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