Loading...
19760727 City Council Minutes466 The Deputy City Clerk reported claims for damages had been received from Raymond K. Baldwin in the amount of $251.74, and from Lee and Virginia Kitchel in the amount of $450.00. Both claims had been forwarded immediately to the insurance company. Council acknowledged receipt of the claims. There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. IRE E VARNEY MORAN City Clerk July 27, 1976 ROLL CALL The regular meeting of Harrison in the Council man Gould led the flag APPROVAL OF MINUTES the Edmonds City Council Chambers of the Edmonds salute. H. H. HARRISON, Mayor was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Mayor Harve Civic Center with all Councilmen present. Council - Minutes of the regular meeting of July 20, 1976 had been posted, mailed and distributed, and with no corrections or additions they were approved as written. COUNCIL PARTICIPATION Councilman Gellert stated that at the last meeting, based on Councilman Carns' motion, a motion MOTION was tabled regarding salaries and positions of the Mayor's Administrative Assistant and the Direc- tor of Public Works. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT. SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT THE TABLED MOTION BE REMOVED FROM THE TABLE AND THE ITEM BE PLACED AT THE END OF THIS EVENING'S AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Clement advised he would not be present at the August 10 and 17 meetings. Councilman Gellert questioned a letter written by Park Director Rod Garretson to IAC, withdrawing the IAC application for acquisition of the Union Oil Beach. He felt the Staff should have reported back to the Council before withdrawing the application. Mayor Harrison said he had authorized the letter because Union Oil had withdrawn the offer to sell. He thought the letter was self-explanatory. Councilman Gellert's point was that the City had the option to start condemnation proceedings based on appraised value. Mr. Garretson explained that the IAC application deadline had been July 9 but they were waiting for a decision between Union Oil and the City and Union Oil now has determined that they cannot sell the property. He said the application would have to be withdrawn anyway. MOTION Councilman Gellert felt the subject should be discussed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT, THAT AN AGENDA ITEM BE SET FOR THE AUGUST 3 MEETING TO DISCUSS THE IAC APPLICATION REGARDING THE UNION OIL BEACH. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Harrison noted that a letter had been received from Gordon Maxwell, Chairman of the South Snohomish County Chamber of Commerce Governmental Services Committee, inviting the City to join the South Snohomish County Chamber of Commerce, with yearly dues of $150 based on the number of employees. Councilman Gellert opposed this, saying the South County Chamber has been promoting the merger of the South County cities without discussing it with the cities. He said they have taken several actions with which he has not been in sympathy. Councilman Clement did not see any value of the City belonging to the South County Chamber of Commerce. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON, THAT THE SOUTH COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BE INVITED TO GIVE THE COUNCIL A PRESENTATION TO SEE IF THEY ARE INTERESTED IN MEMBERSHIP, AND HE SUGGESTED THE DATE OF AUGUST 10. MOTION CARRIED. • 1 1 HEARING ON PARK BOND ISSUE PROPOSAL • This hearing had been set following the discussion at the June 15 meeting. Park Director Rod Gar- retson said the Park Board had met since the June 15 Council meeting and discussed the issues further. The Park Board was now recommending that the Park Maintenance Shop addition ($22,000) be deleted from the proposal and the Yost Park Phas II ($29,300) be included. The Public Works Department had not been represented at this Park Board meeting. Herb Gilbo said the Park Maintenance Shop addition would be the most expensive capital outlay if the park bond issue were to pass. He said if it were deleted and new park developments were put in money would have to be found somewhere else for the maintenance. He said this would be'a purely maintenance item and perhaps we wouldn't want to fund it with the bond issue. He said it would not be needed if the bond issue did not pass. Mr. Garretson explained the Yost Park Phase II which would include three small dams and lakes, picnic tables, fire rings, etc., and some subsequent clean-up. He said the Park Board has felt strongly that this ie one of the prime goals. He said the things they were suggesting to be deleting were only so be- cause of the cost factor and something had to be deleted. The public hearing was then opened. Larry Bailey, Chairman of the Edmonds Park Board, said the Board was recommending a 20 year bond issue because almost all items would have a useful life of over 20 years. He said the Board was reluctant to change the recommendation on the maintenance shop but public response seemed to indicate the people wanted more improvements. Councilman Gellert asked where the Board felt the maintenance monies would come from and Mr. Bailey's response was the same place as they are coming from now, although they realized there would be additional amounts. He said the Board had not addressed it- self to where the additional money would come from. When asked if the Park Board was more interested in maintaining facilities or in having programs, Mr. Bailey said the Board had not addressed itself to that particular quebtion. When asked about the Board's recommendation of a 20 year bond issue, he said the assumption could not be made that the citizens cannot, in possibly 10 years, increase their bond issue. He said most people are concerned about the actual yearly outgo, and the facilities will be in use much longer than 20 years, so the Board did not favor charging the citizens a higher rate for the shorter period. Councilman Carns pointed out that if the maintenance shop is removed r� U 467 • from the bond issue there will have to be $50,000 in the budget next year..instead of $25,000 for,' maintenance because there will not be the necessary tools to maintain the parks. Keith LaBelle, another member of the Park Board, pointed out that it will take at least two years before this could really get going. He said just as you have to provide money for increases in salaries, you have to with this type of problem. He said development is going to take additional costs, the money will have to come from some source, and that problem will have to be solved. Dick Cole, also on the Park Board, said the idea of the bond issue was to eliminate the annual parade to the council for capital funds. He said they would be asking for maintenance funds anyway. He felt as time goes by more people will be moving to Edmonds, all enjoying the benefits of this bond issue, so it should be spread over 20 years so more of those people are paying.for it. Herb White, also on the Park Board, said the Board was not opposed to the maintenance shed, but was only trying to cut down the bond issue. He said if their thinking was wrong they would not object to increasing the bond issue to include these additional items. Claude McReynolds, a_ long-time resident of Edmonds, said amongst the people he had spoken to it seemed that most preferred the three part bond issue, although he personally favored it being only one total issue. He was present to speak in favor of lawn bowling being included in the proposal. He explained the sport and the costs involved in participating in it in Seattle. He said the.Queen City Lawn Bowling Club in Seattle has a $25 annual membership fee which all the members pay to bowl, although they are expected to have their own bowls and proper shoes. He said the Club pays the Seattle Park Department annually $1,400 for,the use of the greens. He said anyone not a member could play for $1.50 per game, but in his experience no one has paid that as they are all members. Because of the very high expense in providing bowling greens, the discussion centered on how much the greens would be used and the number of people who would benefit from them. Mr. McReynolds did not think Edmonds residents should be given rates different from nonresidents, if Edmonds were to have bowling greens. He said he did not know how long it would take for the membership to build, but he thought it would be very successful in time. He said there are at least 20 bowlers in Edmonds now that go to the Queen City Club three or more times a week. Mr. McReynolds left some printed material • with the Mayor regarding lawn bowling. The public hearing was then closed. Discussion followed regarding how to fund the additional maintenance if it were not included in the bond issue. It appeared that funds usually budgeted for capital improvements might cover the amount needed for maintenance. Councilman Clement was concerned about the cost of lawn bowling, even though he under- stood how important it was to the participants. $134,000 seemed to him a very large sum to spend for the benefit of a group of approximately 20. Mr. McReynolds pointed out that that number was only a nucleus from which the group would build. 'Councilman Clement only questioned whether the money would be put into the right area, as things would have to be cut which would be used by significant numbers of people. Since the purchase of land for a bowling green would be a large expenditure, it was asked if we did not already have some land that could be utilized. Most of the property already owned is wooded or has ravines and the City Park is already heavily used, so Mr. Garretson said he would not recommend that being used. He said they realize it is an expensive facility but they are trying to design a program that serves all groups and all ages and very little is done for the senior citizens who have asked for this for years. After further discussion of the financing of maintenance and how to best allocate the proposed park bond funds,.it was decided that the Council would have to discuss at length other ramifications, including how the bond issue should be divided. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOTION: COUNCILMAN CARNS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON, THAT THE COUNCIL SET THE AUGUST 31 WORK MEETING TO DISCUSS THE ENTIRE PARK BOND ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED. It was pointed out for the benefit of the audience that there would be no audience input at the work meeting, but that the audience was welcome to attend. MOTION: A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, THAT THE POOL COVER DISCUSSION BE HELD ON AUGUST 24 INSTEAD OF AUGUST 17. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Gellert said it was incumbent upon the Staff to see that as much information as.the Council might need is available for these meetings, including information from the meeting with the architects regarding the pool cover. Mayor Harrison announced a short recess. The meeting was reconvened and Mayor Harrison welcomed a group of students from the Nagoya School of • Foreign Languages in Japan. They were visiting Edmonds as a part of the second "Our Home is Your Home" international cultural exchange organized by the Edmonds Jaycees and the City of Edmonds. Shigi Murata, the leader of the group, spoke briefly to express their thanks for the welcome they had received and to extend an invitation to visit them in Nagoya. HEARING ON PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF AREA NORTH OF 220TH AND EAST OF 96TH City Planner Joe Wallis provided zoning information regarding the area under consideration. He said the county zoning of the area is Rural Residential 8,400. The City of Edmonds has Residential 8,000 sur- rounding the area on three sides. He said the Council had asked for this hearing to consider the resolution method of annexation. The City Attorney explained the process but pointed out that the Boundary Review Board would have to hear this, unless it elected to waive it, and the earliest it could be heard by the Board would be September 14. He said preparation of an ordinance could be discussed this evening and the City Attorney's Office would get it to the Council as soon as the Boundary Review Board had either heard the proposal or waived it. He said the Council should consider whether this should be subject to bonded indebtedness. The public hearing was then opened. Three gentlemen spoke in favor of the annexation, Vernon Moon, Larry Wax and Virgil Gardner, one of whom said he was on his second drainfield and was most anxious to be able to connect to the sewer system. No one was present to speak against the proposal. The public hearing was then closed. City Attorney Jim Murphy advised that since the area in question is not pre -zoned the -only side issue would be bonded indebtedness. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, MOTION: THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE FOR ANNEXATION OF THE AREA BOUNDED BY 95TH AND 96TH AVENUES AND BETWEEN 217TH AND 220TH STREETS S.W., AND THAT SUCH ANNEXATION INCLUDE ASSUMPTION OF THE BONDED INDEBTEDNESS BY THE RESIDENTS. MOTION CARRIED. It was reiterated by the City Attorney that this will be submitted to the Boundary Review Board, which Board may waive it, and the ordinance could be ready the week following the waiver. The ordinance is published for two weeks in the event somebody wants to file a referendum petition. 468 REPORT FROM STAFF ON PARKING PLAN • MOTION: (Failed) MOTION: City Planner Joe Wallis reviewed a memorandum from the Assistant City Engineer and himself regarding a recommendation for downtown parking, which included a cost analysis. His principal concern was the impact of the parking in the downtown area based on present use. He felt that aggregating parking facilities in the downtown would preclude parking being spread throughout the downtown area. He recommended aggregate parking in the downtown area predominantly for future development in the down- town area. He said there is a problem now but it is not in exact numbers of parking spaces equaling the number of deficiencies. He said that is roughly the present condition; however, when you look at those places there are definitely areas that have a distinct deficiency in the vicinity of certain blocks. He said in the 5th and Main and 5th and Dayton areas, which are concentrated retail areas, there are deficiencies, and a principal concern is providing for future parking in a centralized area and doing so at the present time. Mr. Wallis and Mr. Allen reviewed portions of their report and noted that this report shows an analysis of the different categories on a block by block basis which had not been done before. They said each block was rated according to deficiencies, parcel by parcel. Costs to purchase suggested lots for parking were discussed and Mr. Allen indicated estimates were arrived at by taking available figures and real estate values in the -downtown area, but no formal appraisals were made. A question arose that some of the property might be acquired and then not.., properly used for parking, but it was noted that one of the lots already is being used for parking almost to capacity. Dave Larson was asked about an option he and Larry Hubbard had taken on the Smith property to hold it for parking. He explained that they had gotten an agreement from Harve Smith to keep the property off the market for 90 days, and they had an option to renew that. He said Mr. Smith had only agreed not to sell to anyone during the period it was recognized it would take the Council to make a determination. He said they did not have an option to buy or an earnest money agreement. Mayor Harrison said if the City does not take this particular piece of property there are people.ready to buy it, and this is why two of the members of the Parking Committee thought it was necessary to try to hold it. Maintenance costs for the proposed lots were discussed and they were estimated at $100 per month for three lots. The public portion of the discussion was opened. Ward Phillips said he had not been asked to participate in any form of discussion on parking and pointed out that he had been a -substantial business owner in Edmonds in the past. He said he had had no input and should have had, for the amount of holdings he had. He said he was in favor of parking and paying for his share, but he was not in favor of paying 100% under the deficiency concept. Marve Behar said he agreed that the business community must make this decision for themselves. He said he is a property owner and no one has asked him if he wanted this parking; also, that he had discussed it with many other property owners who did not want it. He said he felt it was a'"railroad." It was pointed out that a vote at a Chamber of Commerce meeting had indicated large support of a parking plan. Mr. Behar challenged that indication. Councilman Clement pointed out that there had been significant disagreement at all the meetings the Council has had on this subject and he felt no public meeting would give the results an election would. Dave Moore, who owns property on 3rd Avenue, asked for clarification on how this plan would affect him personally. He was told that 10% of the total cost would be assumed by a property assessment and 90% on deficiency, and if he were not deficient there would be no deficiency cost. 1 Mrs. Skonnard of Llubs Gallery felt the parking idea had not come from the property owners or the business people. She said when the question was asked at the Chamber of Commerce meeting the people had no idea what such a proposal would cost the, that they didn't know what they were voting for. Al Kincaid, President of the Chamber of Commerce, said he was very concerned at what was occurring on the parking situation. He said he was speaking personally, not as a representative of the Chamber of Commerce. He said that at the meeting in question, when the vote was taken, several members of the Parking Committee had outlined what they thought were the needs of the City but they had been in no position at that time to give figures as to what it would cost. There was a need to know the feeling about parking and 30 of the merchants at the meeting voted in favor and 3 voted against. Mr. Kincaid said he thought they must have known that eventually the parking would have to be paid for. He felt strongly that more parking is needed in the downtown area and that it is needed now. He said without question Edmonds is going to grow and downtown Edmonds will find it advisable to grow at the same time. He said many people think it is difficult to park in Edmonds, and in the congested areas it is, and that type of negative thinking will keep shoppers away from the downtown area. He said he hoped to convince those present not to let the chance to get the parking settled die. He said Edmonds Lumber • Company will pay $10,000 toward the purchase of Harve Smith's lot. He said the Staff proposal had cut back the original proposal, but rather than let it die he would rather see even that cut back further. The public portion was then closed. After more discussion, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HERB THAT THE COUNCIL NOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANYTHING TO DO WITH PARKING UNTIL AT LEAST 15 DEFICIENT PROPERTIES OR 65 PROPERTY OWNERS BRING A PETITION TO THE COUNCIL FOR ACTION. Councilman Clement felt the Council had already been through it, and if a petition were brought in there would still be some against it. He said the Council either had to go forward or vote against it, that :they needed a firm position. MOTION FAILED. It was then suggested that the attorney draft an ordinance to take the actions necessary to form a Parking Improvement District. The City Attorney advised that that would require cost estimates and appraisals might be desired first. A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, SECONDED BY COUNCIL- MAN GELLERT, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION ON A PARKING LID, BASED ON $290,000 FOR THREE FULLY DEVELOPED LOTS, AND BASED ON THE FACTS AS PRESENTED OF 256 PARKING DEFICIENCIES, WHICH CALCULATES TO ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY 600 SQUARE FEET, AND THE FINANCING OF THAT TO BE HANDLED BY 10% OF THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION OF THE THREE LOTS TO BE BORNE BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT, 90% BY THOSE JUDGED TO BE DEFICIENT, AND PRO- VIDING FOR FUTURE DEVELOPERS TO MAKE IN -LIEU -OF PAYMENTS TO THE LID, 50% OF WHICH COULD BE APPLIED TO PAYING FOR THE PROPERTY PURCHASED THROUGH THIS LID AND THE REMAINING 50% OF WHICH WOULD QUALIFY FOR FUTURE PARKING DEVELOPMENT; THE MOTION TO INCORPORATE THE EXEMPTIONS TO THE DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDED BY THE PARKING COMMITTEE. When asked about instructions for those who might be interested in protesting the notice of intention the City Attorney said at the time the resolution is brought before the Council instructions for protesting will also be brought. Councilman Gould said he would not favor the motion, that he was not convinced a majority of the merchants are in favor of this parking plan, and that he was not convinced there is a problem --now or in the future. Councilman Carns said this was one way to find out if they really want parking. Councilman Nordquist said he would vote against it, that it seemed the City is always reminding the merchants that they have a parking problem and he would like to hear it from them sometime. He said Marve Smith has been held up on his property for at least seven years because of this. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS THEN TAKEN, WITH COUNCILMEN CLEMENT, GELLERT, ANDERSON AND_CARNS VOTING YES, AND COUNCILMEN GOULD, NORDQUIST AND HERB VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED. • * See correction in August 10, 1976 minutes. _ 469 • A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT, SECONDED BY. COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, THAT THE MATTER OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CHANGES IN THE ZONING CODE MADE BY THE PARKING COMMITTEE, INCLUDING.NUMBER OF MOTION: PARKING SPACES PER SQUARE FEET, PLUS ANTHING THEY ADVISE THAT NEEDS CHANGES IN THE ZONING CODE BE REMANDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN ALL URGENCY WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDY THIS WITH DELIBERATE SPEED AND REFER IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE. MOTION CARRIED. APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT - WESTMONT VIEW, DIVISION #2 The Planning Commission had heard and approved the preliminary plat on February 25, 1976 and the City Council had heard and approved it on April 6, 1976, approving it subject to tree cutting restrictions and engineering requirements. The final plat had been submitted in conformance with the planning, engineering and general city code requirements and the Assistant City Engineer and the City Planner recommended approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON THAT MOTION: THE FINAL PLAT OF WESTMONT VIEW, DIVISION #2:.BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. REPORT ON BIDS FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION ATTACK UNIT (OPENED JULY 26) Fire Chief Cooper reported one bid had been received and he recommended that it not be accepted. He had put out__five sets of_specifications and two would not bid because of the fiberglas tank specification. - It seems only one company builds those and Chief Cooper had been informed that four did. On the bid received a letter was attached stating that on a 10,000 gvw unit there would not -be more than 400 pounds carrying capacity after the hose and equipment were put on it. That was bid at $29,256.93. The alter- nate bid on a 18,200 gvw unit was $35,509, which was $5,000 over the amount budgeted. He recommended new bids be opened August 18, with a report to the Council on August 24. He felt there would be at MOTION: least two additional bids. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT, THAT NEW BIDS ON THE FIRE SUPPRESSION ATTACK UNIT BE RECEIVED AUGUST 18. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR PAVING 92ND AVE. W. AND THE ENTRANCE TO SEAVIEW PARK �OTION: A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, THAT THE CITY ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR PAVING AN OVERLAY OF 22 FEET ON 92ND AVE. W. SOUTH OF BOWDOIN WAY AND FOR WIDENING 185TH ST. S.W. ADJACENT TO SEAVIEW PARK, ON AUGUST 5, 1976. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR OILING AND SEALCOATING VARIOUS STREETS FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES MOTION: A..MOTION_WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT THE CITY ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR SEALCOATING VARIOUS STREETS FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES, ON AUGUST 5, 1976. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING VACATION TIME SCHEDULE AND COMPENSATING TIME FOR STAFF Mayor Harrison said this proposal was the result of union negotiations and an attempt at parity for non -union employees. He said vacation time is now allocated at 4 weeks for 15 years' service and the proposal would cut that to 12 years' service. Councilman Carns said he would vote against it because of the compensating time off. He said he felt these were executives of the City and executives know they put in more time than non -executives. He did not feel department heads should have a 40 hour week and was not in favor of allowing compensating time off. Councilman Nordquist said this was already an unwritten rule, that this would just put it in writing. Councilman Clement felt the Mayor should allow compensating time, but not on a cumulative one-to-one basis that could be taken within 12 months. The City Attorney advised that the 12 months only indicated the time allowed to take it expired after 12 months. Councilman Gellert felt -that heads should not be 100% accountable for the hours they spend, but rather should be accountable for the job they do. He had no problem with allowing time off if the job was done well, but he felt some consideration had to be given to the increased vaction time for budgetary reasons. He said he would not want to make a decision without knowing what the costs would be. He said he would be against the compensatory time and for the vacation time if it were not too costly. Councilman Gould felt the executive people should have vacation benefits at least equal to MOTION: non-exempt employees. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING VACATION TIME AND COMPENSATING TIME FOR THE STAFF BE REJECTED. MOTION • * CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN HERB VOTING NO.., MOTION: A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN.CARNS, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO DRAW UP A SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE COVERING ONLY VACATION TIME, AND THAT THE STAFF PROVIDE THE COUNCIL WITH A COST IMPACT STATEMENT BY AUGUST 17. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING FUNDS MOTION: A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON, THAT RESOLUTION #365 BE APPROVED TRANSFERRING THE SUM OF $2,000 FROM -THE LID GUARANTY FUND #613 TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL SHARED REVENUE FUND #191. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING DATE MOTION.:. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HERB, THAT RESOLUTION #366 BY APPROVED, SETTING HEARING DATE FOR ANNEXATION OF A PORTION OF 68TH AVE. W. FOR AUGUST 17, 1976. MOTION CARRIED. STATUS REPORT FROM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ON 5TH AVE. UNDERGROUNDING Assistant City Engineer Dick Allen had distributed written information regarding bidding and the status of the program. Frank Rice of the Everett office of PUD and Ron Harper of the local office were present. .Mr. Allen said PUD had gone out for bids and the Telephone Company was preparing their segment of the work. The engineer's estimate had been $77,000 and there was one low bid of $73,000 and the next went to $115;000 and the others on up. However, the low bidder has reported he will withdraw his bid due to an error in the computations and if necessary he will forfeit his bond. Mr. Allen said the reason this was brought up this evening was that, based on preliminary estimates, the total anticipated cost of the pro- ject was $87,738 without the City participating in the telephone work, or $122,888 with the telephone participatibn.. He said the estimate now is $108,934 which includes the increase in costs estimated somewhere between the second and third low bidder on the project and about $4,000 in engineering that has been advanced to the Telephone Company under the present arrangement, or a possible cost of $140,084 • * See correction in August 10, 1976 minutes. `70 if we participate with the Telephone Company. This is more than the $100,000 budgeted, so they are • short the $8,934 or a possible $40,000 for the telephone participation. At this time the PUD anti- cipates they will reject all bids and proceed with new bidding within the next few weeks. Frank Rice said they are very chagrined about the cost items. He also had more recent figures than those Mr. Allen presented. He said they had anticipated the total project would cost about $160,000 and they had entered into a share -the -cost agreement with the City. Because of the size of the project, by state law they had to bid the labor for the installation and the trenching. Those bids were about $50,000 over what was anticipated in providing the cost estimate. All bidders except one were substantially above engin- eering estimates and were not acceptable. The low bidder was within the realm but immediately advised he had made a mistake in figuring and therefore would not perform on the bid. He said the Commission had rejected all bids and they called all the bidders to try to ascertain why the bids were so far above anticipated on labor and trenching items. He said that that they all cited difficulty in past experience in doing downtown work in other areas. He said PUD would now like an expression from the City, and the Commission had declared an emergency to call for rebids on the basis of City of Edmonds concurrence that it could arrange for additional financing. He said it would be $20,000 - $25,000 from the City above what the original agreement had been. He said it would be their plan to have the people doing the work meet.with City people and hopefully allay some -fears as to past experience. He said they would further propose that they would not accept any of the other bids without the under- standing that they would have the agreement of the City of Edmonds. Under those circumstances they could call for bids July 29 and be able to open them on August 9, and they have a Commission meeting on August 10. Another problem was that there was a dollar limitation as to what the PUD could parti- cipate in, a limit of $104,000 for a total maximum project. That would not cover 50% of the project if the rebidding comes in near what the original bids were. He said since they had used FY 75 revenue figures to arrive at that figure they can increase it by rewriting that agreement with FY 76 figures which would increase it to $132,000 that PUD could participate in. He said he could not say whether the low bidder would have to forfeit his bond, that was up to the Commission. It appeared the low bidder made an honest mistake and that he could be the lowest bidder anyway by a substantial amount. He also said he felt his people could not do the work at a lower cost than the contractor. There was some discussion and Councilman Carns stated it did not appear that there was much choice, that the work should be done. Also, he noted revenues had been better than anticipated. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOTION: COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE AGREEMENT WITH PUD SHOULD BE REWRITTEN USING FY 76 FIGURES. He added that • he thought this was a fine offer by PUD. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Anderson reiterated the opinion that this was a very generous offer by PUD. DISCUSSION RE SALARIES OF M.A.A. AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Councilman Nordquist said the Exempt Position Review Board had met and had reviewed the job descriptions of the two positions, copies of which were in the packets. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, MO.TION'., SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HERB, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE THAT THE M:A.A. REMAIN A 14 GRADE SALARY WITH A SPECIFIED SALARY OF $1,930 PER MONTH, AND THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BE RAISED FROM A GRADE 11 TO A GRADE 12 WITH A SPECIFIED SALARY OF $1,928 PER MONTH. The committee had recommended the Public Works Director remain at a Grade 11. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH COUNCILMEN CARNS AND HERB VOTING YES, AND COUNCILMEN GOULD, CLEMENT, GELLERT, NORDQUIST AND ANDERSON'VOTING NO. MOTION FAILED. MOTION: A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY PREPARE AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AT GRADE 11 AND SALARY OF $1,809 (Put -,.of order)PER MONTH AND THE M A.A. AT GRADE 14 AND SALARY OF $1,928 PER MONTH. The City Attorney advised that it would not take an ordinance to accomplish this and, therefore, the motion was out of order. MOTION: A MOTION -WAS THEN MADE BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO DRAW AN ORDINANCE SETTING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS' SALARY AT $1,831 PER MONTH, WHICH IS THE SAME SALARY AS THE OTHER HIGHEST DEPARTMENT HEADS OTHER THAN THE M).A.A. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH COUNCILMEN CLEMENT, GELLERT, ANDERSON, CARNS AND HERB VOTING YES, AND COUNCILMEN NORDQUIST AND GOULD VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED. There was no -further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. August 3, 1976 ROLL CALL IRENt VARNEY MORAN, C' y Clerk H. H. HARRISON, Mayor The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center with all Councilman present except Councilman Gellert who had advised he would be absent. All present joined in the flag salute. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the regular meeting of July 27, 1976 had been posted, mailed and distributed. Councilman Gould stated that in the first motion on page 7 regarding the proposed ordinance amending vacation time and compensating time, he had voted no and would like the record to so reflect. Mayor Harrison noted that in the motion on page 5 regarding a parking LID, about midway in the motion, the words ... AND PROVIDING FOR:.FUTURE DEVELOPERS TO MAKE IN -LIEU -OF PAYMENTS...." should be corrected to "..... AND PERMITTING FUTURE DEVELOPERS TO MAKE IN -LIEU -OF PAYMENTS....." Councilman Clement, who had made the motion, agreed. The minutes were then approved as corrected. L' r�L HEARING: ON PETITION TO ALLOW PARKING AND CHANGE TO TWO-LANE TRAVEL, 76th AVE. W. FROM 212TH TO HWY 99 Mayor Harrison said a petition had been received, with approximately 84 signatures requesting that 76th Ave. W. from 212th to Highway 99 be returned to two-lane traffic and that the "no -parking" restrictions on 76th Ave. W. from 212th South to Highway 99 be rescinded. A large number of residents of the -area were present in the audience and.Mayor Harrison asked City Engineer Leif Larson to review the traffic pattern presentation he had given at the June 1, 1976 meeting. Mr. Larson did this and indicated that the reason the two-lane channelization had been created was to get better control at the signals. He said that from the safety standpoint this had been very effective as accidents in the vicinity, and particu- larly at the intersection of 76th and 212th, had been significantly reduced. He said he felt there were two alternatives, either leave the parking restrictions as they are or modify them to restrict parking only during specified hours to accomodate peak traffic hours. His recommendation was to leave the •