Loading...
02/04/1992 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO FEBRUARY 11 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 4,1992 The meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Laura M. Hall at the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Laura M. Hall, Mayor Jeff Palmer, Council President Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Michael W. Hall, Councilmember Dave Earling, Councilmember Bill Kasper, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Brett Shirley, Student Representative CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Dwyer left the meeting and returned at 7:20 p.m. STAFF Art Housler, Admin. Serv. Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Peter Hahn, Comm. Serv. Dir. Dick Mumma, Building Official Bob Alberts, City Engineer Rhonda March, City Clerk Scott Snyder, City Attorney Barb Mehlert, Recorder Item (B) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Kasper added that he wanted an item removed from the Consent Agenda as well. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER WITHDREW HIS MOTION AND THE SECONDER AGREED. Councilmember Kasper removed Item (E) from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER, TO APPROVE ]THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. THE APPROVED ITEMS ARE AS FOLLOWS: (A) ROLL CALL (C) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE 18-H.P. TRACTOR AND A BUCKET FOR EXISTING FORD TRACTOR (UNIT 5) FOR GROUNDS DIVISION (D) APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT IN LOWELL VS. EDMONDS (F) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEAL OF y, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (SEPA) ISSUED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A DECK AT 1126 "B" AVENUE (APPELLANT: JOHN CLAUS / APPLICANT: KURTIS DUNPHY / FILE NO. AP- 13-91) (G) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING SETBACK ADJUSTMENT TO REDUCE 25-FOOT SETBACK TO 16 FEET TO ALLOW A DECK ADDITION AT 23800 74TH AVE. W. (APPELLANT: CLARENCE CAPON / APPLICANT: HELEN MAE DELLER /FILE NOS. A-12-91 / AP-12-91 / AP-18-91) (H) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE SYNEX SYSTEMS WATERWORKS SOFTWARE PROGRAM ($1,595) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE 82 DOZEN SOFTBALLS FROM OLYMPIC SPORTS FOR 1992 LEAGUE PLAY ($2,972.25) C APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 28,1992 ,LItem Q on the Consent Agenda) Council President Palmer referenced a memo from the City Clerk which contained two corrections to the January 28 Minutes requested by Council President Palmer. Page 2, fifth paragraph from the bottom, the sentence should read: "Council President Palmer mentioned to the Council that there are three items that need to be considered relating to this item; 1) mitigated determination of non -significance that the City has issued for the proposed annexation of the area, ..." (This is replacing the word "perpetual with "proposed".) Page 5, second paragraph from the bottom, the last sentence should read: "However, Council President Palmer stated if the ferry should move, there may be reasons why the City of Edmonds may want to participate in a move because it would benefit the City of Edmonds by bringing in business traffic or helping to alleviate some problems associated with the facility, but there isn't a direct linkage between them". With these corrections noted, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST TO APPROVE ITEM (B) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. �i PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2868 AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION Q 15.10.000.17 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - ELEMENTS: BICYCLE PATHS AND TRAILS PLAN (TO INCLUDE A NEIGHBORHOOD WALKWAY BETWEEN HINDLEY LANE AND BROOKMERE DRIVE (APPLICANT: CITY OF EDMONDS/FILE NO. CDC-9-91) (Item (E) on the Consent A eg nda) Councilmember Kasper said the Council designated this path as a neighborhood path, and said as he read the description, he got the feeling it was going to be a bicycle lane; however, Councilmember Kasper said he talked with Staff and they clarified this is designated as a neighborhood path. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER TO APPROVE ITEM (E) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Nordquist stated there is a request to remove Item 4 from the Agenda this evening and to continue it to a date certain. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO REMOVE ITEM 4 "HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF 156TH STREET S.W. RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING WEST OF 72ND AVE. W. (APPLICANT: CRAIG SUMMERS/FILE NO. ST-5- ��� 91)" AND PLACE IT ON THE MARCH 17 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE Steve Hatch, 1401 9th Ave. North, addressed the Council on a recent letter to the Edmonds Paper regarding the Council voting to collect back taxes from 1990 and 1991 for the EMS Program that was previously voted down. Mr. Hatch said he would like someone from the City to explain this to him. Council President Palmer stated that the City is not collecting back taxes from the citizens of Edmonds, nor did the City pass an Ordinance which would collect back taxes. Council President Palmer stated the City cannot retroactively tax. Council President Palmer said when the EMS levy failed, the Council had to make a decision whether to continue the service for the current year while placing the item back on the ballot. Council President Palmer said the Council did reach a decision that they wanted to see ambulance service remain in the City pending a re -vote on the issue. Council President Palmer said the predominate votes for the EMS were affirmative, meaning the citizens wished to continue the service, however, the issue failed to validate. Council President Palmer asked Administrative Services Director Art Housler to elaborate on the subject. Mr. Housler stated the Council's position is the City doesn't tax citizens if the money isn't needed, which was the case the previous two years. Mr. Housler said because of the recession and economic conditions within this region and across the United States at the present time, the Council has now opted to collect the full amount which is allowed under the law. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 February4, 1992 After further discussion on this issue, Administrative Supervisor Art Housler told Mr. Hatch he would contact him personally after the meeting in order to provide him with all of the detailed information in regards to this subject. Keith Dubendorf, 15600 70th Ave. West, Edmonds, addressed the Council on the Paine Field Airport Expansion. Mr. Dubendorf asked the Council what their position is on this subject. Mayor Hall said she has recently been contacted by Loretta Jackson, Councilmember in Mukilteo, regarding this subject. Mayor Hall said a letter was also sent to the Council from the City of Mukilteo and deferred to the Council for a response. Councilmember Dwyer returned to the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Councilmember Nordquist said several years ago, citizens from Mukilteo came to speak before the Edmonds City Council, and discussions at that time included the zoning in and around the field, and the City of Mukilteo's lack of effort to zone north of the field. Councilmember Nordquist said the Council did not take a position at that time. Councilmember Kasper stated he feels there is a need for the airport, however it is a matter of degree in how much it is used. Mr. Dubendorf feels there are other alternatives than expanding Paine Field. Councilmember Kasper said it his understanding Paine Field would like to expand to 50 units of commuter aircraft, until an additional runway was built at Sea-Tac. Mr. Dubendorf mentioned those commuters would be jets, and Councilmember Kasper replied affirmatively. Council President Palmer said there is a window of comment that is being closed soon and regional planning bodies are going to be eventually taking action; and if the City of Edmonds wishes to take a position, the City has until February 21st to submit written comment. Council President Palmer also stated there is an upcoming hearing in Arlington regarding this matter in which citizens of Edmonds might want to attend if they so choose. Council President Palmer stated the City of Edmonds may want to hold a public hearing on this issue to see if the City wants to take a position before the February 21 cutoff date. Councilmember Hall said he was also contacted by Mukilteo Councilmember Loretta Jackson and she said that Mill Creek has already adopted a Resolution stating they are against the expansion of Paine Field, as has the City of Mukilteo. Councilmember Hall said it is also his understanding the City of Lynnwood has made statements that they are also opposed to the expansion. Councilmember Hall feels the City of Edmonds should make some sort of a stand, as he feels the citizens deserve input to this subject as it is his feeling the expansion would greatly affect the area. It was a concern amongst various Councilmembers that if a hearing was held, both sides regarding this issue might not be heard. Council President Palmer felt an advertised Public Hearing would give the opportunity for both sides to be represented. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER, HALL TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PAINE FIELD EXPANSION ON FEBRUARY 11, 1992 AT 9:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. Kurtis Dunphy, 1126 "B" Ave., Edmonds, addressed the Council on an issue discussed previously regarding water �Y problems at the 7th and Elm reservoir. Mr. Dunphy said he was under the impression the City was going to be i A performing a study with regards to this issue, and asked Mayor Hall if this has commenced. City Attorney Scott Snyder, said this was not his recollection. Mr. Snyder stated he was contacted by Mr. Dunphy's lawyer, as well as Mr. Claus' lawyer, and they both agreed to meet and discuss the parameters of the problems. Mr. Snyder said he is not under the impression the Council had authorized Staff time to pursue a Study. Mr. Dunphy stated he would like to be contacted in the future when it involved his lawyer's time. Mr. Snyder replied Mr. Dunphy's lawyer made the initial contact via a letter. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, addressed the Council on two subjects. Mr. Rutledge urged the Council to notify the Citizens of Edmonds of the upcoming EMS election. Mr. Rutledge said he has talked with several people, and they don't seem to know anything about the election. Mr. Rutledge said there are also many questions on why the election is going to be held by mail versus the election booth. Mr. Rutledge also addressed the EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 February 4, 1992 Council on a Consent Agenda item which the Council approved this evening; specifically, the authorization to purchase 82 dozen softballs from Olympic Sports. Mr. Rutledge noted this company is located in Lynnwood, and feels the City of Edmonds should have purchased these softballs from a local company. Councilmember Dwyer said the City is holding a mail ballot because the City has never had an election in the Winter 5 or Spring where enough people turned out that would have resulted in a valid election. Councilmember Dwyer also stated once the School District levy is over, which is today, citizens will start seeing information regarding the upcoming EMS election. Councilmember Dwyer said no information has been brought forth sooner, as there might have been confusion between the two issues. Council President Palmer referenced a memorandum from the City Clerk stating the County Auditor would also be placing election related ads in the February 12 and February 19 editions of the Enterprise. Mayor Hall closed the audience portion of the hearing. HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE UNOPENED 174TH STREET S.W. RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING WEST OF 68TH AVE. W. (APPLICANT: ADENA NORTON /FILE ST-4-91) Rob Chave, Planning Manager, stated this item was recommended for approval with conditions set forth by the Hearing Examiner as described in the Agenda Memo. Mr. Chave said, however, since that information was put together, Engineering Staff has had some discussions with the applicant and has come up with a new proposal for an alternative to the one set forth in the Agenda Memo. Mr. Chave presented a view foil to the Mayor and Council showing the subject area of proposed vacation. Mr. Chave said the Applicant and Engineering have agreed that the City could trade the vacation for a portion of the right-of- way along Meadowdale Beach Road. Mr. Chave said at the present time, the City lacks about 10 feet of right-of-way that the City needs along that street. Mr. Chave said if this was. done, the Applicant would not have to compensate the City for the vacation, as the City would gain a needed right-of-way in return. Council President Palmer asked Mr. Chave how many square feet are contained within the proposed trade versus the amount that the applicant is asking to vacate. Mr. Chave replied approximately 10 feet. Councilmember Palmer referenced the Hearing Examiner's recommendation that utility easements be granted for all utilities existing in the present rights -of -way, and asked Mr. Chave if any existed, and Mr. Chave replied negatively. Council President Palmer inquired if this would be covered under a title insurance policy and Mr. Chave replied negatively. Mayor Hall opened up the audience portion of the hearing. Jerry Lovell, 8927 192nd St. S.W., Edmonds, stated he has been assisting the Applicant and the Applicant's attorney for a number of months with regards to this proposed vacation. Mr. Lovell said he also has other knowledge of this area under a former association with Reid -Middleton. Mr. Lovell, a licensed surveyor, stated the Applicant's house, which was built in 1946, sets almost entirely on top of a portion of right-of-way which was mistakenly deeded to Snohomish County one year later in 1947. Mr. Lovell said why this mistake was made is not known, but for years the City of Edmonds has been vacating in piecemeal fashion portions of this same right-of-way to correct the situation. Mr. Lovell said the subject right-of-way under the Applicant's house is one of the last remaining un-vacated portions. Mr. Lovell referenced a view foil which showed the subject property and gave the Council additional information on the subject. Mr. Lovell said the owner of the house is 95 years old and lives in a local nursing home facility. However, due to the high costs of such care, the home will have to be sold very soon in order to keep up with her ongoing financial, medical and health care needs. Mr. Lovell said the house will be very difficult to sell without the vacation (i.e. to make the title marketable). Council President Palmer again inquired why this error wouldn't be covered under title insurance, and Mr. Lovell replied the Applicant has had no occasion to attempt to convey or ask for title insurance, and therefore, this specific property would not be eligible to be covered under title insurance. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 February 4,1992 Mr. Lovell feels the applicant would be giving the City property that the City truly can use, and the City will be granting a much needed vacation to the Applicant. Leigh Bennett, 400 Dayton Street, Suite A, Edmonds, Attorney for the Applicant, stated he has spoken with the Applicant and she is in agreement to do an exchange, as Rob Chave has previously explained as the alternative to the Council, thus making his previous comments and the Hearing Examiner's Recommendations null and void. Mr. Bennett said he would be happy to answer any questions from the Council. Councilmember Kasper asked Mr. Bennett if the subject house has been surveyed exactly where it stands, and Mr. Bennett said he did not know if it had been surveyed or not. Mr. Lovell replied the survey map prepared by his office, does show the house accurately with respect to the right-of- way that is being asked to be vacated, and with respect to the existing roadway. Mr. Lovell said he does not want to make any representations concerning the accuracy of the map concerning the Meadowdale Beach Road right-of-way north of the subject property. Councilmember Kasper asked if the people living adjacent to the proposed area are aware that the street behind them is being vacated, as it abuts their property. It was noted there was a member of the audience present of whom Councilmember Kasper was referring. Mayor Hall opened up the public portion of the hearing. Mark Vandeyacht, 6830 Meadowdale Beach Road, expressed his concern for the applicant and noted he lives next to the subject property. Mr. Vandeyacht stated it was his hope the City would vacate the proposed right-of-way, which would help the applicant out a great deal. Yardena Vandeyacht, 6830 Meadowdale Beach Road, referenced the view foil which Staff had prepared. Ms. Vandeyacht expressed her hope that the City would vacate the right-of-way which would help the Applicant. Ms. Vandeyacht stated she hoped the City would resolve this issue. Jan Philips, 7100 156th Street S.W., Edmonds, said she was here to speak on another vacation, however, she wanted to comment to the City that if it was decided to vacate the subject property, the City should receive just compensation, as it was her feeling trading property would not be just compensation. Councilmember Nordquist commented the various maps provided on the subject area do not match. Councilmember Nordquist inquired what map the Staff is working from. Mr. Chave replied there were various maps that were used. Adena Norton, 6819 174th St., Edmonds, daughter and representative of Ms. Betty Hinton, owner of the subject property, said she is in total agreement to exchange with the City the subject portion of property in order to receive a vacation on her mother's property. Ms. Norton feels the City will benefit by the property exchange in. the future, as Ms. Norton said traffic is increasing in the subject area, and she can see a time in the future when the City will need to widen Meadowdale Beach Road. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE UNOPENED 174TH STREET SOUTHWEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING WEST OF 68TH AVENUE IN EXCHANGE FOR 10 FEET OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD. MOTION CARRIED with Councilmember Earling, Councilmember Kasper, Councilmember Hall, Councilmember Dwyer voting yes, Councilmember Palmer and Councilmember Nordquist voting no. HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2869 FOR 1992 FEE ADJUSTMENTS 4r� Planning Manager Rob Chave said this was continued from January 28 in order to hold a public hearing. Mr. Chave said revenue is figured by multiplying the fees times the permit volume the City has for a particular year, which is largely based on valuation. Mr. Chave said for example, although the number of permits were higher than previous years, because the valuation was down, the City's actual revenues were down. Mr. Chave said the other side of the EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 February 4,1992 equation is the cost, which the City establishes by using a Building budget in addition to an equivalent review position which incorporates planning, engineering, and Fire Marshall time in reviewing building permits. Mr. Chave said these two costs added together equal the cost side of the equation. Mr. Chave said under Ordinance 2604, which is the current policy, these revenues should equal 100% of that cost equation. Mr. Chave said there was an approximate 88% recovery rate for 1991 by the time the City added in all the revenues and were balanced against the budgeted costs. Mr. Chave said in the 1992 budget, assuming 100% recovery with a fee increase, there should be approximately 99% recovery. Mr. Chave said if fees are not increased, the cost recovery would drop to approximately 86%. Mr. Chave said while the budget such as salaries do increase, the City's revenues, because of the downslide in the economy, are still in a depressed state. Councilmember Kasper feels this a major change in the process. Councilmember Kasper said the process was not based on projected revenues, but based on recovery of revenues, which is usually after the fact, not up front. Councilmember Kasper feels this process is basically a blank check ordinance because without knowing what the actual revenue is, how can the City be charging a fee in anticipation of revenues yet to be earned. Councilmember Kasper said this is the first year he has been aware of this process. Councilmember Dwyer said this is the fourth time in the last six years he recalls this subject coming up. Councilmember Dwyer said the Agenda Memo information states the City's costs have increased 30% since 1988, and inquired what that 30% translates into with regards to actual percentage of cost recoveries. Peter Hahn, Community Services Director, referenced page 16 of the Agenda Memo which explained the costs, revenues, and percentage of recovery for the years 1988 through 1992. Mr. Hahn stated if the City goes through another year at the current level of permit fees, the projected revenues for 1992 would fall short of costs by approximately $46,000. Councilmember Kasper referenced page 17 of the Agenda Memo which showed the recommended permit fee increases. Councilmember Kasper noted permit fees for a single family residence were proposed to be increased by 30%, whereas permit fees for mechanical were proposed to be increased by 81%, and plumbing permits were proposed to be increased 162%. Dick Mumma, Building Official, said he calculated that a 30% increase in Building Permit fees was necessary to recover 100% of the cost of processing Building Permits. Mr. Mumma said to achieve the 30% increase, he first adopted the 1992 UBC fee schedule as printed. Mr. Mumma stated since the City's fees are currently set at 10% below the printed schedule, adopting the 1992 UBC fee schedule results in a 10% fee increase. Mr. Mumma said he than added a 20% surcharge for a total increase of 30% overall. With regards to Plumbing, Mechanical, and other fees, Mr. Mumma stated he first had to determine what the inspection was worth. Mr. Mumma said the UBC fee table recommended a fee of $30 per inspection. Based on the UBC fee table, Mr. Mumma felt the City needed to charge at least $30.00 per inspection to recover the costs. Mr. Mumma said even the most simple of Mechanical and Plumbing permits require a minimum of two inspections, or a cost of at least $60.00, and at the current rate, the mechanical and plumbing permit fees are recovering about half of the City's cost. Mr. Mumma said he increased the fees to more closely match the cost by raising the base fee from $15.00 to $30.00 and by increasing the "fixture count" fee by 50%. Mr. Mumma noted the "fixture count" fee is charged per furnace or toilet, etc., and noted the "fixture count" fee increased the permit fees as the complexity of the permit increases. Mr. Mumma further stated the increase in the Plumbing fees was achieved by adopting the 1992 Uniform Plumbing Code fee tables as printed. Council President Palmer referenced Mr. Mumma's memo, and said the memo stated in 1990, the General Fund benefitted from collection of 26% more than what the requirements were; and the subsequent two years, the General Fund suffered from a lack of collections. Council President Palmer said the Council may want to consider leaving surplus funds within the department to reduce fees the following years. Council President Palmer said in this way, the industry would not be asked to suffer following a good year. Council President Palmer inquired on the one full- time employee in the calculations and asked how the conclusion was reached that to recapture the reasonable costs of administration of the department, that this was equivalent to one full-time employee. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 February 4,1992 Mr. Hahn said this was basically an estimate that was made in 1987 based on talking with the Fire Marshall and the fact there are other people in planning who directly get involved with some aspects of the building permit. Mr. Hahn said the estimate is probably a little higher than a full-time person. Council President Palmer said in the calculations provided, what is the value of that full time employee, and Mr. Hahn replied approximately $49,000 with benefits. Council President Palmer asked if all legal costs have been excluded from the calculations, and Mr. Hahn replied affirmatively. Councilmember Nordquist expressed his concern over the cost side of the ledger. Councilmember Nordquist asked Mr. Hahn if he had any kind of breakdown sheet as to the actual costs. Mr. Hahn said this information is contained in the Budget under Building Section Staffing. Councilmember Nordquist asked Mr. Hahn when Staff time is used on City building projects, is that time extracted from this, and Mr. Hahn deferred to Building Official Dick Mumma. Mr. Mumma said when the City issues a permit, a fee is charged, so the City does pay for services that are rendered. Councilmember Nordquist said if he is asked to raise revenue, he would also want to ask if costs be cut; however, Councilmember Nordquist stated he doesn't have enough definition of the City's costs to evaluate this. Mr. Mumma stated the Building Division reduced the budget in a number of areas thus reducing the cost of doing business. Mr. Mumma said even though the cost had increased for personnel, the Building section was able to hold the budget increases to 4% overall by cutting areas to try and not increase the revenues. Mr. Mumma said the Building Division took every step they could before coming before the Council for this fee restructure. Councilmember Nordquist said he still would like to see information which would help him justify these proposed costs increases. Councilmember Dwyer said in addition to these implementation questions, he feels the Council should address the policy question on this issue as well. Mayor Hall opened up the public portion of the hearing. Mark McNaughten, 1047 Spruce Street, Edmonds, thanked the Council for pulling this off the Consent Agenda the previous week so that it could be discussed with those like himself in the building industry who are greatly affected by the fees. Mr. McNaughten stated that costs have been increased over the past four years, while revenues have decreased by 20%. Mr. McNaughten said the reason why revenues have decreased is because it is his feeling the volume going through the Building Department is significantly reduced. Mr. McNaughten said the major cost, besides the adjustments for inflation, was the staff person that was added between 1989 and 1990 because of the significant volume the City experienced during the economic boon time. Mr. McNaughten stated the City is no longer in an economic boon time; however, that person remains on the staff. Mr. McNaughten noted he has no problem with a 100% recovery, however, he feels the actual costs need to be looked at. Mr. McNaughten said he appreciated Councilmember Nordquist's comments, as he too would like to see a breakdown of costs so they can be evaluated. Mr. McNaughten also referenced a portion of the subject material relating to sewer connection fees. Mr. McNaughten asked for an explanation on this on what the sewer connection fee is. City Clerk Rhonda March explained this to Mr. McNaughten to his satisfaction. Doug Herman, Blueprint Homes, 617 Dayton Street, Edmonds, said he wants to see a study that would show the kind of permits that were issued for a particular year, as Mr. Herman feels the increase in permits the Building Department is talking about is related to smaller jobs such as fence permits, etc. Mr. Herman stated he would like to see what the costs for permits really are. Eric Thuesen, 17926 Talbot Road, Edmonds, said he doesn't agree with a 100% recovery rate and feels a 90% recovery rate is more realistic, as he feels the public does benefit from the fees through the ownership of the home. Mr. Thuesen addressed the issue of the increase in building permit fees that has been alluded to. Mr. Thuesen stated he would like to see the kind of building permits that are issued, as he feels they are more related to hot water tanks, EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 February 4,1992 fences, etc., versus new single family homes. Mr. Thuesen stated he would like to see a restructure of the permit fee scheduled based on the true cost. Rob Chave, Planning Manager, stated he wanted to make the distinction when volume is discussed as there are two aspects; 1) number of permits, and; 2) valuation. Mr. Chave said some permits are fairly flat rate which don't vary much by the actual valuation, such as a fence permit. Mr. Chave said on the other hand, single family homes are dependent entirely on the value of the project at hand, therefore, in depressed times, the valuation may go down which has a direct impact on the City's revenues, but the number of permits are not going down. Mr. Chave said in 1987, the City issued 677 building permits, and in 1991, the City issued 888 building permits. Mr. Chave proceeded to give additional examples. Council President Palmer said he is hearing in bad years, the valuation of projects may be reduced, and asked Mr. Chave to whether the cost of inspecting a hot water tank for a $300,000 home is anyway related to the value of the house, compared to a $100,000 home. Council President Palmer inquired if the inspection of a tank and the fee is by a per fixture basis. Dick Mumma, Building Official, said the per fixture basis is accurate. Mr. Mumma said the permits he is speaking to, the building permits, a remodel may be evaluated at a small fraction of the home, but may require more plan review and more inspection because remodels typically take more time, as they are usually older structures which result in more problems occurring. Mr. Mumma said there is actually more time spent on smaller projects than sometimes the larger projects. Council President Palmer said what was being described as being an inequity in how the permit fees are being related to the actual cost of performing the inspection may be correct as they relate to new versus remodel, and Mr. Mumma said in some cases this would be accurate; however, the fees are based on valuation of the projects so the fees increase in a graduated scale, so those who are building more expensive buildings are paying a larger portion of the costs. Council President Palmer said getting a better hand on the costs is in order, and feels this would be the only way to tell whether the basis of the permit fees are proper for what work is involved. Council President Palmer said he would like the Council to reach some kind of decision that would require revenues based on permits, to remain as a cash carry-over into the following year within that department so they aren't re -absorbed into the General Fund and disbursed for other uses. Council President Palmer feels this is the minimal way the City can make sure that those who pay the fees over a long period of time are able to ride out the good years and the bad years without seeing a tremendous increase one year and a not so big drop the next. Councilmember Dwyer feels the public has the right to be involved in the process, and part of that is an expectation that there is going to be some cost to the General Fund. Councilmember Kasper said there is some cost to the public and further stated he had a hard time with Staff sitting down and saying this is what the costs are going to be, as Councilmember Kasper felt this was almost a blank check ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO DIRECT THE MAYOR TO DIRECT STAFF TO EXAMINE THE COSTS AND PROVIDE THE COUNCIL WITH A DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THOSE COSTS BY PERMIT TYPE AND FEE, AS WELL AS RECOMMENDATIONS ON EACH FEE IF THEY ARE NOT IN LINE WITH THOSE COSTS, AND THAT THIS BE COMPLETED WITHIN 30 DAYS. Peter Hahn, Community Services Director, stated this would be an impossible task for Staff to perform in 30 days. Council President Palmer asked Mayor Hall if she had a recommendation for a time frame. Mayor Hall recalled a similar process in 1986 where it took six to eight months to gather all of the information. Councilmember Dwyer asked Council President Palmer if it was his intention to attempt to get a breakdown along the lines of what employee performs a task for this particular type of permit and how much time does it typically take to perform that task. Council President Palmer said it may not have to be down to which particular employee, but EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 February 4,1992 how many hours at what rate should be included. Councilmember Dwyer said he doesn't understand why it would take six months to get employees to identify what they do. Councilmember Kasper said Mr. Mumma has previously provided him with a memo that illustrated the basis for the breakdown to some extent. Councilmember Dwyer said what the Council has been told is that the complexity of the tasks have not changed, but rather the overhead costs to perform the task has changed, and assuming there was a basis for this to begin with, the Council is simply refining whatever elements went into that in the first place and then updating them in terms of the increased cost of overhead. Councilmember Dwyer reiterated he can't see why getting that information would take six months. Mayor Hall asked Dick Mumma for his suggestion on a time frame to complete the requested information. Mr. Mumma said depending on the level of detail, Staff can provide some of the detailed information. Mr. Mumma said there is a breakdown of the costs on how the budget is spent. Mr. Mumma said he can tell the Council roughly what portion of Staff time is spent for different functions, but to actually to do a day to day, when much of their day is spent on various items would take more staff time to compile the information than it would to perform the job. Councilmember Dwyer disagreed with Mr. Mumma, and said what Council President Palmer is asking for is to have someone go through the permits and estimate how much staff time is involved. Councilmember Dwyer said people should have a general idea on how long it takes them to do their jobs. Council President Palmer restated his previous motion. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO DIRECT THE MAYOR TO DIRECT STAFF TO EXAMINE THE COSTS AND PROVIDE A DETAILED BREAKDOWN BY PERMIT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL WITHIN 30 DAYS. Under discussion, Councilmember Nordquist expressed his concern over a 30-day time period. Councilmember Nordquist feels there could be a workload in the department the Council isn't aware of and feels 60 days should be allowed, and if Staff can complete the task in 30 days, then they can come forward. Councilmember Earling felt the issue should be addressed as soon as possible, and felt the 30 days should be adhered to. MOTION CARRIED with Councilmember Nordquist voting no. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT PERMIT FEE REVENUES ENDING BALANCES FROM THE YEAR BE CARRIED OVER TO THE FOLLOWING YEAR FOR THAT SIMILAR PURPOSE. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2870 FOR 100% RECOVERY OF MEADOWDALE PERMIT FEES. Rob Chave, Planning Manger, stated this is another portion of the fee issue. Mr. Chave said at the present time, Y there is a policy that the City will recover 50% of the costs of the subject permit fees. Mr. Chave said the proposed ordinance would change that to a 100% recovery. Mr. Chave said if this was not approved, the City would have to pay the difference of 50%, which, based on last year's experience would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000. Scott Snyder, City Attorney, clarified the subject fees are peer review fees, which is after a permittee has hired their own geotechnical expert, the City engages an engineer or geotechnical expert to review the data to tell the City whether the calculations that were performed were in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice. Mr. Snyder said originally there was a split because of up front costs the permit applicants in the area were bearing. Councilmember Dwyer inquired why is it a Staff position or Mayor position that this isn't welching on a deal. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 February 4,1992 Mr. Chave said Staff was looking at Ordinance 2604 and if the spirit of that was to really recover 100%, it seems it was proper to reexamine the way the charges are done in this particular case. Mr. Chave said that is why at this point, it is a public hearing to see if others feel if the City is indeed welching on a deal. Councilmember Dwyer asked if the 50% rule pre -dated or post-dated Ordinance 2604, and City Attorney Scott Snyder said it was right in the same time frame and could not say one way or another. Mayor Hall opened up the public portion of the hearing. Mark McNaughten, , 1047 Spruce Street, Edmonds. Mr. McNaughten expressed his concern over the proposed ordinance. Mr. McNaughten said there was a deal made as Councilmember Dwyer has pointed out, in that the City will share the cost. Mr. McNaughten said the sharing of the cost was arrived after years of regulation and a formula was devised to allow people to build in the Meadowdale area. Mr. McNaughten said the Meadowdale Ordinance is an incredibly cumbersome Ordinance, and Building Official Dick Mumma has handled it the best way he can. Mr. McNaughten also stated approximately $15,000 in engineering fees goes into a Meadowdale Ordinance, and the City on the other hand, is passing the liability onto outside engineers to assume that liability. for the City as much as they can. Mr. McNaughten stated it is a great concern that if the City is not sharing in that cost, they would tend to pass it on more easily to outside engineers, therefore, incurring more cost. Eric Thuesen, 17926 Talbot Road, said obviously the engineering is done to protect the City from lawsuits and it is his feeling the City should absorb a portion of those costs. Mr. Thuesen said redundancies exist within the Meadowdale Ordinance, and feels it would be helpful to some way obtain an engineer that would take care of the City's liability and also make a one time fee for the developer. Mr. Thuesen said what happens is the developers have their own engineer who makes his study on the geotechnical circumstances, the City looks at it, and since there is no one in the Department who will touch it, it is reviewed by Landau & Associates. Mr. Thuesen said then Landau & Associates usually regenerates the same report at the same initial cost, so basically there are two reports. Scott Snyder, City Attorney, said the City is looking basically for peer review, and the second report is only intended to make sure the first report was performed in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice. Mr. Thuesen said he would be happy to submit to the Council, two reports that are identical in length and content. Mr. Thuesen asked why are there licensed engineers performing tasks, when it has to be reviewed anyway by another licensed engineer. Mr. Thuesen feels this is very redundant and very expensive. With regards to the Meadowdale Ordinance, Councilmember Dwyer said everyone bought into the total package, and there is nothing to stop the City from going back and looking at the components, however, Councilmember Dwyer said everyone bought into a package which resulted in the Meadowdale Ordinance and is worried about taking different parts out. Mr. Thuesen said the way the fee breaks down now is the Developer goes out and spends for example, $10,000 to obtain an geotechnical engineering study on the site, which in turn is submitted to the City, and then the City takes it to an engineer who generates a similar report for an example cost of $10,000, of which the Developer pays 50% of that cost, so overall, the Developer pays 75% of the bill, not 50%. Councilmember Kasper said it was his feeling the same fee wouldn't be charged to review the original geotechnical report, and Mr. Snyder replied affirmatively. Mr. Snyder reiterated the Ordinance specifically states that the review is only to make sure the submittals were prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices. Mr. Snyder proceeded to quote from the Ordinance. Mr. Snyder agreed with Councilmember Dwyer's recollection on why this particular Ordinance or provision was instituted in the first place is that the only community who was doing the level of review that the City was proposing to do was Seattle, as they have a geotechnical expert on staff that they pay $70,000 a year plus benefits. Mr. Snyder said given the volume of Permits, the City of Edmonds did not think that would be justified. Councilmember Earling asked if the current budget is built around 100% recovery fees or 50% recovery fees. Mr. Hahn replied 100%. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 February 4, 1992 Mark McNaughten, said the Developers have to pay a plan check fee with the Meadowdale Ordinance, but the Developer is also responsible for paying 50% of all outside professional fees. Mr. McNaughten said the City does not do those plan checks, so there should be a credit as there is a double billing being charged for one service under the Meadowdale Ordinance. Mayor Hall closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Kasper asked if the last statement by Mr. McNaughten is correct, and Rob Chave, Planning Manger, replied the plan check involves much more than simple geotechnical review. Councilmember Kasper stated after reviewing the Ordinance and associated information, and after talking with individuals, Councilmember Kasper feels there are a lot of City benefits from the 50% share of fees. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, NOT TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE REQUIRING 100% RECOVERY OF MEADOWDALE PERMIT REVIEW FEES, BUT RATHER TO CONTINUE WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. Under discussion, Councilmember Dwyer said he would vote for the motion and he realizes this is going to cause a shortfall in the budget, and the obligation is to take the money from the Council Contingency Fund. Council President Palmer feels no allocation of monies need to take place at this time. MOTION CARRIED. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF FERRY POSITION PAPER (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 28. 1992) Peter Hahn, Community Services Director, stated three items need to be discussed: 1) A position paper on the ferry, to be included in the final ferry study report, in which a draft is attached; 2) the process for developing a scope of �h work for the waterfront and downtown plan, and 3) the process, including the schedule, for soliciting public input. Councilmember Kasper said approximately two years ago, when the Transportation Commission met regarding this subject, the Mayor and Councilmembers attended, and he and the Mayor gave a presentation and it is his recollection the Mayor was in favor of Point Edwards being the focus of the study for the future ferry site. Mayor Hall stated there will be a total of three new Councilmembers plus herself as Mayor who did not testify at that hearing, so it is probably time to reassess the situation or take a consensus on this issue. Councilmember Dwyer inquired on the time frame. Mr. Hahn said the earlier the City adopts a position or policy, the better. Discussion continued on this matter. Council President Palmer thought there was a time table somewhat agreed to by the City and State that the Draft position papers would be included in the final report which would precede the public hearings, and Mr. Hahn replied affirmatively. Mayor Hall asked if the normal route of public meeting/hearing procedure would be adhered to on this matter. Councilmember Kasper said that is not the intent of the study. Councilmember Kasper said the intent of the study was to come forth with a position paper, then go before the public in way of a presentation, and then if the City wanted to schedule a hearing, that would happen then. Council President Palmer said what needs to be done tonight is to review the Draft Position Paper which Peter Hahn has submitted, and see if this is something the Council can adopt as a Position Paper to be included in the final ferry study, and if not, what language changes should be made. Councilmember Kasper asked Peter Hahn if he had any reason to believe the changes that Reid -Middleton made in their Draft Report would have any effect on the Draft Position Paper, in that, maybe additional changes should be made, and Mr. Hahn replied negatively. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11 February 4, 1992 Councilmember Kasper said his recommendation to Reid -Middleton was to emphasize a little more in their report, the issue of safety. Councilmember Kasper said the statement should also include the position that the City Council is in favor of Point Edwards, if that is the consensus. Councilmember Earling stated his feeling that a position needs to be adopted by the Council, and feels it is imperative the Council moves on this as soon as possible. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO DIRECT PETER HAHN TO REDRAFT THE CITY OF EDMONDS POSITION PAPER WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: FIRST SENTENCE BE CHANGED TO READ, "THE EXISTING LOCATION HAS GROWN TO BE A DETRIMENT TO THE CITY OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS"; PARAGRAPH 2 SHOULD INCLUDE A REFERENCE TO THE SAFETY ISSUE, AND PARAGRAPH 3 SHOULD INCLUDE REFERENCE TO LIABILITY ISSUE. Councilmember Dwyer wanted to clarify for the record, that a vote for his motion is a vote putting the City on record as being in favor of moving the ferry dock to the UnoCal site. Mr. Hahn said the Position Paper does not intend to make this statement, however it states that everything has to be mitigated to the City's pleasure. Mr. Hahn said the Position Paper does reference two locations for possible ferry sites. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER WITHDREW HIS PREVIOUS MOTION, THE SECONDER AGREED. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER, THAT THE CITY BE ON RECORD AS FAVORING RELOCATION OF THE FERRY DOCK FROM ITS PRESENT SITE TO THE UNOCAL SITE. Under discussion, Councilmember Hall expressed his concerns with moving the ferry dock. Councilmember Hall feels more study has to be done with regards to the impact of the downtown Edmonds area. Councilmember Hall said he would like to see what these impacts are going to be before the City adopts a Position Statement favoring the Point Edwards site. Brett Shirley, Student Representative, expressed his concern over the safety issues at the present site. Council President Palmer said the issues raised by Councilmember Hall are important issues; however, the Council has been informed that to get to the level of information he is requesting, it requires the City to go to the next step which is the EIS process. Council President Palmer said he thinks it is the entire Council's intention to find out that information, as well as hold a public hearing, either of which may change the Council's position. Council President Palmer said, however, until that time, it behooves the Council to have a unified position that can help the City to get funding allocated and to get the research completed in a manner that is most fitting to the City. Councilmember Kasper said the Edmonds ferry system has become a regional facility and is increasing at a rate of 20% a year over the last two years and that dictates it will have be to be consolidated and isolated in the future in order to operate efficiently. Councilmember Kasper said the State has stated they cannot rebuild the existing dock, therefore, it is a question of are they going to build a new dock next to the present site, or another site. Councilmember Earling shared some of Councilmember Hall's concern with regards to the impact to the business community if the ferry dock moved, however, Councilmember Earling feels the EIS portion of the study will answer many of those questions, allowing the City to move ahead on this issue. Councilmember Hall asked if it was correct to assume the City has to take a position one way or another on a site before the City can proceed with the study, and Peter Hahn said it is not so much a legal issue, as it is adopting a position for the various funding applications. Mr. Hahn said the Applicant has to be the State, and to get to that point, the City will have to have a real project. Mr. Hahn said when the EIS is done, however, options and alternatives will have to be looked at. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 February 4, 1992 Councilmember Nordquist asked Mayor Hall what her recommendation was. Mayor Hall replied she would rather have the ferry dock remain where it is, however, knowing full well what the State has imposed upon the City, she stated she is in favor of the Unocal site. MOTION CARRIED with Councilmember Hall voting no. Councilmember Kasper said he is happy that the Mayor is in synchrony with the Council on this issue. As a procedural matter, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER TO HAVE THE CITY OF EDMONDS POSITION PAPER DRAFT COME BEFORE' THE COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 18 WITH PETER HAHN REFLECTING THE CHANGES SO DISCUSSED. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Hall noted Council President Palmer has an addition to the Agenda. Council President Palmer noted the Council received an item from City Engineer Bob Alberts regarding an action that was taken at the January 28th meeting, awarding a contract to a bidder that now reports they are unable to provide the service after all. Council President Palmer said the Council has been requested to award the Contract to the next lowest bidder. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER TO RESCIND THE COUNCIL ACTION OF JANUARY 28 AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO ALVIN GRIFFIN JANITORIAL SERVICES COMPANY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Scott Snyder said the record should reflect the Council motion is based upon the Staff report stating the bidder was not able to provide the service. 46 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER TO AWARD THE CONTRACT FOR CUSTODIAL SERVICES TO THE T.D. FULLER COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,780 AS THE NEXT RESPONSIVE BIDDER. Councilmember Kasper inquired on the difference in contracts, and Council President Palmer replied there was an approximately $2,000 difference. MOTION CARRIED. MAYOR Mayor Hall noted she has appointed a member to the Sister City Commission which does not require confirmation by the Council. Mayor Hall said she would like to welcome Tom Britanyak to the Sister City Commission. Mayor Hall said Mr. Britanyak has been filling in for a position that was vacated last year, and noted he is a teacher who resides in Edmonds. Mayor Hall also stated he has been a member of the Sister City Commission for two years and was a member of the delegation visiting Hekinan last October. Mayor Hall referenced the interviews previous to the meeting pertaining to the Library Board and Arts Commission. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF MARY KAISER TO THE LIBRARY BOARD. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Hall noted there are two candidates for the Arts Commission; Suzetta Glen and Larry Gordon. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO CONFIRM n THE APPOINTMENT OF SUZETTA GLEN TO THE ARTS COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED. V COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF LARRY GORDON TO THE ARTS COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 13 February 4,1992 Mayor Hall noted she would be attending the AWC Conference on February 5 and 6, and noted Peter Hahn would be in charge of the internal operations of the City, and Mayor Pro-Tem Jeff Palmer would be responsible for the signing of all legal documents for the City. COUNCIL Council President Palmer noted he and the Council Assistant would be discussing the Retreat Agenda following this meeting, and finishing up some last minute details. It was noted a Retreat Agenda and accompanying materials would be included in the February 7 Council Packets. Councilmember Nordquist said he placed before the Council tonight, a memorandum regarding the Comprehensive and Open Space Plan Consultant. Councilmember Nordquist said the memo included the Scope of Work and various Consultant names that were interviewed by the Consultant Committee. Councilmember Nordquist said it is the Committee's recommendation that the Community Services Staff begin negotiations with J.C. Dragoo and Associates. Councilmember Nordquist said this recommendation is also in concurrence with Don Stay of the Planning Board, who called Planning Board members. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER TO ALLOW THE CITY TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH J.C. DRAGOO AND ASSOCIATES. Mayor Hall thanked Councilmember Nordquist for his work on this issue. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Dwyer referenced a memo to the Mayor from Council President Palmer regarding a temporary !iy!F ►' employee in the City Clerk's Office and asked the Mayor for a response. dV Mayor Hall noted the Council has brought the Norma Beach/Picnic Point annexation issue forward, and the City Clerk needs to perform a census on two newly -annexed areas which takes considerable time on the part of the City Clerk. Mayor Hall also noted the new telephone system has taken time to learn, and it is annual business license renewal time. Mayor Hall said there were monies left from the 1991 Budget for part-time help, which are now being used for this temporary employee. Mayor Hall also noted former City Clerk Jackie Parrett has stated she is willing to help out in the City Clerk's office in order to keep up with the workload. Councilmember Dwyer asked Mayor Hall for a clarification on the funding source. Mayor Hall said when the Deputy City Clerk position was cut, there were still monies left in then Mayor Naughten's budget in the amount of $5500 to allow for this part-time employee to be hired at the present time. Councilmember Dwyer asked what the 1992 Budget source is, since the position is in 1992 and not 1991. Art Housler, Administrative Services Director, distributed materials relating to this subject. Mr. Housler referenced the statement in the memo from Council President Palmer regarding a hiring freeze still in effect. Mr. Housler said it is his understanding per a motion made at the November 23, 1991 meeting, the hiring freeze was not in effect for 1992. With regards to funding, Mr. Housler said there is $5500 in the City Clerk's budget for 1992 for part-time assistance. Councilmember Dwyer clarified that in the 1992 final budget, there is a line item for $5500 for part-time help in the City Clerk's office, and Mr. Housler replied affirmatively. Councilmember Dwyer asked what the nature of the contract is at present. Mr. Housler said the person that has been hired is paid at an hourly rate at $10.00 an hour. Councilmember Dwyer asked how long it is envisioned this person will work in the City Clerk's office, and City Clerk Rhonda March replied three to six months depending on the resolution of the issue. Councilmember Kasper asked if these monies are going to take care of other seasonal needs throughout the year, such as vacations, and Mr. Housler said this person might not work continuously for six months. Mr. Housler said it is his feeling the part-time budget will cover vacations during the summer months. Council President Palmer said part of the Council's decision last year not to fund a Deputy Clerk was predicated on a six month window, and at the end of the six months, the situation would be assessed. Council President Palmer stated doesn't the hiring of this employee affect that study, and Mr.Housler replied negatively. Mr. Housler referenced a previous memo from then Mayor Naughten with regards to the six month process. Mr. Housler said there is pretty much a vacation of the experience in the City Clerk's Office with Jackie Parrett retiring with 8 years experience. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 14 February 4, 1992 Council President Palmer inquired when this issue will be brought before the Council, and Mr. Housler said it would be brought before the Council in March, 1992. Councilmember Dwyer referenced a letter from citizens from the Picnic Point Association, and wanted to make sure they were apprised of any and all future hearings on this issue. Councilmember Dwyer referenced a well thought out citizen letter in the Edmonds Paper which was based upon the premise the City of Edmonds posed a retroactive property tax for the coming year. Councilmember Dwyer said he would be happy to assist Council President Palmer in the drafting of a response suitable to be printed in the paper which would explain this issue, as the City did not pose a retroactive property tax, and Councilmember Dwyer feels this is an important issue to explain. Councilmember Dwyer stated he feels the Council should agree in advance, what the rules the Council will use with regards to the appointment of the new Councilmember. It was the consensus to discuss this issue at the conclusion S of the interviews on Saturday. Councilmember Hall referenced an Annexation Handbook he received from AWC, and the fact that it would be good reference for the upcoming Retreat with regards to the discussion of Annexations. Council President Palmer noted the Council Assistant is also in receipt of this book and she will be providing a copy to each Councilmember for the Retreat. Student Representative Brett Shirley mentioned the upcoming sub -regional wrestling tournament on February 7 and 8,1992 at Edmonds Community College. At 10:15 p.m, the Council proceeded on Item 10 on the Agenda "Interview of a Council Candidate". which was a 15- minute interview with Harve H. Harrison. The Mayor adjourned the meeting thereafter at 10:30 p.m. THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO FEBRUARY 11,1992 APPROVAL THE OFFICIAL SIGNED COPY OF THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. �ONDA�JMARC , C TY CLERK EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 15 February 4, 1992 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM -LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 - 10:00 P.M. FEBRUARY 4, 1992 SPECIAL MEETING 6:30 P.M. - INTERVIEW ARTS COMMISSION AND LIBRARY BOARD CANDIDATES CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. CONSENT AGENDA (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 1992 (C) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO FOR PURCHASE 8TRACTOR EXISTING FORD TRACTOR(UNIT5) FOR ANDABUCKETGROUNDS DIVISION (D) APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT IN LOWELL VS. EDMONDS (E) PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2868 AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 15.10.000.F (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - ELEMENTS: BICYCLE PATHS AND TRAILS PLAN (TO.INCLUDE A NEIGHBORHOOD WALKWAY BETWEEN HINDLEY LANE AND BROOKMERE DRIVE (APPLICANT: CITY OF EDMONDS / FILE NO. CDC-9-91) (F) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (SEPA) ISSUED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A DECK AT 1126 "B" AVENUE (APPELLANT: JOHN CLAUS / APPLICANT: KURTIS DUNPHY / FILE NO. AP-13-91) (G) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING SETBACK ADJUSTMENT TO REDUCE 25-FOOT SETBACK TO 16 FEET TO ALLOW A DECK ADDITION AT 23800 74TH AVE. W. (APPELLANT: CLARENCE CAPON / APPLICANT: HELEN MAE DELLER / FILE NOS. A-12-91/AP-12-91/AP-18-91) (H) AUTHORIZATIONTO PURCHASESYNEX SYSTEMS WATERWORKS SOFTWARE (1) AUTHORIZATION TO82SOFTBALLS FROM OLYMPIC 9DOZEN SPORTS 1992 LEAGUE 2. AUDIENCE 3. HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE UNOPENED 174TH (15 MINUTES) STREET S.W. RIGHT-OF-WAY, LYING WEST OF 68TH AVE. W. (APPLICANT: ADENA NORTON / FILE ST-4-91) 4. HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF 156TH STREET S.W. (30 MINUTES) RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING WEST OF 72ND AVE. W. (APPLICANT: CRAIG SUMMERS/ FILE NO. ST-5-91) 5. HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2869 FOR 1992 FEE ADJUSTMENTS (20 MINUTES) 6. HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2870 FOR 100% RECOVERY OF (20 MINUTES) MEADOWDALE PERMIT REVIEW FEES 7. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF FERRY POSITION PAPER (CONTINUED FROM (15 MINUTES) JANUARY 28, 1992) 8. MAYOR 9. COUNCIL 10. INTERVIEW OF A COUNCIL CANDIDATE (15 MINUTES) r k THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE