.
Councilmember Dwyer said the best advice to give citizens who call concerning the flower program is to urge
them to actively support passage of the EMS Levy, as the passage would provide .the City with an absolutely
necessary program with a source of funding and will relieve tensions. Councilmember Dwyer reiterated his past
statement, that nothing has changed since the Budget has been adopted, except the revenue projections have
become worse. Councilmember Dwyer stated he does not want to mislead the public on the true state of affairs.
Council President Palmer stated the public should be aware that the Council did not enjoy making the cutbacks
that they did, however, the Council sought the input from the Mayor -elect twice prior to the budget being passed,
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6 January 14, 1992
and no budgetary input was received. Therefore, the Council proceeded on the recommendation of then Mayor
Naughten and his staff; and it was their recommendation that the flower basket program had the least impact to
the City and other cuts would have been a greater impact.
Mayor Hall agreed with Councilmember Dwyer in the aspect of educating the public on the EMS Levy, and feels
it would behoove the Council to really let them know what it means to them.
Mayor Hall adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m., and the Mayor and Council convened to their respective
Committee Meetings.
THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO JANUARY 21, 1992 APPROVAL
THE OFFICIAL SIGNED COPY OF THESE MINUTES IS ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
7xwl
r�._1, CITY CrF�K
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7 January14, 1992
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
PLAZA MEETING ROOM -LIBRARY BUILDING
7:00 - 10:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE WORK MEETING
(Second Tuesday of each month)
January 14, 1992
7:00 P.M. - FULL COUNCIL
CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PROPERTY MATTERS (S.MINUTES)
1. CONSENT AGENDA
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 1992
2. WATERFRONT CONSULTANT SELECTION - THREE FIRMS INTERVIEWED (60 MINUTES)
3. FORMATION AND SELECTION OF TASK FORCE REGARDING (10 MINUTES)
NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE SALARY STUDY
4. UPDATE ON NORMA BEACH/PICNIC POINT ANNEXATION STUDY (5 MINUTES)
(After the Council Meeting as a whole has adjourned, the following committees will meet
simultaneously at the locations indicated. The starting time shown is approximate.)
COMMITTEE MEETINGS - 8:30 P.M.
1. FINANCE COMMITTEE
Room 113 (Conference Room), Frances Anderson Center
Agenda:
(A) REVIEW PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR EMPLOYEE CONFIRMATION AND APPOINTMENTS
(B) REVIEW MATERIAL FOR PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR BUSINESS LICENSING OF OUTSIDE
CONTRACTORS
(C) REVIEW STATE AUDITOR REPORTS FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND WASHINGTON CITIES
INSURANCE AUTHORITY
(D) REVIEW MATERIAL FOR CITY COUNCIL EXPENSE ACCOUNT POLICY
(E) REVIEW A REQUEST FROM PATHWAYS FOR WOMEN FOR FUNDING
(F) REVIEW WARRANTS, PETTY CASH, AND CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURES FOR MONTH OF DECEMBER,
1991
2. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
Small Plaza Meeting Room, Library Building
Agenda:
(A) REVIEW AID CAR SPECIFICATIONS AND FUNDING CONSIDERATION
(B) REVIEW FIRE VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
(C) DISCUSSION OF EMS LEVY PROMOTIONAL MAILING
(D) DISCUSSION OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY NARCOTICS TASK
FORCE
(E) DISCUSSION OF SELECTION OF PATROL CARS
3. COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE
Large Plaza Meeting Room, Library Building
Agenda:
(A) REVIEW OF 1992 DEPARTMENT GOALS
(B) REVIEW OF 200TH STREET AND WALKWAY PROJECT
(C) REVIEW OF PROGRESS ON FERRY PARKING PROBLEMS
(D) REVIEW OF PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE REQUEST
The three City Council committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and
staff only, and are not public hearings. All committee meetings, however, are open
to the public:
PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE